How would you improve local rail after the introduction of HS2 (&NPR)?

[B&I]

Without wanting to turn this into yet another "Liverpool" discussion...

It is a true statement that the demand for rail travel to/from a town/city is often in no way proportional to its population size. Demographics play a part indeed (don't read that as claiming MK is middle class whilst Liverpool is not.... MK has its rundown parts whilst greater Liverpool has some very affluent areas, for example, but probably much more spread away from the city in general), as to where the city naturally looks to for business links.

So MK is linked to London, Birmingham and Manchester for it's 'graduate' type employment (handily being on line between these points), whereas Liverpool traditionally looks towards Manchester for its Business/Employment/trade* links, probably moreso than London.

*Probably tracing its roots to the Manchester Ship Canal and Liverpool & Manchester. But London<>Manchester linksprobably stem from the Cotton trade.

Time was of course when Liverpool's economic links extended country- and worldwide, albeit Manchester was always an important trading partner. Deindustrialisation of most of Britain, and over-centralisation in London, has sadly wiped out many of those links, but that's true of most other British cities outside London.

Note that I did not deny that MK is a major destination and significant generator of rail travel (though I maintain that it is, at present, a poor rail hub because of the lack of connections, which is how this discussion began). However, I don't think I'm unfairly denigrating MK to point out that there is no basis in fact for some of the claims made about it. And I wasn't the first person to bring Liverpool into the discussion: that was Bletchleyite, with his prediction about MK somehow growing to outstrip a city it is currently somewhere between a third and a seventh the size of (depending on which definition you use), and with his incorrect assertion that Liverpool's population is in decline.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is there? It seems apparent that there won't be any classic trains originating from Euston running north of Preston, which will free paths up for HS trains?

I'm not sure what your reasoning there is based on?

The way I would envisage it, HS2 is going to mean faster journey times from London (and to a lesser extent, Birmingham) to the North West, and to Scotland. That will stimulate demand, so it's very likely that, after HS2, there'll need to more frequent services north of Preston that come from London or Birmingham to accommodate passenger numbers. You don't need to even think about classic WCML trains to make that argument. However, towns along the classic WCML - particularly Watford and Milton Keynes - reinforce the argument, because they will almost certainly see more frequent WCML services, and that in turn will stimulate demand from those towns too - including for long-distance journeys to Preston and beyond. Maybe you're right and no services along that line will run North of Preston, so people doing Milton Keynes-Scotland etc. will have to change at Preston. Maybe (more sensibly IMO) there'll be an hourly slow Euston-Glasgow service to give Watford/Milton Keynes/Rugby/Stafford a direct Scotland train. But either way there are going to have to be more trains running up the WCML north of Warrington - and that's even before you take into account the growing demand from Liverpool and Manchester to Scotland. Hence the problem that edwin_m and I agree on - that somehow you're going to have to accommodate those extra trains.

 

[MarkyT]

How has this thread suddenly become all about Liverpool? I thought it was supposed to be about how capacity released is best used when the fastest trains on WCML, and to a lesser extent on other main lines to the north, are moved to HS2.

 

[edwin_m]

Is there? It seems apparent that there won't be any classic trains originating from Euston running north of Preston, which will free paths up for HS trains?

At present there are two Euston trains per hour (one via Birmingham) which run fairly close together (with the Manchester-Scotland just behind). As per the last spec I saw these will be replaced by three, two Euston-Preston-somewhere and splitting for Glasgow and Edinburgh, and one Birmingham to Glasgow and Edinburgh alternately. The Manchester-Scotland will continue moreoreless as today.

The two prime London to Scotland trains will need to be half an hour apart, so even if the Birmingham and Manchester are flighted with one of them there will be a much shorter window each hour for freight to get as far as it can before it is caught up.

As far north as Preston there may be classic trains from south of Crewe, and/or trains that come off HS2 at Crewe to serve Warrington.

 

[B&I]

How has this thread suddenly become all about Liverpool? I thought it was supposed to be about how capacity released is best used when the fastest trains on WCML, and to a lesser extent on other main lines to the north, are moved to HS2.

