How to add 400m platforms to Manchester Piccadilly

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The problem with that every 250m set would occupy the entirety of the platform and prevent stacking of units.

There has been a discussion on another thread about the length of HS2 service where it was suggested by another poster of running 125m and 275m sets as both together can form 400m units.

That was my suggestion, but I've since learned that Liverpool cannot take 275m.

Then what’s stopping you forming the Liverpool with pairs of the 125m sets?

 

[Nottingham59]

Then what’s stopping you forming the Liverpool with pairs of the 125m sets?

Nothing, but 2x125m for Liverpool and 275m at Manchester does limit flexibility. If we're now stuck with 25m carriage length, then I think a standard unit of 125m now seems the best way to maximise capacity in the most flexible way.

Given the constraints of just 6 platforms at Euston and 6tph (perhaps 8tph peak) through Colwich.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Nothing, but 2x125m for Liverpool and 275m at Manchester does limit flexibility. If we're now stuck with 25m carriage length, then I think a standard unit of 125m now seems the best way to maximise capacity in the most flexible way.

Given the constraints of just 6 platforms at Euston and 6tph (perhaps 8tph peak) through Colwich.

With triples to Birmingham? (Which is still under 400m)

 

[Nottingham59]

With triples to Birmingham? (Which is still under 400m)

Yes. With the main constraint for HS2 being Colwich, capacity to Birmingham should not be an issue. So an extra pair of driving cabs in the consist to Curzon St should not be too great an overhead compared to 2x200m units.

 

[Halifaxlad]

No way of extending the platforms to accept 275m. trains, never mind 300m.

The best way to address the Liverpool issuse is to build a new station!

That was my suggestion, but I've since learned that Liverpool cannot take 275m.

My ideal length is now 130m units, consisting of 5x26m cars. This would allow 390m trains to maximise capacity through Colwich, and at Euston and Birmingham and places where platforms could be extended to 400m. And allow 260m trains to run to Manchester and Liverpool and Glasgow, and anywhere else that now takes 11-car Pendolinos.

And thinking about it, driving cars with their tapered aerodynamic shape could be 27.5m long and still fit into the same swept loading gauge. Which would give 2-unit multiples that are 266m long, and 3-unit multiples that are 400m. A perfect fit for HS2 phase 1.

EDIT: And if the train order is now fixed at 25m cars, then standardise on 5-car 125m units, giving 250m to Manchester and Liverpool and 375m to Crewe and Birmingham.

But then you still end up with what could be seating capacity taken up with cab ends, catering outlets, toilets ect ect especially if services were mulitplies of more than 2!

You would end up 3 first class sections on each service to Crewe and Birmingham if the latter were to happen.

Dont forget about staffing! What is the likely hood of a staff member being on each unit and what is the cost of that ?

We need to starting thinking about more than just the length of the train here!

Then what’s stopping you forming the Liverpool with pairs of the 125m sets?

Why should capacity across the whole network be reduced just because of Liverpool ?

 

[HSTEd]

You would end up 3 first class sections on each service to Crewe and Birmingham if the latter were to happen.

Well not all trains would need to have the same interiors, necessarily.

If you have a subclass of sets that runs Birmingham strengthening the bulk of the time it could just be an all 2nd Class layout with no catering.

Although I think the best way to do that is again to just have a 250m and a 400m set design.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Well not all trains would need to have the same interiors, necessarily.

True, but thats only going to add more complexity especially during times of disruption.

Although I think the best way to do that is again to just have a 250m and a 400m set design.

Everytime I see 250m and 400m sets being proposes I just keeping we might as well just stick with 200m sets.

Since those 400m would end up as two, 200m units anyway and 50m is a marginal difference.

 

[HSTEd]

Since those 400m would end up as two, 200m units anyway.

Would they necessarily be so?
400m trainsets are quite common in many High speed rail systems abroad, and indeed are used widely on HS1.

It's just a 250m set with several additional vehicles, to be used to bust crowds on Birminghams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Triples? That's very crew heavy because these can't be gangwayed. Doesn't make sense.

I still think just have mixed formations of fixed sets and diagram them appropriately. In my experience Avanti manage that quite well with their existing fleet, and Thameslink too. And it stops a short unit going out on its own (yes, you, GWR).

 

[Halifaxlad]

Would they necessarily be so?
400m trainsets are quite common in many High speed rail systems abroad, and indeed are used widely on HS1.

Yes because the goverment have already decided against them and I cant imagine them doing a U turn on that one given the flexility offered with the adopted approach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

400m trains (usually 2x200m) are common in Europe because they didn't go through the phase we did of moving to a system of frequent short trains (something that was deliberate BR policy with the coming of the HST), rather they kept (slightly less) infrequent long ones. Three trains per hour on an InterCity route like London-Manchester is utterly unknown outside the UK unless it's just a common section of several routes; it'd be one but it'd be 400m long.

