HS2 Phase One - Possible service patterns (OOC to Curzon St and via Handsacre)

[Nottingham59]

When HS2 opens from Old Oak Common to Birmingham and Handsacre, what services could there be?

This thread is about HS2 phase 1, to Curzon St and Handsacre only. Platform extensions on the classic network are included in the scope, but major investments like "they need to build phase 2a" or "Build HS2 Euston" should go in another thread, please.

== == == ==

Questions that occur to me include:

• How many tph could Old Oak Common actually handle? (The HS2 Phase 1 TSS suggests 6tph; others sources 10tph.)
• How many tph can get actually get through Colwich? What if southbound freight were suspended in the morning peak, and northbound in the evening? How many freight paths are actually needed during the day?
• What WCML passenger services should use Colwich? (Given that every WCML path will exclude an additional HS2 path)
• Should HS2 run Curzon St to Manchester services in Phase 1? (Not in the HS2 TSS)
• Can 400m trains split at stations with platforms less than 400m long? Could they open doors only on one half of the train? Or not at all?
• What services could be cut back in South Manchester to allow more HS2 paths into Piccadilly?
• Could HS2 trains get to Victoria via Chat Moss, like Lumo are planning to do?

== == == ==

For information, the HS2Phase One Full Busines Case (April 2020) included a Modelled Train Service Specification (TSS) of 6tph:

HS2 Phase One full business case

The full business case for the HS2 Phase One route from Birmingham to London.

www.gov.uk

 

[HSTEd]

Well an obvious starting point would be at least four trains per hour to Curzon Street, stopping at Birmingham Interchange.

You could probably run that, in ordinary service, from one dedicated platform at OOC.

 

[Meerkat]

I’m interested in the route of the train from OOC to Liverpool Street via Crewe and Runcorn!!

Well an obvious starting point would be at least four trains per hour to Curzon Street, stopping at Birmingham Interchange.

You could probably run that, in ordinary service, from one dedicated platform at OOC.

Is there even demand for three 400m trains from OOC-Brum?

 

[HSTEd]

Is there even demand for three 400m trains from OOC-Brum?

Well, this depends, under normal circumstances, maybe not.

But the marginal cost of passengers on HS2 is likely much lower than the marginal cost on the classic railway - so it would provide a way to depressurise the southern WCML by pulling all possible Birmingham traffic off the existing line.
Additionally, it could be used to pull budget conscious passengers from destinations further north off the very crowded southern WCML.
Sell a ticket with an out of station interchange in Birmingham as a "quasi LNWR" fare for the likes of Manchester and Liverpool.

 

[Nottingham59]

Well an obvious starting point would be at least four trains per hour to Curzon Street, stopping at Birmingham Interchange.

You could probably run that, in ordinary service, from one dedicated platform at OOC.

That's my thinking too.

Given the current levels of demand, I think there are three possible ways to do OOC-Birmingham:

1. 4tph x 200m shuttle service. By "Shuttle" I mean trains all leave from the same dedicated platform (or island), and all go to the same destination. No reserved seats; if you have a ticket to Birmingham, just go down to Platform 9 and get on the next train. If the safety case limits the number of passengers to the number of seats (550), then set the barriers to count 550 passengers, and then close until the next train has departed.
   
   
2. 2tph x 400m. This would provide the same capacity as (1) but use half the paths. Would still use up one platform.
   
   
3. 4tph x 400m. At current levels of demand, these would be mostly empty. That spare capacity could be used by reversing at Curzon Street and continuing to Manchester or Liverpool etc. Just like Avanti trains to Glasgow via New St combine the Birmingham-Glasgow service with a slower (and cheaper) London-Glasgow train. But it wouldn't be a Shuttle service any more, as consecutive trains do not all go to the same destination.

I really don't know which version I prefer. Which do you think?

 

[The Planner]

Well, this depends, under normal circumstances, maybe not.

But the marginal cost of passengers on HS2 is likely much lower than the marginal cost on the classic railway - so it would provide a way to depressurise the southern WCML by pulling all possible Birmingham traffic off the existing line.

If you are running a Euston to Coventry service, you'll run it to Birmingham.

 

[Nottingham59]

The track layout at OOC can be seen here. The six HS2 platforms are numbered P9 to P14.

