HS2 Phase 2b. Why?

[Ianno87]

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?

The paths on HS2 itself, based on 400m length trains?

Although, with the exception of Crewe, these will be serving theoretical future commuters from Birmingham area. These won't be existing commuters (current journey times being not very practical for a daily Brum-Manc commute) but for future commuters who many choose to live in Brum and work in Manchester. Thus will less of a need to live on an existing Manchester commuter line, thus placing less demands on capacity.

 

[Chester1]

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?

50% is very optimistic but it is possible. If a HS2 sevice terminates at Macclesfield it would avoid reliability issues heading through congested track into Manchester. Extending it would depend on demand because there is a risk that it would either be half empty if it started at Macclesfield or swamped by the time it arrived there if it started at Manchester. There is no guarantee there will even be a HS2 service through Macclesfield. Potentially all 3 ICWC paths in and out of Manchester could be freed up and it is easier to timetable trains running at a similiar speed so the number of extra paths should be higher than the number of ICWC paths vacated. If the Manchester Airport HS2 station is built HS2 could absord a large proportion of Piccadilly - Airport passengers especially if a high speed shuttle service was introduced. Fewer services to the current airport station would open up the opportunity to recast Piccadilly's entire timetable but your are right that it is likely to yield significantly less than a 50% capacity increase.

 

[The Ham]

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?

I don't know, however I would guess that by not having any long distance trains leaving Manchester in the morning peak would enable those platforms to be used by other services.

Alright the first train isn't until 0825, there is also an 0846 arrival, so that's two services from London that wood be removed. Then there's the 3 services to London that leave between 0800 and 0900 (as well as the several before that).

Now just because a train runs on one line currently it doesn't mean that there's no capacity on other lines if there were spare platform space. Given that generally it is platform space that limits paths it did will be that by removing 5 trains with you 11 coaches you could have you 10 services of up to 5 coaches in the same platform space. Alternatively it could allow more 8 coach EMU's to run into those longer Platforms.

However, the above is also fairly simplistic in that the long distance services sit in platforms for longer than local services do, especially if you could run services through looking two lines either side together. That could mean that instead of a 390 being say for 20 plus minutes a through service could only use a platform for 5 minutes (including entering and exiting) which wood free up a lot more potential paths.

As an example, when Crossrail 2 is built the spare paths will be used by trains going in a different destination than where they go at present. As the main capacity problem is the platforms at Waterloo. It's also why by reopening the international platforms there will be able to be more services, Even though there's no extra tracks through Clapham Junction.

 

[Greybeard33]

50% is very optimistic but it is possible. If a HS2 sevice terminates at Macclesfield it would avoid reliability issues heading through congested track into Manchester. Extending it would depend on demand because there is a risk that it would either be half empty if it started at Macclesfield or swamped by the time it arrived there if it started at Manchester. There is no guarantee there will even be a HS2 service through Macclesfield. Potentially all 3 ICWC paths in and out of Manchester could be freed up and it is easier to timetable trains running at a similiar speed so the number of extra paths should be higher than the number of ICWC paths vacated. If the Manchester Airport HS2 station is built HS2 could absord a large proportion of Piccadilly - Airport passengers especially if a high speed shuttle service was introduced. Fewer services to the current airport station would open up the opportunity to recast Piccadilly's entire timetable but your are right that it is likely to yield significantly less than a 50% capacity increase.

I think there would be fierce opposition to any proposal to cut the direct services between Manchester Airport classic station and Merseyside/Yorkshire/Lancashire/Cheshire/Cumbria/Scotland, in order to force passengers to change to HS2 at Piccadilly. It will be a long trek between the Piccadilly through platforms and the HS2 platforms on the opposite side of the main shed. And at the other end, there will be a slow tram or bus transfer needed between the the airport terminal and the HS2 station on the other side of the M56.

I don't know, however I would guess that by not having any long distance trains leaving Manchester in the morning peak would enable those platforms to be used by other services.

Alright the first train isn't until 0825, there is also an 0846 arrival, so that's two services from London that wood be removed. Then there's the 3 services to London that leave between 0800 and 0900 (as well as the several before that).

