• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

HS2 service if Phase 2 is scrapped

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
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.


It's better to have risks for the scheme, be aware of/transparent about them and have plenty of time to manage and address them, rather than have risks and not be aware of them (as Crossrail has found out, rather expensively).

Red risks suggest risks that are there, but well-understood.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
I meant the forum, not me.
I am not entwined with the industry.
Fair enough.
The line running at half capacity would forever destroy the case for high speed rail in the UK.
Not as much filling up the line capacity needed to supply the next high-speed rail line with trains!

The problem isn't running the line at half capacity - it's building half-a-line.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Why would this differ from the conventional network - the tunnel section?
Is fire risk why DMUs will be banned? I thought it was a performance issue.
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.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
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.
 

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
924
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).
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
21,223
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).
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.

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.
Where would your residual WCML service terminate from the south if there is no capacity for it north of Handsacre?
 

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
924
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.

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
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Where would your residual WCML service terminate from the south if there is no capacity for it north of Handsacre?
That's true - I'd assumed phase 2a.

Though yes, similar (though lesser) problem with Crewe. Personally I'd keep Chester on the WCML.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,759
Are the traditional WCML

Far from it, has always been my impression, which is one of the problems I have with HS2 advocacy. Southern WCML capacity is a motivation for it, but with little or no suggestion of how the extra capacity will be used.

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

Getting my crayons out, I'd start thinking of 10tph, as it's what the fast lines do in most hours now (I think.) The Southern WCML commuter users will all want fast trains to London, so let's try give them it as much as possible. Massively increase fast line stops so the various stopping patterns on the slow lines can be simplified, to an all stopper pattern or perhaps two alternating patterns. I don't know the area well enough to know what local traffic there is and if semi-fasts would be popular or not. All stoppers would maximise that capacity.

On the fasts, everything to stop at Milton Keynes. Not only to improve MK's service but also northbound connections from stations north of Euston. Perhaps stop everything at Watford too, as it may lose out if those semi-fasts disappear. Two new intermediate stops at Hemel Hempstead and Leighton Buzzard, perhaps alternating between them in the stopping pattern.

Where they would go is a harder question. Birmingham, almost certainly. Manchester and Liverpool to keep connectivity to the North West. Chester and North Wales, it's far fetched to imagine short or bi-mode trains on HS2 and I don't believe direct trains have been seriously proposed. (It will also not be electrified in many or any of our lifetimes.) The Northampton loop deserves a proper fast line service to Euston, so let's give it one. Perhaps it could continue via the Trent Valley but that has the disadvantage of slowing someone's route to London, so perhaps it should remain as a route to Birmingham.

You could run most if not all of these hybrid commuter / long distance "classic" services with 390s until they're clapped out, which might be not long after HS2 opens, so procure some sort of high speed long distance commuter train. If you bought it now, no doubt it would look much like an 80x.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
17,719
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
Is that with 2a done or not? There won't be 2 Manchestes via Stoke for a start, there will be none.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,820
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.

How do you propose turning the EMR service at Stoke, given it has only two through platforms and no south end bay?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
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.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Services to London, Manchester, Scotland and potentially Liverpool (there will be room without phase 2).
Not on the WCML!

Scotland possibly, but definitely not Manchester.

The north facing services rely on phase 2 bypassing Crewe-Warrington and Stockport-Manchester
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
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.
 

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
924
I think this thread has bought up 2 separate questions. What happens if all of phase 2 is cancelled, and what happens if just the eastern branch is cancelled.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,526
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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.

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.
 

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
924
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.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,022
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.

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
- sending XC services to Moor Street
- pairing services across New Street, especially those which would have historically been in different franchises
- seeing if there's any benefit from splitting services to serve more places whilst using a single path out of the major station
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
21,223
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
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.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
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.

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. This begs the hypothesis that if Curzon Street is built as planned, it is a signifier that the whole scheme will go ahead. Otherwise there is a 7 platform station with just 3 tph to London - a genuine white elephant for the right wing press to jump on.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
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.
Or London, in the case of the Scotland service.
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.
And, furthermore, Coventry would still want faster services to Birmingham.

Plus, the other side of Birmingham is Wolverhampton (and Shropshire), who'd very much like to keep a London service, if not see it improved.

Hence the proposals assume 2tph Euston to Wolverhampton (and beyond) stopping only at current ICWC stops, and then the Trent Valley via Coventry proposal is a way of keeping 3tph fast London-Coventry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top