HS2.2 cancellation: potential services on the WCML south of Handsacre

[HurdyGurdy]

Throughout the lifespan of HS2, while there have been suggested service patterns and journey times for the new, faster HS2 services, I've never seen a suggested service pattern on the valuable fast line paths freed-up on the WCML south of Crewe.

Now that HS2 will not reach Crewe, I'm even less clear how the classic route will be utilised.

There will be those existing WCML fast line services for which there is no capacity at Euston HS to allow them to be moved to HS2. The Chester and N.Wales was always going to remain running on the Trent Valley. Perhaps one of the Manchesters will have to remain as well?

I would hope that there is room for services which at least maintain an inter city level of accommodation and the current journey times if not frequency between Euston, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham Int. and New St.

Could Northampton get a faster, limited stop service, in the peak, if not throughout the day, running fast line from Hanslope and calling only at Milton Keynes?

The Trent Valley stations aren't ideally equipped to terminate trains before they reach Handsacre and there will be nothing freed-up beyond there now, so what improvements in journey times and/or frequency can Nuneaton, Tamworth etc expect to see once HS2 is open?

 

[HSTEd]

Is it possible to get information on the relative importance of the Trent Valley Line and non-TVL services at the Trent Valley stations?

Rugeley Trent Valley, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth and Nuneaton?
It would given an idea of how much traffic would be left.

I would hope that there is room for services which at least maintain an inter city level of accommodation and the current journey times if not frequency between Euston, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham Int. and New St.

Trying to maintain intercity run times and accomodation is going to use up almost all the potential savings though.
That will just lead to a huge increase in net subsidy, which I can't see the government going for.


EDIT:

My own, perhaps very aggressive, rationalisation of the timetable would have four elements

DC line service: all stops to Watford Junction
Slow Line Service: first stop Watford Junction, all shacks to Wolverton
Fast Line Service 1: first stop Milton Keynes Central, then all shacks (excluding Wolverton maybe) to Birmingham, excluding the minor Birmingham Suburban stations
Fast Line Service 2: first stop Milton Keynes Central, then all shacks to Rugeley Trent Valley, with extensino to Stafford depending on the situation at Colwich Junction etc.

All passenger trains to run via Northampton, and we get an easement allowing doubling back for various sensible journey combinations.

 

[Nottingham59]

I've never seen a suggested service pattern on the valuable fast line paths freed-up on the WCML south of Crewe.

I hate to say it, but they won't be valuable any more. Almost all the high paying business traffic from Manchester and Birmingham will be lost to HS2.

The remaining passengers from Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes and the Trent Valley won't justify anything like the present intensity of service on the WCML. Who's going to pay for it?

 

[Energy]

Trent Valley 2tph LNWR is needed.

Having all north Trent Valley services at 110mph to Crewe might help squeeze it in.

What will be most noticeable for Coventry and Rugby is that they won't be seats taken up by London to Birmingham passengers. And south WCML being quieter should help in periods of disruption.

Of course I'm going to push for my Birmingham to Leamington via Coventry service

 

[The Planner]

I hate to say it, but they won't be valuable any more. Almost all the high paying business traffic from Manchester and Birmingham will be lost to HS2.

The remaining passengers from Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes and the Trent Valley won't justify anything like the present intensity of service on the WCML. Who's going to pay for it?

Coventry will still get 2tph to Euston that go via Weedon.

 

[Class15]

Is it possible to get information on the relative importance of the Trent Valley Line and non-TVL services at the Trent Valley stations?

Rugeley Trent Valley, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth and Nuneaton?
It would given an idea of how much traffic would be left.


Trying to maintain intercity run times and accomodation is going to use up almost all the potential savings though.
That will just lead to a huge increase in net subsidy, which I can't see the government going for.


EDIT:

My own, perhaps very aggressive, rationalisation of the timetable would have four elements

DC line service: all stops to Watford Junction
Slow Line Service: first stop Watford Junction, all shacks to Wolverton
Fast Line Service 1: first stop Milton Keynes Central, then all shacks (excluding Wolverton maybe) to Birmingham, excluding the minor Birmingham Suburban stations
Fast Line Service 2: first stop Milton Keynes Central, then all shacks to Rugeley Trent Valley, with extensino to Stafford depending on the situation at Colwich Junction etc.

All passenger trains to run via Northampton, and we get an easement allowing doubling back for various sensible journey combinations.

So you’re saying that Harrow & Wealdstone and Bushey will have DC and Southern services only and no mainline trains into Euston? That wouldn’t go down well at all.

 

[Nottingham59]

But it gets 4tph to Euston today.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Coventry will still get 2tph to Euston that go via Weedon.

So increased journey time and lower frequency.

Same for Rugby, Milton Keynes to/from London?

 

[Energy]

But it gets 4tph to Euston today.

@The Planner Means 2tph Avanti, the LNWR 2tph will remain as well. The latter is to London but at 2 hours long I'd expect more London traffic to move to Avanti, which should have more competitive fares once Birmingham passengers are moved to HS2.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

No business case for even 2tph between Lichfield-Rugby and London?

Rugeley looks doomed to suffer, being on the Handsacre-Colwich flight path.

