HS2 Phase 2b. Why?

[222ben]

I've always wondered why HS2 Phase 2B is so large, covering so many routes. Could somebody please enlighten me to why this is?

 

[matacaster]

I've always wondered why HS2 Phase 2B is so large, covering so many routes. Could somebody please enlighten me to why this is?

Probably so that when HS2 has made it to Birmingham (if ever? -although it's the most likely to succeed), it will be easier to kill off the northern sections as being too costly. The Leeds and Manchester branches are, of course, merely a sop to northerners who think all the rail investment is going to London (it is, deliberately -more passengers, MORE VOTERS). The rational behind the southern (Birmingham to London) was always capacity and the desire of the great and good to be able to get cheaper workers into London who live in Birmingham. The problem was always the great cost of the southern section, so to get round that, they offer a carrot to Leeds and Manchester and in due course discover its unaffordable!

 

[HSTEd]

The rational behind the southern (Birmingham to London) was always capacity and the desire of the great and good to be able to get cheaper workers into London who live in Birmingham. The problem was always the great cost of the southern section, so to get round that, they offer a carrot to Leeds and Manchester and in due course discover its unaffordable!

But Manchester is only 15-20 minutes further from London than Birmingham on HS2.

And Manchester has tonnes of cheap labour.
Same with Leeds.

Birmingham cannot possibly justify HS2 alone, it can generate maybe 4-5tph, and good luck providing classic destinations for the 26 half-sets per hour worth of capacity needed to make the BCR figures add up

 

[edwin_m]

The WCML is still pretty full further north and phase 2 also provides some capacity relief to the MML and ECML (less than to the WCML, but these two routes are also less busy). It also allows a significant journey time and capacity benefit for Birmingham to North East England, which is slow today compared with the main lines out of London.

 

[222ben]

Thanks. That clears it up then.

 

[Ianno87]

I think a lot of the case for Phase 2B stems from 'Wider Economic Benefits', rather than traditional transport benefits.

I.e, the stations are sited in areas with potential for employment development around the station areas (e.g. Airport City at Manchester Airport), business of course being attracted by the good transport links (I.e. Lovely shiny concrete in the ground to prove it) and connections to Birmingham and London.

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 Phase 1 has a BCR of 1.6. Phase 1+2 has a BCR of 2.3. Phase 1 only went ahead because Phase 2 was planned to happen right after it. Phase 1 involves spending a lot of money to benefit not an enormous number of people by very much. Phase 2 involves spending much less money per kilometre to benefit a lot more people, especially the eastern arm.

 

[The Ham]

According to a recent news story by building HS2 it would allow the doubling of seats in the peaks for Manchester and Leeds for the local trains on the classic network.

I think that a lot of people have been looking at HS2 with what it will do for long distance rail travel, however most have but thought about what could be done if the majority of the paths were used for local services.

Yes there will be a few extra semi fast services (for major stations between HS2 stations) but most will be for commuter services increasing capacity in to our major cities.

 

[Holly]

The WCML is still pretty full further north and phase 2 also provides some capacity relief to the MML and ECML (less than to the WCML, but these two routes are also less busy). It also allows a significant journey time and capacity benefit for Birmingham to North East England, which is slow today compared with the main lines out of London.

The most overloaded part of the WCML in the North is the section Winsford to Weaver Junction. And HS2 does nothing to help that section.

 

[Chris125]

The most overloaded part of the WCML in the North is the section Winsford to Weaver Junction. And HS2 does nothing to help that section.

It's relative, there are far more trains and passengers involved further south.

 

[The Ham]

The most overloaded part of the WCML in the North is the section Winsford to Weaver Junction. And HS2 does nothing to help that section.

No, and it is unlikely to change to fix that problem.

The reason being is that HS2 is about fixing capacity for local services into our major cities, it's just doing that by getting the intercity trains out of the way so that the local services (which all run at broadly the same speed) can run more efficiently.

It also means that rather than a local service only taking 15 minutes less time to get somewhere t will take a lot more time, meaning that more people will be included to use the faster services. In fact for some places it could be quicker to use HS2 to go beyond where you are going and double back which could spread passengers out more.

It could also mean that someone leaving London at say 3pm will have finished their journey before the evening peak rather than having to get into a peak time service or of a major city just as everyone else is doing so.

 

[edwin_m]

The most overloaded part of the WCML in the North is the section Winsford to Weaver Junction. And HS2 does nothing to help that section.