Now just because a train runs on one line currently it doesn't mean that there's no capacity on other lines if there were spare platform space. Given that generally it is platform space that limits paths it did will be that by removing 5 trains with you 11 coaches you could have you 10 services of up to 5 coaches in the same platform space. Alternatively it could allow more 8 coach EMU's to run into those longer Platforms.

However, the above is also fairly simplistic in that the long distance services sit in platforms for longer than local services do, especially if you could run services through looking two lines either side together. That could mean that instead of a 390 being say for 20 plus minutes a through service could only use a platform for 5 minutes (including entering and exiting) which wood free up a lot more potential paths.

With 12 terminal platforms at Piccadilly, I do not think platform occupancy limits paths currently. The main constraint on paths is the capacity of the flat junctions to the south - Slade Lane Jn, the two Edgeley junctions and Cheadle Hulme Jn. And the length of local trains is constrained more by platform lengths at the local stations than by the need for multiple platform occupancy at Piccadilly.

 

[Sceptre]

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

I mean, it's not as if the Northern franchise is deliberately designed to be unprofitable or anything.

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).

Transpennine wires will benefit more people in Liverpool, Hull, Middlesborough, Newcastle too for the same "few hundred million" than those two junctions will supposedly benefit.

And to the DfT, we've seen time and time again that they won't give "a few hundred million" to Northern infrastructure (cough cough, Leeds Supertram) but will bend over backwards for London (see: Barking Riverside).

 

[The Ham]

I mean, it's not as if the Northern franchise is deliberately designed to be unprofitable or anything.

You obviously haven't seen my posts elsewhere where I compare the "profitable" TPE and SWT:

You know that's unfair in that everyone knows that the profitable routes in the north are run by TPE!!!

However, even based on TPE's subsidises over a 20 year period the SWT area could have just over £11.5 billion spent on it and still only have the same level of total funding as if it had the same level of support as TPE.

Given that infrastructure is often based on a 60 year period then to have a fair level of investment then Crossrail 2 should be built. Even if TPE's subsidy reduces over time then the infrastructure investment it receives would make up any shortfall to cover the total cost of Crossrail 2.

However, that could still lead to problems as with more trains running then the profitably of the SWT franchise would likely to improve meaning that more investment was needed to keep things fair. That's without any local taxation in London.

Fund Crossrail 2 for a fair level of rail spending.

Transpennine wires will benefit more people in Liverpool, Hull, Middlesborough, Newcastle too for the same "few hundred million" than those two junctions will supposedly benefit.

And to the DfT, we've seen time and time again that they won't give "a few hundred million" to Northern infrastructure (cough cough, Leeds Supertram) but will bend over backwards for London (see: Barking Riverside).

Those two junctions will benefit more passengers thanks the electrification of TPE. Take for instance Newcastle and Woking, but have a similar number of entries and exits as each other, yet the new junction at Woking would benefit every single one of them plus every other passenger that goes through the station. Yet Newcastle is likely to have a significant percentage of its entries and exits that use VEC trains (and metro services) that wouldn't benefit from the TPE electrification.

Although Liverpool has a much larger number of passengers it too has a significant local rail network that it is part of and so that, as well as the VWC and LM services which will make up a significant number of those passengers.

As for Hull, it has something like 1/3 of the passengers that Basingstoke has about that of Fleet and Winchfield combined (two fairly minor stations between Woking and Basingstoke).

The other thing to bear in mind is that Those two junctions would allow a 50% increase in all train services that pass through Woking which bearing in mind the numbers of passengers that already use the services could attract significantly more passengers than the electrification of the TPE lines. That in turn makes it a "better investment" in terms of payback.

I feel that those that get a bee in their bonnet about how poor done by the north is don't quite realise how much of all rail travel is undertaken in the South East as small towns with populations of 10,000 can have a station with over 750,000 passengers a year. Something like 2/3 of all rail travel is classed as London and the South East (plus those that use intercity rail travel which isn't counted in those figures).

