HS2 frequency to remain at 18 trains per hour confirms minister

[Ianno87]

I'd remind you that speed is not the primary purpose of HS2, rather capacity and reliability.

To a point. They all contribute ££££ to the business case.

Making trains slower than they could be to the detriment of major markets to serve minor markets is very much not what HS2 is about.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd remind you that speed is not the primary purpose of HS2, rather capacity and reliability.

That may be mostly true within England but the situation is slightly different for London-Glasgow/Edinburgh where most travelers prefer air to rail, even excluding those interlining at Heathrow who would probably still fly regardless of how good the train service was. As discussed on other threads, getting the journey time down to around the 3hr30 mark is likely to persuade a significant proportion of the flyers to go by train instead. This secures a much bigger environmental benefit per passenger than modal shift from cars.

Current predictions are around 3hr40min for this journey, the kind of figure that might tempt many people to use the train compared to 4hr30min today. Adding 15min or so for extra stops would erode that benefit significantly.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

That may be mostly true within England but the situation is slightly different for London-Glasgow/Edinburgh where most travelers prefer air to rail, even excluding those interlining at Heathrow who would probably still fly regardless of how good the train service was. As discussed on other threads, getting the journey time down to around the 3hr30 mark is likely to persuade a significant proportion of the flyers to go by train instead. This secures a much bigger environmental benefit per passenger than modal shift from cars.

Current predictions are around 3hr40min for this journey, the kind of figure that might tempt many people to use the train compared to 4hr30min today. Adding 15min or so for extra stops would erode that benefit significantly.

I think it would be better to extend the Lancaster terminator to Carlisle or retain the London to Glasgow via Birmingham service rather than add extra stops on the London to Glasgow/Edinburgh HS2 service.

 

[London Trains]

I think it would be better to extend the Lancaster terminator to Carlisle or retain the London to Glasgow via Birmingham service rather than add extra stops on the London to Glasgow/Edinburgh HS2 service.

The via Birmingham service is being retained. However it is too slow and is not an alternative to a HS2 or WCML Trent Valley service

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The via Birmingham service is being retained. However it is too slow and is not an alternative to a HS2 or WCML Trent Valley service

I did not suggest it as an alternative to the HS2 Glasgow service i was thinking of in addition to the half-hourly Glasgow-London service on HS2, the hourly Birmingham to Glasgow Service on HS2 and the Lancaster terminators.

 

[Ianno87]

The via Birmingham service is being retained. However it is too slow and is not an alternative to a HS2 or WCML Trent Valley service

Changing trains at Lancaster or Preston onto an HS2 service remains an option too.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Changing trains at Lancaster or Preston onto an HS2 service remains an option too.

True. Though there is a good chance that we could see:

HS2: 1tph London Euston to Lancaster (split at Crewe, other half goes to Liverpool) via Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston
HS2: 2tph London Euston to Glasgow Central/Edinburgh (split at Carlisle) via Preston, Carlisle
HS2: 1tph Birmingham Curzon Street to Glasgow Central or Edinburgh Waverley (alternate) via Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme LD, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie and Motherwell
Avanti: 1tph London Euston to Glasgow Central or Edinburgh via Milton Keynes Central, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Sandwell and Dudley, Wolverhampton, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme Lake District , Penrith , Carlisle

 

[Bletchleyite]

Changing trains at Lancaster or Preston onto an HS2 service remains an option too.

It does, but you won't sell that very well. Though extending Windermere services back to Lancaster would work, as there's always going to be a change somewhere. I guess that would take one additional unit?

 

[Class 170101]

True. Though there is a good chance that we could see:

HS2: 1tph London Euston to Lancaster (split at Crewe, other half goes to Liverpool) via Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston
HS2: 2tph London Euston to Glasgow Central/Edinburgh (split at Carlisle) via Preston, Carlisle
HS2: 1tph Birmingham Curzon Street to Glasgow Central or Edinburgh Waverley (alternate) via Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme LD, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie and Motherwell
Avanti: 1tph London Euston to Glasgow Central or Edinburgh via Milton Keynes Central, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Sandwell and Dudley, Wolverhampton, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme Lake District , Penrith , Carlisle

Can the West Coast cope with that number though? Plus the Manchester to Scoyland service provided by TPE? I seem to recall they are all flighted today to allow a freight path to operate in the rest of the hour.