HS2 as currently proposed will take the London-Glasgow trains off that section, and a northern connection that might form part of the Crewe Hub could also remove other trains.

 

[snowball]

HS2 as currently proposed will take the London-Glasgow trains off that section,

And Birmingham-Glagow/Edinburgh.

Are any others proposed? London to Preston/Blackpool/Carlisle?

 

[Altnabreac]

And Birmingham-Glagow/Edinburgh.

Are any others proposed? London to Preston/Blackpool/Carlisle?

It also potentially removes legacy WCML services from that section as it has been suggested by HS2 Ltd that you could run the legacy classic Scotland / Carlisle - London Euston WCML services via Bolton and Manchester Picadilly instead of via Crewe.

 

[Greybeard33]

According to a recent news story by building HS2 it would allow the doubling of seats in the peaks for Manchester and Leeds for the local trains on the classic network.

I think that a lot of people have been looking at HS2 with what it will do for long distance rail travel, however most have but thought about what could be done if the majority of the paths were used for local services.

Yes there will be a few extra semi fast services (for major stations between HS2 stations) but most will be for commuter services increasing capacity in to our major cities.

At present there are 3tph from Manchester Piccadilly to Euston and 2tph to Birmingham New Street, which continue to Bristol and Bournemouth. Between them these trains also provide 4tph from Manchester to Stoke on Trent and 2tph to Macclesfield, neither of which will be served by HS2.

How many of these five paths will be freed up for local services by HS2 Phase 2b? Will passengers for Bristol and Bournemouth be forced to transfer from Curzon Street to New Street in Birmingham, instead of getting a direct service? Will the service from Manchester to Macclesfield and Stoke become slower/less frequent?

 

[edwin_m]

At present there are 3tph from Manchester Piccadilly to Euston and 2tph to Birmingham New Street, which continue to Bristol and Bournemouth. Between them these trains also provide 4tph from Manchester to Stoke on Trent and 2tph to Macclesfield, neither of which will be served by HS2.

How many of these five paths will be freed up for local services by HS2 Phase 2b? Will passengers for Bristol and Bournemouth be forced to transfer from Curzon Street to New Street in Birmingham, instead of getting a direct service? Will the service from Manchester to Macclesfield and Stoke become slower/less frequent?

The latest idea is to serve Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield with an hourly HS2 service from London, using a path created by splitting and joining other HS2 services at Crewe. This might also continue to Stockport and Manchester, as Macclesfield seems a rather pointless place to terminate.

With or without this extra service, London-Manchester trains might still run via the existing route but would make extra calls, thus providing better links from the likes of MK, Rugby and Nuneaton both southwards and northwards. So some places would get extra services on the classic route but where a place has a fast London service now it might be a little slower. Without the extra HS2 service mentioned above, Stoke could be in that category.

I imagine the Manchester-Birmingham classic service would continue roughly as now, because the places it calls today need a reasonable service and there are no places on that route that need an extra stop. They would probably still continue beyond Birmingham to provide a through service, but most of the journeys starting in Manchester and ending in Birmingham or vice versa will transfer to HS2 so there will be more space on the existing trains. So this part of the network doesn't see a lot of change, perhaps one or two of the three Manchester-London services disappearing.

 

[The Planner]

Stops at Macclesfield as you can spin it there and you wont get it across Cheadle Hulme.

 

[quantinghome]

Will passengers for Bristol and Bournemouth be forced to transfer from Curzon Street to New Street in Birmingham, instead of getting a direct service?

As others have posted, there will likely be a residual cross-country service on the existing network so the regional destinations continue to be served. As is the case now, these are likely to be direct services through Birmingham as this is more operationally convenient than terminating trains at New Street.

If I were planning this service (I'm not, btw!) my working assumption would be that most passengers on long distance journeys would prefer to use the overall faster option of HS2 with a change, rather than the direct service. As a result I would imagine that the cross-country network would be curtailed to an X-shape serving Manchester, Leeds/York, Reading and Bristol (extending West as required). We need to bear in mind that HS2 radically alters the UK's railway geography in a number of ways:

- Long distance journeys from the North to the Thames Valley and South Coast will be quickest with a change at Old Oak Common (assuming that a Paddington-Reading-Southampton-Bournemouth service is established).
- South Midlands destinations will probably be quickest via Birmingham Interchange.
- Bristol - Birmingham services could run to Moor street rather than New Street to better connect with HS2.
- Freed up capacity on the WCML plus the building of E-W rail would open up cross-country routes which bypass Birmingham altogether.