In your area map

Search our interactive In Your Area Map to find information about current or planned HS2 construction works taking place across the route.

www.hs2.org.uk

My analysis so far is that, surprisingly, the track layout at Old Oak Common is not a constraint. I've assumed three minute headways and 60 seconds delay from a train clearing a junction to the following train getting movement authority and responding. At 0.5m/s2 acceleraion a departing 400m train should clear the crossover box in 70 seconds, by which time it will have travelled 1.2km and be travelling at 78mph. An arriving train being held standing short of the crossover (i.e. the slowest case) will take 100s to get to the platform, reaching 56mph at the half-way point. I assume the trackwork will be compatible with these speeds.

Here is one example schedule with 6 trains arriving and 6 departing on a 22 minute cycle, giving a capacity of 16.3tph, as follows:

Departures D1 to D4 all use the usual Down running tunnel, which is accesible from P9-P12.

• D1 departs P12 at x:00.
• D2 departs P11 at x:03.
• D3 departs P10 at x:06.
• D4 departs P9 at x:09.

Arrivals U1 to U4 use the Up running tunnel all the way to the OOC station box. U5 and U6 cross over at the Victoria Road Crossover Box and run wrong way to P10 and P9.

• U1 arrives P14 at x:02. 14 min dwell, forms D5.
• U2 arrives P13 at x:05. 14 min dwell, forms D6.
• U3 arrives P12 at x:08. 14 min dwell, forms D7.
• U4 arrives P11 at x:11. 14 min dwell, forms D8.
• U5 arrives P10 at x:14, 14 min dwell, forms D9
• U6 arrives P9 at x:17, 14 min dwell, forms D10

After U6 clears the box (at x:16), the crossover switches to take two northbound Down trains running wrong way in the Up Tunnel, from P14 and P13.

• D5 departs P14 at x:16 (not reaching VCB until x:17)
• D6 departs P13 at x:19 (clearing the Up running tunnel before x:21)

Then the cycle repeats:

• D7 dep P12 at x:22
• D8 dep P11 at x:25
• D9 dep p10 at x:28
• D10 dep P9 at x:31
  
  
• D7 arr P14 at x:24 (having waited if necessary until x:22 for the Up tunnel to clear)
• etc

Working to the nearest second would give a theoretical capacity of well over 16.3 tph. The limiting factor at OOC as a termins is platform dwell times, rather than track capacity.

To give scope for recovery and flexibiity, I suggest we assume OOC can handle 12tph, using all six platforms on a 30-minute cycle.

Where should these 12tph go, and how many of them can get through Colwich?

 

[Horizon22]

The track layout at OOC can be seen here. The six HS2 platforms are numbered P9 to P14.

In your area map

Search our interactive In Your Area Map to find information about current or planned HS2 construction works taking place across the route.

www.hs2.org.uk

My analysis so far is that, surprisingly, the track layout at Old Oak Common is not a constraint. I've assumed three minute headways and 60 seconds delay from a train clearing a junction to the following train getting movement authority and responding. At 0.5m/s2 acceleraion a departing 400m train should clear the crossover box in 70 seconds, by which time it will have travelled 1.2km and be travelling at 78mph. An arriving train being held standing short of the crossover (i.e. the slowest case) will take 100s to get to the platform, reaching 56mph at the half-way point. I assume the trackwork will be compatible with these speeds.

Here is one example schedule with 6 trains arriving and 6 departing on a 22 minute cycle, giving a capacity of 16.3tph, as follows:

Departures D1 to D4 all use the usual Down running tunnel, which is accesible from P9-P12.

• D1 departs P12 at x:00.
• D2 departs P11 at x:03.
• D3 departs P10 at x:06.
• D4 departs P9 at x:09.

Arrivals U1 to U4 use the Up running tunnel all the way to the OOC station box. U5 and U6 cross over at the Victoria Road Crossover Box and run wrong way to P10 and P9.

• U1 arrives P14 at x:02. 14 min dwell, forms D5.
• U2 arrives P13 at x:05. 14 min dwell, forms D6.
• U3 arrives P12 at x:08. 14 min dwell, forms D7.
• U4 arrives P11 at x:11. 14 min dwell, forms D8.
• U5 arrives P10 at x:14, 14 min dwell, forms D9
• U6 arrives P9 at x:17, 14 min dwell, forms D10

After U6 clears the box (at x:16), the crossover switches to take two northbound Down trains running wrong way in the Up Tunnel, from P14 and P13.

