Gareth
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,505
Are bimodes a no-no for HS2? You could have an hourly Chester, if not.
Closing by eyes, stuffing my fingers in my ears and humming will not change the fact that the momentum is against the scheme, the risk register shows a red for the scheme and the cost just keeps balooning.
To reduce the fire risk in the event of an accident, it's most likely going to be a no.Are bimodes a no-no for HS2? You could have an hourly Chester if not.
Fair enough.I meant the forum, not me.
I am not entwined with the industry.
Not as much filling up the line capacity needed to supply the next high-speed rail line with trains!The line running at half capacity would forever destroy the case for high speed rail in the UK.
To reduce the fire risk in the event of an accident, it's most likely going to be a no.
To reduce the fire risk in the event of an accident, it's most likely going to be a no.
Why would this differ from the conventional network - the tunnel section?
Would you want a diesel tank flying off a train at 230 mph? It probably is a performance issue that is the main reason, but again, you don't want a diesel tank rupturing at over 200mph.Is fire risk why DMUs will be banned? I thought it was a performance issue.
That really isn't true - there isn't capacity to take 18tph just by running trains to Curzon Street (which would never realistically be more than 4tph) and onto the classic network without removing other links. I agree you could probably run to Chester with electrification but finding destinations for 14 trains would be somewhat tricky.Even without phase 2, HS2 could still easily be filled with 18tph. In fact Phase 2 relies on joining and splitting trains, showing that there are much more than 18 services needed with both branches in operation. Without the eastern branch, you can electrify Crewe to Chester and the fast service on the WCML can practically be fully shifted to HS2 (without Phase 2 the second 2tph to Stoke can also be moved to HS2).
Where would your residual WCML service terminate from the south if there is no capacity for it north of Handsacre?The biggest problem with bi-modes is, AFAICS, not safety but the expense of creating a bespoke fleet (of just a handful of trains) to provide a bimode that can run at HS2 line speed.
Wire up Chester and North Wales, and it could run joined on HS2 with a Liverpool south of Crewe, rather than on the WCML.
It could even, should phase 2 not happen, run separate. 12tph (the same as the WCML fasts now) - achieved with 1+2a, moving Chester onto HS2 and not having the Lancaster run joined to a Liverpool south of Crewe - is 2/3rds full.
That really isn't true - there isn't capacity to take 18tph just by running trains to Curzon Street (which would never realistically be more than 4tph) and onto the classic network without removing other links. I agree you could probably run to Chester with electrification but finding destinations for 14 trains would be somewhat tricky.
That's true - I'd assumed phase 2a.Where would your residual WCML service terminate from the south if there is no capacity for it north of Handsacre?
Are the traditional WCML
It seemed like a big win for MKC (expected) - but not as much for Watford Junction (as busy and deserving) and Rugby which is admittedly a bit smaller.
Hourlies to Manchester and Birmingham are obvious. Chester journey times being preserved makes sense too. But I’d expect a few more Lancs or a
Is that with 2a done or not? There won't be 2 Manchestes via Stoke for a start, there will be none.1tph Glasgow (OOC, Bham Intl, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Motherwell)
1tph Edinburgh (OOC, Bham Intl, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Haymarket)
2tph Blackpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Kirkham, Poulton)
2tph Liverpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway)
2tph Chester (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe)
(Extend to North Wales if electrification is extended, remove Crewe to Chester shuttles)
2tph Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport)
2tph Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport)
4tph Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
Leave the last 2 paths unused for reliability and so 6tph can operate north out of Curzon Street
With 2a. As stated earlier in the thread, it is unrealistic to get all those trains through Colwich.Is that with 2a done or not? There won't be 2 Manchestes via Stoke for a start, there will be none.
If a 5 minute reoccupation is too short, simply reduce turnarounds to 20m.
SDO or platform extensions...
Yes. An hourly, 1/2/3 car DMU does not need to run to Crewe. Have the 4/8 car EMU service run half hourly to Crewe and have the tiny minority travelling from the EMR service to Crewe change at Stoke, with a decent connection provided.
Services to London, Manchester, Scotland and potentially Liverpool (there will be room without phase 2).If phase 2 was scrapped, what services would use Curzon Street?
London ones, plus whatever changes they feel like making when and because phase 2 is scrapped. Don't expect more than a token northwards service though as the room for it on the WCML is tight.If phase 2 was scrapped, what services would use Curzon Street?
Not on the WCML!Services to London, Manchester, Scotland and potentially Liverpool (there will be room without phase 2).
Correct. The last thing the Stockport/Airport-Manchester corridor needs is extra express paths. In fact, it could do with quite the opposite. Phase 2 can't come soon enough for Manchester.The north facing services rely on phase 2 bypassing Crewe-Warrington and Stockport-Manchester
Correct. The last thing the Stockport/Airport-Manchester corridor needs is extra express paths. In fact, it could do with quite the opposite. Phase 2 can't come soon enough for Manchester.
No chance in Birmingham. The mainline still has to take the residual service for Coventry and Wolverhampton, the XC services as well as WMT services to Shrewsbury and Liverpool that only stop once between Birmingham and Wolverhampton.Yes, one big benefit of the full phase 2 is that you could implement (almost) Merseyrail style local services on the lines south of Manchester and Birmingham. This, proven by the success of Merseyrail, would attract substantial extra custom over the present bitty services.
No chance in Birmingham. The mainline still has to take the residual service for Coventry and Wolverhampton, the XC services as well as WMT services to Shrewsbury and Liverpool that only stop once between Birmingham and Wolverhampton.
Completely missed the word southWhen did Wolverhampton move to be south of Birmingham?![]()
No chance in Birmingham. The mainline still has to take the residual service for Coventry and Wolverhampton, the XC services as well as WMT services to Shrewsbury and Liverpool that only stop once between Birmingham and Wolverhampton.
The problem with both of those ideas - ie running London - Watford - Milton Keynes - Rugby - Coventry - Nuneaton or putting stops in between Coventry, Birmingham International and Birmingham New Street is that it doesn't enhance the connection between Birmingham and Milton Keynes.Given than one of the options for long distance travel for Coventry/London is a service which then runs to Nuneaton before heading up the Trent Valley, that would allow other services to run to Birmingham without impacting on Coventry's London journey time/frequency.
It should also be noted that there's other things which could change services such as:
- adding stops on the TfW/Avanti services
Services to London, Manchester, Scotland and potentially Liverpool (there will be room without phase 2).
London ones, plus whatever changes they feel like making when and because phase 2 is scrapped. Don't expect more than a token northwards service though as the room for it on the WCML is tight.
Or London, in the case of the Scotland service.If all of phase 2 was scrapped, I’m struggling to see why Manchester, Leeds & Scotland services wouldn’t just continue going in to New Street and then continue in to Reading & Bristol.
And, furthermore, Coventry would still want faster services to Birmingham.The problem with both of those ideas - ie running London - Watford - Milton Keynes - Rugby - Coventry - Nuneaton or putting stops in between Coventry, Birmingham International and Birmingham New Street is that it doesn't enhance the connection between Birmingham and Milton Keynes.