HS2 service if Phase 2 is scrapped

[Gareth]

Are bimodes a no-no for HS2? You could have an hourly Chester, if not.

 

[Ianno87]

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.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Are bimodes a no-no for HS2? You could have an hourly Chester if not.

To reduce the fire risk in the event of an accident, it's most likely going to be a no.

 

[si404]

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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?

 

[Gareth]

To reduce the fire risk in the event of an accident, it's most likely going to be a no.

Is fire risk why DMUs will be banned? I thought it was a performance issue.

 

[LOL The Irony]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[London Trains]

Is that with 2a done or not? There won't be 2 Manchestes via Stoke for a start, there will be none.

With 2a. As stated earlier in the thread, it is unrealistic to get all those trains through Colwich.

 

[6Gman]

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?

 

[Purple Orange]

If phase 2 was scrapped, what services would use Curzon Street?

 

[London Trains]

If phase 2 was scrapped, what services would use Curzon Street?

Services to London, Manchester, Scotland and potentially Liverpool (there will be room without phase 2).

 

[si404]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

When did Wolverhampton move to be south of Birmingham?

 

[London Trains]

When did Wolverhampton move to be south of Birmingham?

Completely missed the word south

Just assumed you meant the WCML in those areas (so Stockport to Manchester and Coventry to Wolverhampton)

 

[The Ham]

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]

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]

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]

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.