Also there are times when investment happens in London and the South East and it benefits other areas. For example the new junction at Reading will allow more trains to Bristol as well as Devon and Cornwall (all in the South West). Likewise the junctions at Basingstoke and Woking could also benefit WofE services to Exeter.

Does that mean that there shouldn't be investment in area outside of the South East, no far from it. I would welcome it. However I do wish that people would stop moaning that their trains aren't as good as other people and that there should be a "fair" level of investment, when the levels of government support (investment and subsidy) probably isn't that different over the whole country. Especially if that support is based on the number of passengers who use the services.

 

[Sceptre]

Oh yes, Northern commuters should definitely stop moaning that commuters are shoved into two-car rolling stock that even the Islamic Republic of Iran didn't want to subject onto their own citizens.

Even when adjusting for all other factors, London and the South East has an absolutely ridiculous advantage in per-capita transport spending. Even by their best estimates, Barking Riverside will only benefit 25,000 people. Transpennine electrification, at twice the cost at most, will benefit a hundred times as many people.

 

[The Ham]

Oh yes, Northern commuters should definitely stop moaning that commuters are shoved into two-car rolling stock that even the Islamic Republic of Iran didn't want to subject onto their own citizens.

Even when adjusting for all other factors, London and the South East has an absolutely ridiculous advantage in per-capita transport spending. Even by their best estimates, Barking Riverside will only benefit 25,000 people. Transpennine electrification, at twice the cost at most, will benefit a hundred times as many people.

I never said that Northern shouldn't have been given more investment, in fact I agree that the Pacers should have been replaced a long time ago.

With regards to numbers of people that will benefit there is a difference between the number of people who live in an area and the number of people who will benefit for a station/service by using it. If there a new service between a fairly major city and a small, mostly residential, town although the service would have a catchment of say 500,000 people it would only really benefit the 6,000 people in the small town.

Now depending on the time taken to dive into the city it could be that the train isn't very competitive, add in fairly easy parking and the service is likely to be poorly used. Based on your argument that service should be funded over a service linking two much smaller places which has a busy rail service already because it doesn't "benefit as many people".

As I have said I don't think that some people understand just how many rail passengers there are in the South East. You talk of people being rammed into Pacers, which if they were extended to 4 coaches would probably have lots of space. Yet there are trains heading away from London in the morning peak which between Woking and Guildford (the last stop for half the services) are full even though there's 4 trains an hour all of which are between 8 and 12 coaches long. Even trains that arrive to Guildford before 8am have few spare seats. Yet Guildford has a population of less than 100,000 and so by your definition shouldn't see improvements.

Yet in the evening peak there are trains which are 5 coaches long which are often full and standing from Guildford to Woking. The train is so busy that it often runs late because of the number of people getting on and off at both Guildford and Woking. Yet even with 4 tph and most trains are 10 or 12 coachs there's still need for more coaches. However, even off peak there are lots of 4 coach trains (again on 4tph) which have people standing.

The reason for it, is that although Guildford has a similar number of passengers as Newcastle it has 1/3 the population. As such any improvements for Guildford would benefit the times as many passengers as Newcastle. Within London the ratio would be much higher.

As such sine like Barking Riverside although may only have a population of circa 25,000 it could benefit as many passengers as somewhere with at least 3 times the population in terms of passengers who benefit. In fact TPE electrification is likely to only benefit something like 100th the number of passengers that Barking Riverside would add only a tiny fraction of some of the large places it serves will use those services. Whilst a massive number of the small number of people at Barking Riverside would the service.

 

[Chester1]

I think there would be fierce opposition to any proposal to cut the direct services between Manchester Airport classic station and Merseyside/Yorkshire/Lancashire/Cheshire/Cumbria/Scotland, in order to force passengers to change to HS2 at Piccadilly. It will be a long trek between the Piccadilly through platforms and the HS2 platforms on the opposite side of the main shed. And at the other end, there will be a slow tram or bus transfer needed between the the airport terminal and the HS2 station on the other side of the M56.