The UK should really have stuck with UK solutions, i.e. high frequencies of medium length trains - 275m would probably be the most practical. If there's demand for effectively 5 trains per hour from London to Manchester, spec HS2 (full version) to allow that. Many, many aspects would have been cheaper if existing lengths (ish) were retained.

See also platform heights, though that error was also made on the Lizzie and as a result it can never be fully accessible.

 

[Greybeard33]

Nothing, but 2x125m for Liverpool and 275m at Manchester does limit flexibility. If we're now stuck with 25m carriage length, then I think a standard unit of 125m now seems the best way to maximise capacity in the most flexible way.

Given the constraints of just 6 platforms at Euston and 6tph (perhaps 8tph peak) through Colwich.

The HS2 tunnels have the emergency escape cross-passages located 350m apart. This means that units can only be permitted to operate in multiple if the unit length is 200m. If the unit length were 175m or less, it would not be possible to stop in a tunnel in a position such that both units have an emergency exit door adjacent to a cross-passage.

This requirement is from section 7.15.7, Evacuation, of the HS2 Train Technical Specification.

HS2 rolling stock: train technical specification - HS2

www.hs2.org.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

The HS2 tunnels have the emergency escape cross-passages located 350m apart. This means that units can only be permitted to operate in multiple if the unit length is 200m. If the unit length were 175m or less, it would not be possible to stop in a tunnel in a position such that both units have an emergency exit door adjacent to a cross-passage.

This requirement is from section 7.15.7, Evacuation, of the HS2 Train Technical Specification.

HS2 rolling stock: train technical specification - HS2

www.hs2.org.uk

Erm, doesn't that mean a 200m unit can also stop such that it is between two doors and not adjacent to one?

 

[Greybeard33]

Erm, doesn't that mean a 200m unit can also stop such that it is between two doors and not adjacent to one?

The assumption is that the driver can control the position where the train comes to a stand in the tunnel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The assumption is that the driver can control the position where the train comes to a stand in the tunnel.

That's a fairly big assumption

 

[HSTEd]

The HS2 tunnels have the emergency escape cross-passages located 350m apart. This means that units can only be permitted to operate in multiple if the unit length is 200m. If the unit length were 175m or less, it would not be possible to stop in a tunnel in a position such that both units have an emergency exit door adjacent to a cross-passage.

This requirement is from section 7.15.7, Evacuation, of the HS2 Train Technical Specification.

HS2 rolling stock: train technical specification - HS2

www.hs2.org.uk

This is a requirement invented by HS2, it is not present in the TSIs (which HS2 has abandoned regardless).

It miight be in the specification, but if the government commands it be abandoned, it will be so.
It is certainly not a requirement present in any other high speed rail line abroad.

 

[Greybeard33]

This is a requirement invented by HS2, it is not present in the TSIs (which HS2 has abandoned regardless).

It miight be in the specification, but if the government commands it be abandoned, it will be so.
It is certainly not a requirement present in any other high speed rail line abroad.

The HS2 tunnel design is unique, with a relatively smaller bore than on any other high speed rail line (supposedly to reduce construction costs). The ventilation shafts will be sealed from the tunnel except when ventilation is required in an emergency (train stranded in the tunnel). British exceptionalism.

I imagine that the door spacing requirement is part of the tunnel safety case and so would be difficult or impossible to change at this late stage.

 

[Bevan Price]

Really 200m is enough for Liverpool currently, 2x a between 9 and 11 car Pendolino is about right for the current market. 250m even better but shorter than 200m (like the 125m proposed by others) and it'll be very crowded.

Some Liverpool services definitely need 11 coach 390s - or a reduction in 1st class seating, replaced by more standard class. 9 coaches are inadequate at busy times, especially if there are "big events" in London or Liverpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some Liverpool services definitely need 11 coach 390s - or a reduction in 1st class seating, replaced by more standard class. 9 coaches are inadequate at busy times, especially if there are "big events" in London or Liverpool.

On the present hourly service, yes. While you will get some passengers switching due to increased frequency, I can't see it filling 11 coaches twice an hour. When the 807s are in service I'd expect it'll get a 9-car and a 7-car per hour, which interestingly adds up (if you assume 24m Pendolino vehicles except the end vehicles which are 25, and 26m 80x vehicles) to....402m! Or near enough the same as 2 200m HS2 units an hour.

Thus when you consider that the HS2 units make better use of space than Pendolinos, I think that'll be all the capacity needed when you consider Liverpool's sort-of-peninsular location which gives it a fairly limited connecting catchment compared to Manchester Pic.

It is true that a single 9 car an hour isn't enough, but we're talking nearly twice that.

 

[Nottingham59]

This is a requirement invented by HS2, it is not present in the TSIs (which HS2 has abandoned regardless).

350m is the same spacing for escape doors as in the Channel Tunnel. Presumably following the same logic.

EDIT: If they had gone for 2x260m trains, HS2 could have saved tunnelling costs by having escape doors at 480m intervals instead of 350m. I wonder if that would have paid for longer platforms at OOC and Euston?