HS2 starting in the North

[Invincibles]

Stoke - Stockport is 2x Virgin, 2x XC and 1x Northern (plus freight).

Plenty lines elsewhere cope with more than five trains an hour.

Similarly, Carlisle - Gretna never gets much more than three passenger trains an hour.

The problem with Stoke - Macclesfield is the number of stops on a two track section, as far as I can tell. Even from there to Cheadle Hulme/Stockport is a bit of a problem.

 

[pemma]

Granada Reports featured this story last night. Most viewers' responses were that there are better things to spend money on. Even those that were supportive of it in principle sounded like they supported rail/public transport investment rather than specifically be in favour of HS2 investment.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Stoke - Stockport is 2x Virgin, 2x XC and 1x Northern (plus freight).

Plenty lines elsewhere cope with more than five trains an hour.

Similarly, Carlisle - Gretna never gets much more than three passenger trains an hour.

NR recently compiled a report looking into how much capacity available and those three sections were listed under the "no chance for additional capacity" description. I did list Stoke to Manchester so you've got the whole bottleneck between Stockport and Piccadilly plus you've missed the EMT & LM services from Stoke to Kidsgrove which also cross into paths on the NSRML.

For Carlisle - Gretna you've probably forgotten about the Scotrail service but the key thing as I had already mentioned is freight.

Any route with 3-minute headways has a theoretical capacity of 20tph but once you've added different train speeds, stopping patterns, performance allowance, junction conflicts, freight paths etc. there is suddenly a lot less available. NR described the MML as "full" despite only 5 IC services per hour. Birmingham - Leicester has little capacity despite only being 2/3 passenger trains per hour.

However, on the West Coast south there is a nominal 11tph on the fast lines off peak (9xVT, 2xLM) but if LM's project 110 goes ahead then there will actually be 14 paths per hour - the paths already exist for 2tph to Liverpool and Glasgow.

 

[pemma]

Stoke - Stockport is 2x Virgin, 2x XC and 1x Northern (plus freight).

The freight you mention are very long container trains that take up multiple signalling points at once.

Macclesfield also gets additional local trains at peak times.

Also just before Cheadle Hulme the Crewe and Stoke sections of the WCML join so you've got the ATW South Wales service, an additional two Northern stoppers plus another Pendolino.

Then once you get to the viaduct north of Stockport all available paths are taken between 07:30 and 09:30 and between 16:30 and 18:30 and all freight is timetabled outside of those slots for obvious reasons.

If you're saying additional services could run where would they start and terminate? A shuttle starting at Bramhall and terminating at Congleton maybe?

 

[tbtc]

I did list Stoke to Manchester so you've got the whole bottleneck between Stockport and Piccadilly

Yes, but then thats obviously better than a two tracked line
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you're saying additional services could run where would they start and terminate? A shuttle starting at Bramhall and terminating at Congleton maybe?

I'm not talking about additional services, I'm saying that it sounds a flimsy case to start HS2 because a line with five passenger trains an hour is "full up" (when you consider the frequencies that are crammed onto the lines further south)

 

[pemma]

I'm not talking about additional services, I'm saying that it sounds a flimsy case to start HS2 because a line with five passenger trains an hour is "full up" (when you consider the frequencies that are crammed onto the lines further south)

I'm not defending HS2 but I'm questioning how you are proposing there is more capacity available when only parts of the line have spare capacity and the parts with spare capacity don't include any major towns or cities. You can't run another Manchester-Stoke service in the peaks without removing existing services, you can run another service going south from Bramhall (assuming turnback facilities are added) but what use is that?