By 2025 terminal 1 will have been demolished and terminals 2 and 3 upgraded and extended westwards. The NR station will still be the best located but the HS2 station will be near enough for a travelator link under or over the motorway.

There are 9tph using the airport station. I would reduce it to:

Liverpool
Cleethorpes via Sheffield and Doncaster
Scotland via ECML
Newcastle
2tph for local stopping services

Middlesbrough, Blackpool and the 3tpd off peak ATW services and useful but not essential. Upto 3tph could run between Manchester and Crewe bypassing the airport and Stockport allowing new services on the Stockport route. It would be odd to have a HS Airport Station linked by HS2 to Piccadilly and not use it as the primary link especially when there is a shortage of paths on the existing network.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Barking Riverside is also one of those cases when transport investment is absolutely required for the site to be developed. The planning approval for the site says there can be 9000 homes if the train station is built, 4000 if approved but not yet built and only 1000 if not built. Since providing extra homes is such a political and economic imperative the case for spending a bit on a rail branch line is very easy to make. That level of development is very rarely immediately unlocked in the North or outside of London.

Also, if it hadn't already become clear the days of 2-car Pacers are numbered. The Northern franchise is committed to replacing them in the next few years. London Midland's order for extra DMUs will help clear out more Pacers and old Sprinter units from the national fleet. It's not been a great decade but finally we can see the light at the end of the tunnel as so many improvement schemes come online at around the same time.

 

[edwin_m]

By 2025 terminal 1 will have been demolished and terminals 2 and 3 upgraded and extended westwards. The NR station will still be the best located but the HS2 station will be near enough for a travelator link under or over the motorway.

There are 9tph using the airport station. I would reduce it to:

Liverpool
Cleethorpes via Sheffield and Doncaster
Scotland via ECML
Newcastle
2tph for local stopping services

Middlesbrough, Blackpool and the 3tpd off peak ATW services and useful but not essential. Upto 3tph could run between Manchester and Crewe bypassing the airport and Stockport allowing new services on the Stockport route. It would be odd to have a HS Airport Station linked by HS2 to Piccadilly and not use it as the primary link especially when there is a shortage of paths on the existing network.

Although some of the services at the Airport don't carry many passengers, those that they do carry are more likely to be long-distance and less likely to use the train at all if they have to change in Manchester. Operationally speaking the Airport provides terminating facilities for trains from the north and west which would otherwise need new infrastructure to turn them back elsewhere.

On the other hand there will be no turnback facility at the Airport HS2 station and reversing in the main platforms is unlikely to be acceptable. So the service between this station and Piccadilly would be limited to trains to/from the south on HS2 or the west on HS3 if it uses this route. This would result in an unattractive split of stations for people arriving at the airport and heading for the centre of Manchester, who may not be familiar with the local network.

Therefore I can't see that HS2 allows removal of any of the Airport terminators. Even a HS3 service to Liverpool wouldn't remove the need for the classic service, unless HS3 or some sort of high speed tram provided a decent substitute for Warrington.

I'm also unsure what you are proposing between Manchester and Crewe and why. Existing services via either Airport or Stockport provide important links to those places, and of these HS2 only replaces Airport-Crewe (but not Airport-Wilmslow etc).

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Airport gets many of the services that it has just because it's the most convenient place to terminate trains which have come in from the Deansgate route. It gives passengers a lot more value than any other terminating location closer, while there's little beyond there to go to either.

What might well happen is that the existing line will see a more regular stopping service, with the HS2 service providing the express route. Then it's like the HEx/Elizabeth/Piccadilly line split at Heathrow.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Airport gets many of the services that it has just because it's the most convenient place to terminate trains which have come in from the Deansgate route. It gives passengers a lot more value than any other terminating location closer, while there's little beyond there to go to either.

What might well happen is that the existing line will see a more regular stopping service, with the HS2 service providing the express route. Then it's like the HEx/Elizabeth/Piccadilly line split at Heathrow.