I would anticipate that some origin/destination journey pairs which are currently direct will not be direct in the future. However I think these will be a relatively small proportion of overall journeys taken, and that other long distance cross country journeys which are currently quite inconvenient will be significantly improved by HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

You could, if you had relativley inexpensive classic compatible units with commuter interiors (some sort of Super 395) extend the Styal Line service that terminates at Crewe to Birmingham Curzon street. [I imagine you would cut the Manchester Airport stop from most of the Trains!]

As I have said before, you have endless possibilities provided by the fact that the sections north of Birmingham will be operating at less than half their potential capacity.

 

[Class 170101]

Stops at Macclesfield as you can spin it there and you wont get it across Cheadle Hulme.

Surely the HS2 service would just take an existing Euston to Manchesetr classic path from Macclesfield to Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

It would if the timetable was kept the same....

 

[Kettledrum]

If I were planning this service (I'm not, btw!) my working assumption would be that most passengers on long distance journeys would prefer to use the overall faster option of HS2 with a change, rather than the direct service. As a result I would imagine that the cross-country network would be curtailed.....
- Long distance journeys from the North to the Thames Valley and South Coast will be quickest with a change at Old Oak Common (assuming that a Paddington-Reading-Southampton-Bournemouth service is established).

My working assumption, after years of talking to passengers, is that general passengers often hate having to change trains. Rail enthusiasts often don't mind at all, but it's particularly unpopular for the elderly, disabled, passengers with heavy luggage and passengers with young children.

You have to make connection time reasonably short, platform changes minimised and very straight forward, and services extremely reliable

The current fragmented railway does not have a good track record with any of these.

I regularly travel from Birmingham to Bournemouth - a journey of just over 3 hours. If I take HS2 to Old Oak Common in 45 minutes, take 15 minutes to change and make a connection to a new Paddington to Bournemouth train service, my guess is it will still take about 3 hours, with the added inconvenience of having to change trains, and wait on a cold and draughty platform at Old Oak Common.

It doesn't sound that attractive at all. The only thing that might make me even contemplate it, is when I think how over-crowded and poor the XC service is now.

 

[The Ham]

My working assumption, after years of talking to passengers, is that general passengers often hate having to change trains. Rail enthusiasts often don't mind at all, but it's particularly unpopular for the elderly, disabled, passengers with heavy luggage and passengers with young children.

You have to make connection time reasonably short, platform changes minimised and very straight forward, and services extremely reliable

The current fragmented railway does not have a good track record with any of these.

I regularly travel from Birmingham to Bournemouth - a journey of just over 3 hours. If I take HS2 to Old Oak Common in 45 minutes, take 15 minutes to change and make a connection to a new Paddington to Bournemouth train service, my guess is it will still take about 3 hours, with the added inconvenience of having to change trains, and wait on a cold and draughty platform at Old Oak Common.

It doesn't sound that attractive at all. The only thing that might make me even contemplate it, is when I think how over-crowded and poor the XC service is now.

Your assumptions for any two points on the XC network are fair, however there are a lot of people who already have to change trains to get to the XC network. As such for them it did be that rather than changing at, say, Basingstoke or Reading they change at Old Oak Common instead.

For instance passengers from Fleet (even Farnborough to a lesser amount given the hourly service from Farnborough North), Woking and Guildford would be able to get to Birmingham significantly quicker than they can at present. They may not be large flows now, but with a better service (faster and more capacity than using XC) and the potential for future growth (baseline) there could be some fairly noticeable flows going forward.

 

[edwin_m]

I think it's unlikely that something like Birmingham to Bournemouth would cease to operate, because the stations in between would still need links to both places. Even a route more directly duplicated by HS2 like Birmingham-York would probably still run, with HS2 taking off the major passenger flows between Birmingham, Leeds and further north but this making room for growth in numbers everwhere else. Where these classic services still run it is also logical to continue to extend them to the more distant XC termini.

 

[quantinghome]

My working assumption, after years of talking to passengers, is that general passengers often hate having to change trains. Rail enthusiasts often don't mind at all, but it's particularly unpopular for the elderly, disabled, passengers with heavy luggage and passengers with young children.

You have to make connection time reasonably short, platform changes minimised and very straight forward, and services extremely reliable

The current fragmented railway does not have a good track record with any of these.