1. Which main line is Liverpool on a branch of again ?

2. In the course of the discussion, factual assertions were made about Liverpool and Milton Keynes which were demonstrably untrue, as I demonstrated. Presumably you'd agree that in a dicussion about use of released capacity on the WCML, it's important that tue discussion proceeds on the basis of fact rather than fiction

3. Because I enjoy how the mere mention of the city triggers a serious allergic reaction among certain people on this forum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your view appears to be that MK should receive preferential treatment over other intermediate WCML destinations in terms of service levels. One of your reasons for this is that is is more middle class and will therefore generate more demand.

It's also bigger than Watford Jn and Rugby. Though, FWIW, my preference would be post HS2 that all WCML trains should call at Watford Jn, MKC and Rugby before heading their separate ways.

 

[B&I]

It's also bigger than Watford Jn and Rugby. Though, FWIW, my preference would be post HS2 that all WCML trains should call at Watford Jn, MKC and Rugby before heading their separate ways.

Yes, I appreciate it is, but the point I'm trying to get across is that a number of other intermediate stops would be quite useful for making connections, and more useful (in that sense) than MK. Nuneaton for services to Leicester and all points east springs particularly to mind

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, I appreciate it is, but the point I'm trying to get across is that a number of other intermediate stops would be quite useful for making connections, and more useful (in that sense) than MK. Nuneaton for services to Leicester and all points east springs particularly to mind

Don't forget a number of EWR services may be serving MK Central in the future, improving it's connectivity. I hope that remaining trains might stop at a useful selection of larger intermediate towns and interchanges, including both Nuneaton and Milton Keynes.

 

[The Ham]

1. Which main line is Liverpool on a branch of again ?

2. In the course of the discussion, factual assertions were made about Liverpool and Milton Keynes which were demonstrably untrue, as I demonstrated. Presumably you'd agree that in a dicussion about use of released capacity on the WCML, it's important that tue discussion proceeds on the basis of fact rather than fiction

3. Because I enjoy how the mere mention of the city triggers a serious allergic reaction among certain people on this forum.

I would argue that Liverpool Lime Street between 2012/13 and 2016/17 saw growth of about 20% whilst MKC over the she time period saw growth of about 10%.

As such in rail terms Liverpool should still see more growth than MK.

However, as this thread is about released capacity and there are no current plans for Liverpool to have a HS line (not that it shouldn't) and therefore unless there's a way to run an extra service to Liverpool because of released capacity elsewhere I would suggest that any arguing over sizes of Liverpool vs anywhere or whether Liverpool should be getting more services and/or a HS line should be carried out elsewhere.

 

[B&I]

I would argue that Liverpool Lime Street between 2012/13 and 2016/17 saw growth of about 20% whilst MKC over the she time period saw growth of about 10%.

As such in rail terms Liverpool should still see more growth than MK.

However, as this thread is about released capacity and there are no current plans for Liverpool to have a HS line (not that it shouldn't) and therefore unless there's a way to run an extra service to Liverpool because of released capacity elsewhere I would suggest that any arguing over sizes of Liverpool vs anywhere or whether Liverpool should be getting more services and/or a HS line should be carried out elsewhere.

So, because Liverpool is receiving fewer benefits from HS2 than everywhere else directly served by it, and in particular because there will.be no extra line capacity at all for Liverpool post-HS2 (a position you spent much of last week defending on another thread), we shouldn't even be discussing whether Liverpool could potentially benefit from HS2. Don't you see a degree or irony to all this ?

I wasn't in fact discussing extra services to Liverpool beyond a suggestion that the faster Trent Valleys services should be extended generally to points further north, including Liverpool.

I'm sorry that the mere mention of Liverpool clearly makes you so uncomfortable, but if someone makes factually incorrect assertions about the populations of 2 different cities, am I not allowed to question that ?

 

[B&I]

Don't forget a number of EWR services may be serving MK Central in the future, improving it's connectivity. I hope that remaining trains might stop at a useful selection of larger intermediate towns and interchanges, including both Nuneaton and Milton Keynes.