There are no paths for additional stopping services on the classic Manchester Airport line. So a more regular stopping service would mean trains to Glasgow and Newcastle stopping at Burnage and Mauldeth Road. Hardly comparable to the Piccadilly line.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are no paths for additional stopping services on the classic Manchester Airport line. So a more regular stopping service would mean trains to Glasgow and Newcastle stopping at Burnage and Mauldeth Road. Hardly comparable to the Piccadilly line.

Wouldn't these services run as NPR ones? Glasgow trains, for instance, would eventually need to be run by HS2 once any new HS bypasses are built to slice down the Scotland journey times. There's not a lot of point in using a 400km/h HS2 classic-compatible on a service which will end up trundling through Salford Central. In my view, NPR should be about providing fast mainline routes in and out of the various cities of the north. Manchester has a case for three routes - to the south, to the west and to the east. A daft Liverpool-Leeds routing via the Airport might speed up that journey but it won't do anything for the Bolton corridor and travel to Preston and the wider North West. You could use that proposed underground NPR station for trains going from west to south and west to east - while London trains will continue running into the station above you could extend the 2tph from Birmingham through to Liverpool or Preston, and extend some Preston trains through to the Airport. Leeds trains might not be able to serve the Airport but there would be a swift change available at Piccadilly.

A particular like of mine is that HS2 will have a 1155mm platform height, which opens the door to sharing infrastructure between traditional HS2 trains and more regional services. A glorified Javelin train could be used for express Northern and TPE services, keep up with HS2 trains on the 230km/h shared branch sections and call at the same platforms using the gap fillers which are planned anyway. No longer required is to use the inaccessible continental low platforms or to have HS1-style split platforming arrangements for the different trains. It becomes a lot easier to make the most of the expensive HS2/NPR infrastructure if it can really just become an express Neubaustrecke-style system of new lines.

 

[Class 170101]

By 2025 terminal 1 will have been demolished and terminals 2 and 3 upgraded and extended westwards. The NR station will still be the best located but the HS2 station will be near enough for a travelator link under or over the motorway.

There are 9tph using the airport station. I would reduce it to:

Liverpool
Cleethorpes via Sheffield and Doncaster
Scotland via ECML
Newcastle
2tph for local stopping services

Middlesbrough, Blackpool and the 3tpd off peak ATW services and useful but not essential. Upto 3tph could run between Manchester and Crewe bypassing the airport and Stockport allowing new services on the Stockport route. It would be odd to have a HS Airport Station linked by HS2 to Piccadilly and not use it as the primary link especially when there is a shortage of paths on the existing network.

I still think you will want a direct link to Scotland via the WCML. Also ATW is now more than three trains per day - more like 10 to 12 since the off peak Manchester terminators were extended.

I do not see HS2 as it stands currently proposed - terminating at Manchester changing this.

 

[Greybeard33]

Wouldn't these services run as NPR ones?

This thread is about HS2 Phase 2b, which is a stand-alone project that is not dependent on authorisation/funding of NPR/HS3. I suggest that any further NPR discussions are continued in the HS3 Timeline and Ideas thread.

 

[Chester1]

This thread is about HS2 Phase 2b, which is a stand-alone project that is not dependent on authorisation/funding of NPR/HS3. I suggest that any further NPR discussions are continued in the HS3 Timeline and Ideas thread.

How about discussing what the role of the HS2 Manchester Airport will be if its built? It seems a bit odd if a HS line goes past the 3rd largest Airport in UK with no station or if it is built with fewer services and usage than the NR station?

 

[edwin_m]

How about discussing what the role of the HS2 Manchester Airport will be if its built? It seems a bit odd if a HS line goes past the 3rd largest Airport in UK with no station or if it is built with fewer services and usage than the NR station?

The purpose of the Airport HS2 station is to provide HS2 access to/from a large part of south Manchester and drive-up access from Cheshire as well as serving the airport itself. I agree it would be odd to pass by without such a station especially as Birmingham has something similar. However I doubt HS2 will want local passengers between the airport station and Piccadilly, as I believe they don't want similar short journeys between OOC and Euston. Any HS3/NPR services calling at the Airport are for another thread.