Thats six intercity services per hour between Preston and Lancaster wheer as today I think its only three (two West Coast and 1 TPE).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Can the West Coast cope with that number though? Plus the Manchester to Scoyland service provided by TPE? I seem to recall they are all flighted today to allow a freight path to operate in the rest of the hour.

Thats six intercity services per hour between Preston and Lancaster wheer as today I think its only three (two West Coast and 1 TPE).

HS2 plans to operate 4ph plus one TPE and i think One Northern?

Currently its:

2 Avanti West Coast
1 TPE (plus 3 trains per day)
1 Northern

 

[Ianno87]

It does, but you won't sell that very well. Though extending Windermere services back to Lancaster would work, as there's always going to be a change somewhere. I guess that would take one additional unit?

It would take one additional unit, *but* some through working (even if not every hour) might be desirable anyway to switch train crew / units on and off the branch.

Logically time some "tactical" through trains to meet particular times off through demand (e.g. Windermere hotel check out/check in times)

 

[CW2]

Whatever plan we concoct as regards WCML long-distance train stops and frequency, remember the freight traffic needs to run too. That may well force the passenger trains away from an even-interval clockface service. The plan to stop the HS2 services at Carlisle instead of Carstairs will exacerbate this issue, although admittedly the HS2 services should be flighted a few minutes apart. It still costs 2 paths per direction per hour over Beattock.

 

[edwin_m]

The via Birmingham service is being retained. However it is too slow and is not an alternative to a HS2 or WCML Trent Valley service

Is this a commitment for Phase 2b or only for 1 and 2a?

 

[Class 170101]

The via Birmingham service is being retained. However it is too slow and is not an alternative to a HS2 or WCML Trent Valley service

Only really suitable for intermediate journeys or if you can get a cheap fare with the time to use it.

 

[The Planner]

Whatever plan we concoct as regards WCML long-distance train stops and frequency, remember the freight traffic needs to run too. That may well force the passenger trains away from an even-interval clockface service. The plan to stop the HS2 services at Carlisle instead of Carstairs will exacerbate this issue, although admittedly the HS2 services should be flighted a few minutes apart. It still costs 2 paths per direction per hour over Beattock.

No may about it, it will, the flights will still need to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not clear why freight would prevent a standard pattern - surely you create a freight path per hour, and it uses it or doesn't use it?

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not clear why freight would prevent a standard pattern - surely you create a freight path per hour, and it uses it or doesn't use it?

Freights have different traction and trailing weights, which significantly affect performance, particularly on gradients. So do you....

A) Design for the 'worst case' slowest path. Gives a lovely standard hour, but is arguably compromising passenger potential every single hour (both in trains per hour and journey times)

B) Vary the standard passenger hour so that passenger trains are as fast as they can be in the hours where it is needed. Remembering that north of Preston, passenger demand doesn't necessarily fit into a "one size fits all" standard hour across the day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(A), without any single possible shadow of a doubt. The benefits of a Takt are immense, and one of the costs of a Takt is that you can't have "crack expresses" to show off about, rather you have a reasonable speed with excellent punctuality, planned and smooth connectivity, and a memorable, easy to plan standard hour. In a Takt you vary capacity by train length, but also to some extent by adding peak extras that don't break the pattern (which could be done in an unused freight path).

Ask the Swiss. They know how to do it.

 

[Ianno87]

(A), without any single possible shadow of a doubt. The benefits of a Takt are immense, and one of the costs of a Takt is that you can't have "crack expresses" to show off about, rather you have a reasonable speed with excellent punctuality, planned and smooth connectivity, and a memorable, easy to plan standard hour. In a Takt you vary capacity by train length, but also to some extent by adding peak extras that don't break the pattern (which could be done in an unused freight path).

Ask the Swiss. They know how to do it.