Means 2tph Avanti, the LNWR 2tph will remain as well.

Can @The Planner clarify? I read still 2tph via Weedon and assumed LNWR, but running fast line to/from Rugby to London.

 

[Energy]

Can @The Planner clarify? I read still 2tph via Weedon and assumed LNWR, but running fast line to/from Rugby to London.

Via Weedon avoids Northampton and are the Avanti services, LNWR goes via Northampton

 

[HSTEd]

So you’re saying that Harrow & Wealdstone and Bushey will have DC and Southern services only and no mainline trains into Euston? That wouldn’t go down well at all.

More or less, although given the rail layout I guess you could put the stops back in but it would slow everyone else down significantly.

 

[Energy]

Is it possible to get information on the relative importance of the Trent Valley Line and non-TVL services at the Trent Valley stations?

Rugeley Trent Valley, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth and Nuneaton?
It would given an idea of how much traffic would be left.

The current Crewe to London 1tph service is busy, enough to justify 12 cars soon. Some will be Crewe to London (LNWR is fairly competitive on timings) but the intermediate stations still produce a fair amount of traffic.

 

[Nottingham59]

If it's any help, this is the proposed service pattern on the WCML after phase one.


Taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-one-full-business-case

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Via Weedon avoids Northampton and are the Avanti services, LNWR goes via Northampton

LNWR (to Crewe) currently also goes via Weedon.

If it's any help, this is the proposed service pattern on the WCML after phase one.

Thanks. That's EXACTLY what I was looking for. I now see the two Avanti services via Birmingham running via Weedon .

The only thing is: that shows 10tph via OOC and Euston HS. We're told it will now be designed for 8tph. If figure 1.8 represents full utilisation of the WCML, something's got to give.

 

[Energy]

LNWR (to Crewe) currently also goes via Weedon.

Correct, but the poster was referring to services for Coventry, which LNWR to Crewe does not service.

The only thing is: that shows 10tph via OOC and Euston HS. We're told it will now be designed for 8tph. If figure 1.8 represents full utilisation of the WCML, something's got to give.

Take the image with a grain of salt, the government hasn't really settled on what it wants yet. In Rishi's world, we'd have an 12-lane highway with a 6-runway airport complete with private terminals in each city HS2 was to serve.

 

[Nottingham59]

Thanks. That's EXACTLY what I was looking for

You're welcome. What I can't work out is how this proposed service pattern compares with the current WCML timetable, or quite how many platforms would actually be needed in the main train shed at Euston.

And for what it's worth, I don't believe there will be enough ticket revenue to justify all five of the paths that will go via Weedon. Too many premium passengers will switch to HS2.

 

[The Planner]

No business case for even 2tph between Lichfield-Rugby and London?

Rugeley looks doomed to suffer, being on the Handsacre-Colwich flight path.



Can @The Planner clarify? I read still 2tph via Weedon and assumed LNWR, but running fast line to/from Rugby to London.

Avanti-esque type services, so "fast"

If it's any help, this is the proposed service pattern on the WCML after phase one.

View attachment 144382
Taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-one-full-business-case

I wouldn't take a huge amount of notice of that.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Take the image with a grain of salt

Of course. But you can't ignore the recently self-imposed capacity restraint at Euston HS.

I wouldn't take a huge amount of notice of that.

Do you have a later/better version?

 

[Energy]

Of course. But you can't ignore the recently self-imposed capacity restraint at Euston HS.

6 platforms isn't much of a restraint, you could manage 18tph out of them. Euston could really do with a spare though.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Well DfT thinks 8tph and it will be DfT who lets the contract to run them.

 

[The Planner]

6 platforms isn't much of a restraint, you could manage 18tph out of them. Euston could really do with a spare though.

It would fall over as soon as a few trains were out by 4 or 5 minutes. Especially now the crossover tunnel has gone. Euston would be a different game entirely without line X.

Do you have a later/better version?

I doubt one exists after this weeks announcements.

 

[Nottingham59]

Especially now the crossover tunnel has gone. Euston would be a different game entirely without line X.

The grade separated crossover in the throat was the critical resource that has now been binned. Purely destructive decision.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

And for what it's worth, I don't believe there will be enough ticket revenue to justify all five of the paths that will go via Weedon. Too many premium passengers will switch to HS2.

Pre-covid there were (I think) 12tph via Weedon. The effect of the recent announcements would be that only 8 of those could switch to HS2 and of those 8, only those to Curzon St could be the envisaged 400m trains. The rest would have the approximate capacity of the existing Avanti services.

Simply to provide the pre-covid capacity of WCML, other than to Curzon St, 4tph would have to run via Weedon. In that scenario, HS2 may well be the premium priced route, but there would be sufficient demand for the services which remain on the WCML fast lines as well. The only question is which services those would be.

Then there is the projected growth in demand, which pre-covid and without HS2 was expected to result in the WCML fast lines services being full by around 2030, even with a fourth Manchester train per hour. With no room at Euston HS to run that extra service via HS2, that would be the 5th tph requiring a WCML fast line path.

Looking beyond 2030, unless something was done to make more capacity available via HS2, satisfying any further growth in demand could only be achieved with additional services running on the WCML fast lines.