 

[HSTEd]

Honestly I expect HS2 wants any passengers it can get on any route it can get.

Even if they only charge a pound they will still make money, and anything that makes the passenger numbers go up is useful politically.

 

[Class 170101]

The purpose of the Airport HS2 station is to provide HS2 access to/from a large part of south Manchester and drive-up access from Cheshire as well as serving the airport itself. I agree it would be odd to pass by without such a station especially as Birmingham has something similar. However I doubt HS2 will want local passengers between the airport station and Piccadilly, as I believe they don't want similar short journeys between OOC and Euston. Any HS3/NPR services calling at the Airport are for another thread.

Good luck with that I have been known to use HS1 between Stratford and St Pancras and frankly they will need all the revenue they can get. It will also take pressure off the northern part of the Circle Line between Paddington and Euston Square.

 

[Chester1]

Good luck with that I have been known to use HS1 between Stratford and St Pancras and frankly they will need all the revenue they can get. It will also take pressure off the northern part of the Circle Line between Paddington and Euston Square.

I agree and with advanced tickets being available for mobile purchase until 10 mins before departure it will be hard to stop.

There will a maximium of 3 London and 2 Birmingham services from Piccadilly. It would be mad not to have a HS Airport service when there will be such a large number of paths spare. Id guess with the correct procedures and infrastructure 4tph would be possible with two units and two platforms of 200m. The Piccadilly to London services could be pick up only southbound and drop off only northbound to avoid them being swamped with Airport to city centre passengers, this shouldn't be difficult at a purpose built station. The existing station could be called Manchester Airport Terminal 2 Railway Station and the high speed station Manchester Airport Terminal 3 Railway Station to nudge people to split between the two. TfGM already have a transport works act for a loop from the airport stop through Davenport Green and past the hospital, so the Metrolink could easily have a service linking the two anyway and be valid for use between the two for anyone with a ticket to or from the airport railway stations. Obviously once terminal 1 is demolished (by 2025) the terminals will probably be renamed but you can see my point!

 

[edwin_m]

I sort of agree it would be sensible to have an Airport service on HS2, but it would be part of NPR/HS3 not part of the core HS2 service. And there's another thread for that.

 

[quantinghome]

Good luck with that I have been known to use HS1 between Stratford and St Pancras and frankly they will need all the revenue they can get. It will also take pressure off the northern part of the Circle Line between Paddington and Euston Square.

That's a bit different considering HS1 domestic services are designed for commuters, not long distance passengers. It would become a problem on HS2 if people using it for Euston-OOC take up slots for long distance passengers and extend dwell times at OOC. But if those aren't significant issues I don't see what would be wrong with it.

 

[TheDavibob]

That's a bit different considering HS1 domestic services are designed for commuters, not long distance passengers. It would become a problem on HS2 if people using it for Euston-OOC take up slots for long distance passengers and extend dwell times at OOC. But if those aren't significant issues I don't see what would be wrong with it.

I think it would be a problem, though. It's similar to Watford, Reading and (I think) Clapham Junction being only for customers outside London (on fast services), heavy commuter loading cripples the intercity service.

Also, I can't see it being terribly useful for commuters anyway, unless they're starting at Euston itself. Given interchange times it will offer essentially no benefit over the tube (and Crossrail), I wouldn't have thought.

 

[Greybeard33]

I agree and with advanced tickets being available for mobile purchase until 10 mins before departure it will be hard to stop.

There will a maximium of 3 London and 2 Birmingham services from Piccadilly. It would be mad not to have a HS Airport service when there will be such a large number of paths spare. Id guess with the correct procedures and infrastructure 4tph would be possible with two units and two platforms of 200m. The Piccadilly to London services could be pick up only southbound and drop off only northbound to avoid them being swamped with Airport to city centre passengers, this shouldn't be difficult at a purpose built station. The existing station could be called Manchester Airport Terminal 2 Railway Station and the high speed station Manchester Airport Terminal 3 Railway Station to nudge people to split between the two. TfGM already have a transport works act for a loop from the airport stop through Davenport Green and past the hospital, so the Metrolink could easily have a service linking the two anyway and be valid for use between the two for anyone with a ticket to or from the airport railway stations. Obviously once terminal 1 is demolished (by 2025) the terminals will probably be renamed but you can see my point!