'May' is the big word here. Unless and until that happens (and personally I wouldn't be holding my breath for EWR to be built at all) it is currently a poor connecting point. This is not to say that it is not, potentially, a much much better connecting point

 

[Ianno87]

'May' is the big word here. Unless and until that happens (and personally I wouldn't be holding my breath for EWR to be built at all) it is currently a poor connecting point. This is not to say that it is not, potentially, a much much better connecting point

The Western section (Bicester-Bletchley) had just had a TWAO deposited, for opening in 2024 (ahead of HS2 Phase 1 in 2026).

 

[The Planner]

Bicester to Claydon has now closed and the old track has already started being stripped off the track bed in preparation.

As for north of Preston, it will be a lop sided timetable as it will be a distinct passenger and freight flight, no one will want to spend any cash on it. No amount of extra studies are going to tell you a different answer to those that have happened before.

 

[The Ham]

So, because Liverpool is receiving fewer benefits from HS2 than everywhere else directly served by it, and in particular because there will.be no extra line capacity at all for Liverpool post-HS2 (a position you spent much of last week defending on another thread), we shouldn't even be discussing whether Liverpool could potentially benefit from HS2. Don't you see a degree or irony to all this ?

I wasn't in fact discussing extra services to Liverpool beyond a suggestion that the faster Trent Valleys services should be extended generally to points further north, including Liverpool.

I'm sorry that the mere mention of Liverpool clearly makes you so uncomfortable, but if someone makes factually incorrect assertions about the populations of 2 different cities, am I not allowed to question that ?

I've always thought that HS2 needs to be extended, Liverpool being a giod candidate.

However you can't do everything in one go, so done things have to wait.

I have no problem with highlighting errors, which is why I have now facts which supports what you said. However for this thread Liverpool is a bit of topic for most things, unless it's getting more services because of released capacity elsewhere.

 

[edwin_m]

I've always thought that HS2 needs to be extended, Liverpool being a giod candidate.

However you can't do everything in one go, so done things have to wait.

I have no problem with highlighting errors, which is why I have now facts which supports what you said. However for this thread Liverpool is a bit of topic for most things, unless it's getting more services because of released capacity elsewhere.

In the meantime the HS2 timetables assumed for planning purposes do include two London trains per hour for Liverpool all day, on faster timings than existing.

The NPR scheme - which is obviously less advanced than HS2 and may never happen - does include some form of high speed infrastructure to bring HS2 as well as NPR trains into Liverpool. This might release some capacity on the route via Runcorn, unless NPR uses the fast lines north of South Parkway.

 

[B&I]

The Western section (Bicester-Bletchley) had just had a TWAO deposited, for opening in 2024 (ahead of HS2 Phase 1 in 2026).

I assume that means it hasn't died of exhaustion while trying to climb up the inside of the Shaven Testicle Headed One's in-tray, as Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16 seem to have ?

 

[B&I]

In the meantime the HS2 timetables assumed for planning purposes do include two London trains per hour for Liverpool all day, on faster timings than existing.

The NPR scheme - which is obviously less advanced than HS2 and may never happen - does include some form of high speed infrastructure to bring HS2 as well as NPR trains into Liverpool. This might release some capacity on the route via Runcorn, unless NPR uses the fast lines north of South Parkway.

Can I request that the title of this thread be amended ro reflect released capacity post-HS2 and -NPR ? Strikes me there is a lot of scope for discussion re the latter, and not just in respect of Liverpool

 

[The Ham]

Can I request that the title of this thread be amended ro reflect released capacity post-HS2 and -NPR ? Strikes me there is a lot of scope for discussion re the latter, and not just in respect of Liverpool

Changed, although with NPR in brackets to indicate its less confirmed status.

 

[B&I]

Changed, although with NPR in brackets to indicate its less confirmed status.

Thanks.