Quantify "immense". It's neat, but totally wasting the potential of the railway solely for the sake of neatness.

Appropriate in Switzerland, as it's basically connecting a seat of evenly spaced urban centres on hour or so apart, each with local transport networks feeding off of it.

London-Scotland is 3.5-4 hours, where "turn up and go" standard patterns are less important to Generalised Journey Times, but end-to-end journey times are.

A standard pattern makes sense south of about Preston. North of there, less important.

The intermediate stations like Penrith are nothing like equivalent locations in Switzerland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quantify "immense". It's neat, but totally wasting the potential of the railway solely for the sake of neatness.

No, it's not. Clarity, understandability and consistency are key parts of the railway's potential. It is not just about getting from Euston to Glasgow Central quickly - not least because it is unlikely that the origin is within walking distance of Euston and the destination within walking distance of Glasgow Central.

Appropriate in Switzerland, as it's basically connecting a seat of evenly spaced urban centres

Have you been to the North West recently, or perhaps looked at a map of it? Its physical demographic, other than the major cities being larger, couldn't be closer to Switzerland if you tried.

 

[The Planner]

But you cannot really use that "unused" freight path, its a freight path which a FOC may want to use. That's why we have strategic paths in the timetable, so TOCs don't bid into every white space there is . If you want to put peak extras in then its lost forever to the passenger path.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you cannot really use that "unused" freight path, its a freight path which a FOC may want to use. That's why we have strategic paths in the timetable, so TOCs don't bid into every white space there is . If you want to put peak extras in then its lost forever to the passenger path.

By "unused" I meant "used by passenger in that hour rather than freight because it isn't necessary to keep a freight path in every single hour".

 

[CW2]

The need to cater for freight on the northern section of the WCML wouldn't prevent you from having the same pattern every hour, but it probably would prevent a half-hourly repeating sequence. In other words, your trains from Preston to Glasgow / Edinburgh could not be at regular 30-minute intervals, but maybe closer to 20 / 40 minutes, to give a bigger gap in which to allow the freights to struggle slowly up the hills.

 

[Ianno87]

No, it's not. Clarity, understandability and consistency are key parts of the railway's potential. It is not just about getting from Euston to Glasgow Central quickly - not least because it is unlikely that the origin is within walking distance of Euston and the destination within walking distance of Glasgow Central.

What is "understandability and consistency?". If you're doing a journey like London-Glasgow, you'll look it up on your phone and see "oh, there's about a train every hour, I'll reserve a seat on that one".

Have you been to the North West recently, or perhaps looked at a map of it? Its physical demographic, other than the major cities being larger, couldn't be closer to Switzerland if you tried.

On Lancaster-Central belt that only intermediate "major" centre is Carlisle...and that's streching it a bit. Otherwise basically sheep and hills.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is "understandability and consistency?". If you're doing a journey like London-Glasgow, you'll look it up on your phone and see "oh, there's about a train every hour, I'll reserve a seat on that one".

I think you're not quite getting how trains work. They aren't just for end to end journey between the two termini. They are for journeys involving all the intermediate calling points and connection to/from those places.

 

[Ianno87]

I think you're not quite getting how trains work. They aren't just for end to end journey between the two termini. They are for journeys involving all the intermediate calling points and connection to/from those places.

HS2 operation should not be designed around the convenience of getting 10 people per hour between Oxenholme amd Penrith. That is the very definition of the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 operation should not be designed around the convenience of getting 10 people per hour between Oxenholme amd Penrith. That is the very definition of the tail wagging the dog.

Have you seen the tourist demand for the Lake District recently?

 

[Ianno87]

Have you seen the tourist demand for the Lake District recently?

I'm guessing it's considerably less than the number of people currently flying between London and the Central Belt every day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm guessing it's considerably less than the number of people currently flying between London and the Central Belt every day.

I'm suspecting it is actually probably many times that, though it mostly travels by car rather than air.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm suspecting it is actually probably many times that, though it mostly travels by car rather than air.

Cars from where? Almost certainly a large proportion places not served by the WCML

Besides, unless HS2 is planning to serve Ambleside, chances are it's going to remain in the car.