Where will the demand come from to fill 200m long, 4tph shuttle trains between Manchester and the Airport? There is overcapacity on the existing airport services!

Far from the 3tph to London and 2tph to Birmingham being "swamped" with Piccadilly to Airport passengers, I imagine that those alighting at the Airport HS station will often be outnumbered by railheaders (who currently use Stockport or Wilmslow) boarding for journeys to London or Birmingham, plus business travellers from Airport City. The Birmingham trains might also attract some airline passengers to use Manchester Airport instead of Birmingham International Airport.

Incidentally, Terminal 3 will be even further from the HS station than Terminal 2!

 

[HSTEd]

Unless you seriously think it is possible to fill 18 400m train combinations between OOC and Euston an hour with long distance passengers off the bat, it costs very little to support the short distance passengers. [Extra rolling stock and marginal electricity cost]

I could see the section between Manchester Airport High Speed and Picadilly turning into an ersatz park and ride.... perhaps provision of a very large car park would be advisable. (For compactness and security perhaps an automatic sled based one?)

 

[edwin_m]

I could see the section between Manchester Airport High Speed and Picadilly turning into an ersatz park and ride.... perhaps provision of a very large car park would be advisable. (For compactness and security perhaps an automatic sled based one?)

You'd need a pretty clever ticketing system because car parking for airports and long distance trains is (and in my view should be) expensive, and parking for local trips into town is (and in my view should be) cheap or free.

 

[Greybeard33]

You'd need a pretty clever ticketing system because car parking for airports and long distance trains is (and in my view should be) expensive, and parking for local trips into town is (and in my view should be) cheap or free.

The M56 west of the Airport is frequently itself like a car park in the peaks, even today. I doubt that it will improve by 2033, so HS2 is unlikely to be popular with Manchester commuters, regardless of parking charges.

 

[HSTEd]

You'd need a pretty clever ticketing system because car parking for airports and long distance trains is (and in my view should be) expensive, and parking for local trips into town is (and in my view should be) cheap or free.

Well you could just have the first 24 hours be very cheap and additional days expensive.

Or we could just accept that people will drive to the station/airport and be happy that we are preventing them driving the entire way (in the former case).

 

[Chester1]

Where will the demand come from to fill 200m long, 4tph shuttle trains between Manchester and the Airport? There is overcapacity on the existing airport services!

Far from the 3tph to London and 2tph to Birmingham being "swamped" with Piccadilly to Airport passengers, I imagine that those alighting at the Airport HS station will often be outnumbered by railheaders (who currently use Stockport or Wilmslow) boarding for journeys to London or Birmingham, plus business travellers from Airport City. The Birmingham trains might also attract some airline passengers to use Manchester Airport instead of Birmingham International Airport.

Incidentally, Terminal 3 will be even further from the HS station than Terminal 2!

I put them the wrong way around but you can still see my point. If there is a travelator link to the HS2 station and the stations are named after the terminals then it will naturally increase use. 4tph would provide a regular service. I didn't say 200m long trains but 200m platforms. This would allow for future growth and allow for extra capacity for major events etc. Airport passengers are likely to be unsuited for London and Birmingham services because they wont be able to book tickets from the airport in advance without risking losing money if their flight arrives in late and they will carry a lot of luggage adding to dwell times. If the Airport HS2 station is built it is unlikely that every service will stop there because of the journey time penalty. One HS2 London service and one HS2 Birmingham service would be adequate for people using the airport HS2 station as a railhead. A dedicated service makes sense. Maybe I am wrong and approximately £1bn will be spent on a HS2 station at the airport and it will mostly cater for local residents while the exisiting station services all stay and waste paths on congested lines in Piccadilly but that doesn't make sense. The cost of HS2 means it should be used to release capacity on the NR network at every opportunity.