I'm going to begin by suggesting that, with a fully seperated high-speed line from Liverpool to east of Leeds, we could see
1. Merseyrail (via links at Edge Hill) take over local services from Lime Street high level, as far as Wigan and Warrington (both routes), at 4 TPH
2. Much more frequent local services out of Manchestser along the CLC, Chat Moss, Hope Valley and Standedge lines
3. More frequent local services out of Leeds towards Huddersfield, York and Doncaster
4. Residual semi-fast trains along these lines to fill in whatever gaps remain between local and high speed services.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Another document about service patterns Post HS2:

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Capturing-the-benefits-of-HS2.pdf

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I appreciate it is, but the point I'm trying to get across is that a number of other intermediate stops would be quite useful for making connections, and more useful (in that sense) than MK. Nuneaton for services to Leicester and all points east springs particularly to mind

Yes, there's also a good case for stopping some or all of the residual WCML trains at some Trent Valley stations as well.

A good call might be:-
- Increase the Trent Valley stopper (Euston-Crewe calling at Watford Jn, MKC, Rugby then all stations via the main WCML to Crewe) to 2tph 8-car. Consider extending one or both of these to Liverpool Lime St or Manchester Piccadilly if capacity allows.
- All residual WCML services to call at Nuneaton and possibly either Tamworth or alternate Tamworth-Lichfield, Stafford then onwards. (yes, I know it renders Colwich a bit redundant )

 

[The Planner]

Another document about service patterns Post HS2:

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Capturing-the-benefits-of-HS2.pdf

That is 7 years old so I would ignore that, nothing is decided yet no matter what report says what.

 

[Esker-pades]

Yes, there's also a good case for stopping some or all of the residual WCML trains at some Trent Valley stations as well.

A good call might be:-
- Increase the Trent Valley stopper (Euston-Crewe calling at Watford Jn, MKC, Rugby then all stations via the main WCML to Crewe) to 2tph 8-car. Consider extending one or both of these to Liverpool Lime St or Manchester Piccadilly if capacity allows.
- All residual WCML services to call at Nuneaton and possibly either Tamworth or alternate Tamworth-Lichfield, Stafford then onwards. (yes, I know it renders Colwich a bit redundant )

Tamworth and Lichfield are currently difficult to serve as they have no fast line platforms. As far as I remember from my fleeting visit to Tamworth, there is very little space to provide such a platform. I'm assuming it is the same at Lichfield, although I'm not sure.

 

[B&I]

Yes, there's also a good case for stopping some or all of the residual WCML trains at some Trent Valley stations as well.

A good call might be:-
- Increase the Trent Valley stopper (Euston-Crewe calling at Watford Jn, MKC, Rugby then all stations via the main WCML to Crewe) to 2tph 8-car. Consider extending one or both of these to Liverpool Lime St or Manchester Piccadilly if capacity allows.
- All residual WCML services to call at Nuneaton and possibly either Tamworth or alternate Tamworth-Lichfield, Stafford then onwards. (yes, I know it renders Colwich a bit redundant )

The depressing thing about trains from the north-west stopping at Tamworth is that it shouldn't be a particularly useful link, but sometimes is, because the deathly crawl of EMT's Norwich-Liverpool and Derby-Crewe services can at times make it faster to get to Derby via Tamworth from all points north west. Also, the lack if XC to Liverpool has meant that, a few times, my fastest route to points south of Brum on XC has been via Tamworth as well.

 

[krus_aragon]

Another document about service patterns Post HS2:

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Capturing-the-benefits-of-HS2.pdf

Interestingly, that report (which claims to build on the service pattern modelled by HS2 Ltd) lists an hourly service to Chester/North Wales via HS2, not on the WCML. I was of the understanding that classic compatibles were planned to be electric-only, so assumed that we'd still be served with Voyagers or replacements on the WCML. This document suggests that someone at Greengaguge or HS2 Ltd either believes there'll be bi-mode classic compatibles or that wires will come to Holyhead.