• D5 departs P14 at x:16 (not reaching VCB until x:17)
• D6 departs P13 at x:19 (clearing the Up running tunnel before x:21)

Then the cycle repeats:

• D7 dep P12 at x:22
• D8 dep P11 at x:25
• D9 dep p10 at x:28
• D10 dep P9 at x:31
  
  
• D7 arr P14 at x:24 (having waited if necessary until x:22 for the Up tunnel to clear)
• etc

Working to the nearest second would give a theoretical capacity of well over 16.3 tph. The limiting factor at OOC as a termins is platform dwell times, rather than track capacity.

To give scope for recovery and flexibiity, I suggest we assume OOC can handle 12tph, using all six platforms on a 30-minute cycle.

Where should these 12tph go, and how many of them can get through Colwich?

Those are the very low dwell times for a regional service, let alone an intercity service!

 

[Nottingham59]

Those are the very low dwell times for a regional service, let alone an intercity service!

Yes, I agree. Though the Japanese manage it on some Shinkansen services. And I note HS2 designed OOC to be able to unload half a 400m train (i.e. 550 passengers) in just three minutes at OOC on the way to Euston, and load another 550 in three minutes on the way back out. So 14 minute dwells should be possible.

The exercise was to quantify the capacity of the trackwork, and the example schedule with 14 minute platform occupation times was just to show that the trackwork to the West of OOC was not a constraint to HS2 phase 1.

If we go for 12tph, then it should be possible to work out a timetable with platform dwell times of 20-25 minutes (perhaps longer for Glasgow trains?) and therefore a 5-10 minute gap to clear the platform before the next train arrives.

I'll see what I can devise that would be robust against any one platform being put out of use, leaving five operational.

 

[HSTEd]

If you are running a Euston to Coventry service, you'll run it to Birmingham.

Yes, I was not suggesting otherwise?

But if fewer people travel on the classic railway end to end, either peak loadings on the train will be lower (allowing shorter trains) or more intermediate passengers could be carried.

 

[The Planner]

Where should these 12tph go, and how many of them can get through Colwich?

No more than 7.

 

[Meerkat]

No more than 7.

Is that 7 replacing current services through Colwich?

 

[The Planner]

Is that 7 replacing current services through Colwich?

Yes, straight swap for Avanti services.

 

[Manutd1999]

For the first year or two I expect it will only be a shuttle type service to Curzon Street. This would be entirely self-contained to HS2 and can act as a test service to help bed-in the systems, trial boarding procedures etc.

After that, it depends on a number of factors which are hard to assess:

• How big a gap will there be until Euston opens for HS2? If it's "only" say 2-3 years, then maybe it's better just to wait before moving more services across.
• How attractive will OOC be is as a terminus vs the classic lines to Euston? There's no point moving services to OOC if passengers want to go to Euston....

Tentatively, I would propose 1ph to Manchester via Crewe (200m), 1ph to Liverpool/Preston (400m) and 1ph to Edinburgh/Glasgow (400m).

• Platform upgrades at Carlisle and Crewe would be required to enable splitting of 400m trains
• Stopping patterns north of Handsacre would be similar to the existing WCML timetable, except the Scotland service would run non-stop as far as Preston.

Finally, the released capacity on the southern WCML could be used to run 2ph stoppers as far as Lichfield. Upgrades to allow slow line services to turnback there would be a useful way to maximise capacity south of Handsacre.

 

[Meerkat]

Upgrades to allow slow line services to turnback there would be a useful way to maximise capacity south of Handsacre.

Unless you build a big Welwyn style flyover I don’t see how you turn back at Lichfield without using a lot of capacity (as the slows are on the outside)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can't see any Curzon St-Handsacre services in there, via the very expensive Delta junction at Water Orton.
There's scope for Birmingham-Man/Liv/Scotland services but it all needs to fit through Colwich.

 

[Meerkat]

I can't see any Curzon St-Handsacre services in there, via the very expensive Delta junction at Water Orton.
There's scope for Birmingham-Man/Liv/Scotland services but it all needs to fit through Colwich.

Without 2a is HS2 faster for any of those?

 

[The Planner]

Without 2a is HS2 faster for any of those?

Birmingham Manchester would be

 

[HSTEd]

Birmingham Manchester would be

Given the constraints in patching, we do end up with a question of squeezing a Birmingham-Manchester train in.

If there was another path at colwich I can't help but feel it would have been used already.