I regularly travel from Birmingham to Bournemouth - a journey of just over 3 hours. If I take HS2 to Old Oak Common in 45 minutes, take 15 minutes to change and make a connection to a new Paddington to Bournemouth train service, my guess is it will still take about 3 hours, with the added inconvenience of having to change trains, and wait on a cold and draughty platform at Old Oak Common.

It doesn't sound that attractive at all. The only thing that might make me even contemplate it, is when I think how over-crowded and poor the XC service is now.

I agree that for your journey, HS2 there would not be much gain going via HS2. However, journeys from Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds (M62 corridor) to the Thames Valley and South Coast will be much, much quicker via OOC. Leeds to Reading is currently 3:30 to 4 hours, but would be less than 2 hours via HS2 and OOC. I can't see many people preferring a direct train which takes over an hour longer.

There will be a location in between Birmingham and the M62 corridor where the benefits of faster journey vs direct service are balanced. This may be around Derby/Sheffield on the Eastern arm, so I would expect XC services to continue at least that far. It may make operational sense to continue these services to Leeds or York, but then, as now, long distance direct XC services are only there because they combine shorter multiple overlapping flows. Whilst they provide a good service for those who have longer journeys, these are a convenient by-product rather than the main rationale of the service.

 

[Sceptre]

The Leeds and Manchester branches are, of course, merely a sop to northerners who think all the rail investment is going to London (it is, deliberately -more passengers, MORE VOTERS)

The population of the cities and boroughs where the TPE core serves – York, Leeds, Kirklees, Tameside, and Manchester – is 2.2 million.

The population of the fourteen districts and boroughs that Crossrail 2 will serve is 2.9 million.

One of these lines is getting thirty times the spend of the other. Can you guess which one?

 

[158756]

The population of the cities and boroughs where the TPE core serves – York, Leeds, Kirklees, Tameside, and Manchester – is 2.2 million.

The population of the fourteen districts and boroughs that Crossrail 2 will serve is 2.9 million.

One of these lines is getting thirty times the spend of the other. Can you guess which one?

The Crossrail 2 districts have 6 times the rail usage of the TPE districts, and that's counting all of Manchester's main stations but not London's.

TPE will be fine when it gets its new 5 coach trains every 10-15 minutes. Crossrail 2's 200m+ trains every 3 minutes will be bursting at the seams the day it opens.

 

[The Ham]

I think it's unlikely that something like Birmingham to Bournemouth would cease to operate, because the stations in between would still need links to both places. Even a route more directly duplicated by HS2 like Birmingham-York would probably still run, with HS2 taking off the major passenger flows between Birmingham, Leeds and further north but this making room for growth in numbers everwhere else. Where these classic services still run it is also logical to continue to extend them to the more distant XC termini.

I don't think that anyone is saying that XC will cut services, rather they will see a different mix of passengers, probably becoming more of a shorter distance service rather than people traveling significant distances in then.

 

[The Ham]

The population of the cities and boroughs where the TPE core serves – York, Leeds, Kirklees, Tameside, and Manchester – is 2.2 million.

The population of the fourteen districts and boroughs that Crossrail 2 will serve is 2.9 million.

One of these lines is getting thirty times the spend of the other. Can you guess which one?

I would guess the one getting the higher level of investment is the one with the lower level of subsidy.

Anyway HS2 will allow something like 50% more seats into Manchester and Leeds during the peaks by freeing up paths on the classic network by removing the IC trains from it. As such there's less of a need to build new lines to prove for future growth.

Also your figures forget about the people from places along the SWML (including Woking, Guildford, Portsmouth, Basingstoke, Alton, Southampton ana Salisbury) who could all see an up to 50% increase in capacity. That would likely double the number of people who would benefit from Crossrail 2 at a very low infrastructure cost (a few hundred million for new junctions at Basingstoke and Woking that would be needed anyway).

 

[Greybeard33]

Anyway HS2 will allow something like 50% more seats into Manchester and Leeds during the peaks by freeing up paths on the classic network by removing the IC trains from it. As such there's less of a need to build new lines to prove for future growth.

From the discussion upthread, HS2 will release, at most, two hourly paths on the classic line into Manchester from Stockport (though less during the morning peak - the first train from London currently does not get to Manchester until 0825). There will be no released capacity on the commuter lines into Manchester from Marple, Glossop, Stalybridge, Rochdale, Bolton, Wigan, Warrington or Manchester Airport. So where are the "50% more seats during the peaks" going to come from?