Seven years on (as The Planner pointed out) from the publication of that document, bi-modes seem a more likely outcome than they did at the time.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Interestingly, that report (which claims to build on the service pattern modelled by HS2 Ltd) lists an hourly service to Chester/North Wales via HS2, not on the WCML. I was of the understanding that classic compatibles were planned to be electric-only, so assumed that we'd still be served with Voyagers or replacements on the WCML. This document suggests that someone at Greengaguge or HS2 Ltd either believes there'll be bi-mode classic compatibles or that wires will come to Holyhead.

Seven years on (as The Planner pointed out) from the publication of that document, bi-modes seem a more likely outcome than they did at the time.

I think the during the Crewe Hub Consultation recently it was consultated where else classic compatibles should go and Chester came top so we could see a service between Chester and London but this would require electrification.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...crewe-hub-consultation-response-web.pdf#page9

On Page 28 a diagram is present where it shows a list of additional destinations people wish to see being served by HS2 or a new WCML services. Chester. North Wales, Liverpool, Warrington and Preston (as well as Stoke) came out on top.

It does note that Phase 2a doesn’t include a second split and any future enhancements required for a new classic compatible will not be considered in Phase 2a.

Phase 2a do not preclude development of opportunities for future service enhancements including those who are dependent of future electrification of the Chester and North Wales lines

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Interestingly, that report (which claims to build on the service pattern modelled by HS2 Ltd) lists an hourly service to Chester/North Wales via HS2, not on the WCML. I was of the understanding that classic compatibles were planned to be electric-only, so assumed that we'd still be served with Voyagers or replacements on the WCML. This document suggests that someone at Greengaguge or HS2 Ltd either believes there'll be bi-mode classic compatibles or that wires will come to Holyhead.

Seven years on (as The Planner pointed out) from the publication of that document, bi-modes seem a more likely outcome than they did at the time.

You cannot have bi-modes with long tunnels as it is diesel and brakes safety regulations.

 

[krus_aragon]

Thanks for the refresher on what HS2 Ltd / UK GOV are planning. Was Greengauge's WCML allocation of a HS2 path for Chester/North Wales their own aspiration, I wonder? It seems that they're both saying it'll be served by the other line. :/

You cannot have bi-modes with long tunnels as it is diesel and brakes safety regulations.

I presume these long tunnels are those planned for the southern portions of HS2. Is this in terms of not running diesel engines in a long tunnel (which would be electrified), or not conveying combustible fuel in a tunnel?

The Gotthard Base Tunnel has all sorts of freight travelling along it, and is longer than all HS2's planned tunnels put together. Given that, I'd be intrigued to read what HS2's safety case is.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Thanks for the refresher on what HS2 Ltd / UK GOV are planning. Was Greengauge's WCML allocation of a HS2 path for Chester/North Wales their own aspiration, I wonder? It seems that they're both saying it'll be served by the other line. :/


I presume these long tunnels are those planned for the southern portions of HS2. Is this in terms of not running diesel engines in a long tunnel (which would be electrified), or not conveying combustible fuel in a tunnel?

The Gotthard Base Tunnel has all sorts of freight travelling along it, and is longer than all HS2's planned tunnels put together. Given that, I'd be intrigued to read what HS2's safety case is.

That’s in a different country. Why do you think Merseyrail aren’t allowed diesels in the tunnel or bi-modes with diesel on board. The fumes would cause safety issues.

 

[krus_aragon]

That’s in a different country. Why do you think Merseyrail aren’t allowed diesels in the tunnel or bi-modes with diesel on board. The fumes would cause safety issues.

I seem to recall that's due to a combination of the single bore tunnel of the Wirral Loop and the presence of passenger station platforms in the tunnel. Neither of these are likely to be issues for HS2. Note also that Merseyrail do have diesel locomotives running trains through for maintenance purposes.

Each tunnel will have it's own safety case, but I expect the new HS2 tunnels to be more similar to Gotthard than Liverpool.

Edit: Are Merseyrail disallowing bi-modes? The Borderlands Class 230 isn't a contender at the moment, but that's a diesel/battery design, so will have limited range on electricity. Merseyrail and TfW are actively looking at a long-term solution for Wrexham-Bidston-Liverpool through services, which may involve a diesel/third-rail bi-mode.