Would a London-Birmingham (reverse at Curzon street)-Manchester train be competitive with a classic train?

EDIT:

The current journey time from Euston to Colwich on the non-stop Manchester train is ~73 minutes.
GIven the journey time from London-Birmingham (I believe Euston, not OOC) is ~49 minutes, if you can reverse the train and reach Colwich in 25 minutes, it might be somewhat competitive.

So you could replace the non-stop path with a train via Birmingham. Providing a Birmingham-Manchester train without breaking with 3 trains per hour to Manchester, although obviously it would (hopefully temporarily) go from OOC and not Euston.

 

[slowroad]

I realise this has probably been addressed before, but are there any low (ish) cost improvements possible for Colwich? How many extra paths would say £100m, £200m etc get you?

 

[generalnerd]

Considering the HS2 trains aren’t going to tilt (from what I’ve heard, could be wrong), I’d assume we’ll see (like someone has mentioned above) a high speed shuttle to Birmingham where you will change for the tilting pendeolino/pendoreplacement service onwards. Maybe they will cut down on direct services to encourage people onto HS2

 

[Bletchleyite]

Considering the HS2 trains aren’t going to tilt (from what I’ve heard, could be wrong), I’d assume we’ll see (like someone has mentioned above) a high speed shuttle to Birmingham where you will change for the tilting pendeolino/pendoreplacement service onwards. Maybe they will cut down on direct services to encourage people onto HS2

No, they won't tilt, but this outcome is very, very unlikely. People losing direct services to places like Manchester and Glasgow from London would be a gift to the airlines (or they would drive).

 

[cle]

A first stop Crewe service from Curzon St to Manchester would be far better than today's service.

The issue with the 2tph Manchester XC (and 2tph LNWR Liverpool) services today that plod to and from Birmingham is that they do so much more than serve those cities - and add semi-fast frequency to a lot of intermediate stations. The Manchesters also extending to Bristol/Reading.

So even with a Handsacre service, you'd probably need them - or to tweak them (e.g. send one to Preston, send an XC to Liverpool maybe) - but keep those paths through Wolvo as they're also part of the Brum-Wolvo metro frequency.

So again I could see 1tph of each staying, and 1tph maybe going somewhere else (esp if Stockport is tapped) - but they'll have to stay in some shape.

 

[generalnerd]

No, they won't tilt, but this outcome is very, very unlikely. People losing direct services to places like Manchester and Glasgow from London would be a gift to the airlines (or they would drive).

Then we won’t see the upgrade as services will only run at 100mph

 

[JamesT]

Then we won’t see the upgrade as services will only run at 100mph

So many things wrong with that statement.
There are already services running at 110mph non-tilt on the WCML.
Running 125mph non-tilt on some sections, or limited upgrades to allow it have been investigated.
When you've chopped a bunch of time off London to Birmingham from running at high speed, you can still lose a little time on the legacy network and still come out ahead.

 

[The Planner]

I realise this has probably been addressed before, but are there any low (ish) cost improvements possible for Colwich? How many extra paths would say £100m, £200m etc get you?

None. Its a bypass or some sort of grade seperation, so sizeable money.

 

[generalnerd]

So many things wrong with that statement.
There are already services running at 110mph non-tilt on the WCML.
Running 125mph non-tilt on some sections, or limited upgrades to allow it have been investigated.
When you've chopped a bunch of time off London to Birmingham from running at high speed, you can still lose a little time on the legacy network and still come out ahead.

Oh is it 110! Completely never knew that. Running non tilt would be good also, it was just from what I was aware of, trains still travelled at 100 MPH. Sorry.

 

[slowroad]

None. Its a bypass or some sort of grade seperation, so sizeable money.

Ok thanks. Any guesses at lowest cost grade separation - accepting lower than ideal speed? Cost and additional paths?

 

[Meerkat]

Birmingham Manchester would be

By how much? Enough to make changing at Interchange workable (particularly if there are lots of spare seats to flog off cheap and easy XC)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

By how much? Enough to make changing at Interchange workable (particularly if there are lots of spare seats to flog off cheap and easy XC)?

Unless it's price dumped nobody is going to make a connectional journey where a direct one exists at a reasonable price (hence also the Old Oak problem). However do remember almost all journeys are suburb to city, not city to city, and for a fairly large area of east and south Birmingham driving to Interchange will be much more convenient than getting to New St.