 

[Philip Elliott]

I'm not talking about additional services, I'm saying that it sounds a flimsy case to start HS2 because a line with five passenger trains an hour is "full up" (when you consider the frequencies that are crammed onto the lines further south)

You're just not listening are you? Just because two railways have the same number of tracks does not mean they necessarily can have the same number of trains running - compare the WCML through Cumbria with the S&C....a massive difference. NR have said Stoke- Manchester is a major bottleneck with little or no prospect of being able to run additional trains but the west coast south has a "moderate" ability for additional services. (>25% above the current off peak numbers)

 

[JohnCarlson]

Granada Reports featured this story last night. Most viewers' responses were that there are better things to spend money on. Even those that were supportive of it in principle sounded like they supported rail/public transport investment rather than specifically be in favour of HS2 investment.

Granada Reports

http://www.itv.com/granada/high-speed-train-plans37029/

 

[pemma]

Granada Reports

http://www.itv.com/granada/high-speed-train-plans37029/

And a lot of the viewer comments they read out at the end are posted on their Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/granadareports

 

[HSTEd]

I remember from the WCML Route plan that Carlisle shows 90%+ rated capacity apparently due to the crummy trackwork, perhaps some sort of remodelling is in order?

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't think there is a case for extending HS2 north of Manchester. Long term perhaps to Leeds but that is a long way off in my opinion. And I certainly don't there will ever be a market for rail travel from Manchester to the likes of Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam. I think people will always prefer to fly.

 

[pemma]

I don't think there is a case for extending HS2 north of Manchester. Long term perhaps to Leeds but that is a long way off in my opinion. And I certainly don't there will ever be a market for rail travel from Manchester to the likes of Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam. I think people will always prefer to fly.

You'd need an Netherlands to UK tunnel if you want to really want to attract people to do North of England to Netherlands/Germany by train.

 

[JohnCarlson]

You'd need an Netherlands to UK tunnel if you want to really want to attract people to do North of England to Netherlands/Germany by train.

You do get a lot of people who live in the north traveling to Poland etc by bus. I would much rather go by direct train than bus. So there might be some kind of market there.

Not that I can see anyone starting such a service soon.


John
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People in the North-West are paranoid that the components of HS2 above Birmingham will be cancelled and never built, and frankly I'd say that is justifiable especially with the balooning costs that tend to accompany almost any public infrastructure project.

I am not sure how HS2 would make any kind of sence if it just stopped at Birmingham, but I ac see what you mean. You could argue that doing the easy bit north of Birmingham first would give the project a valuable learning curve.


John
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree, John, but if we want to invest in rail in "the North" then there are lots of local things (Dore, Holmes Chord, Todmorden chord, a dozen electrification projects...) that would produce immediate benefits. Starting HS2 from the "wrong" end won't make any real difference in "the North" though.

With all that is going on in Europe at the moment I have wondered if there is going to be a big investment package coming up in Britain's railways. There are bags of ideas for investment in the north and while projects such as running old London Underground trains to Harrogate might seem nuts to us they might look very attractive ways of spending money to those in power down south.

 

[pemma]

You do get a lot of people who live in the north traveling to Poland etc by bus. I would much rather go by direct train than bus. So there might be some kind of market there.

Not that I can see anyone starting such a service soon.

Are you referring to the Polish workers? If so they'd probably still travel by coach going back home if the coach fare is £20 and the rail fare is £80.

 

[tbtc]

I am not sure how HS2 would make any kind of sence if it just stopped at Birmingham

At least it could function okay if it was just London - Birmingham (being between the two biggest places in the UK and connected to HS1/ France).

Building Birmingham - Manchester only (as suggested on this thread) at first would be meaningless without the London section.

 

[JohnCarlson]

At least it could function okay if it was just London - Birmingham (being between the two biggest places in the UK and connected to HS1/ France).

Building Birmingham - Manchester only (as suggested on this thread) at first would be meaningless without the London section.

If you live north of York, as I do in Newcastle, its only the Birmingham Leeds section that has any meaning. If I want to go to Birmingham having that built would improve timings and services even without buying any new rolling stock and just using Voyagers and HST's .

The Birmingham- London section means that I would have to pay more to get to London. Any timings I have seen would suggest journey time improvements would be miniscule for Newcastle -London.

Now the north east of England may not be that big, but we are not that little either. Yet there is very little programmed for rail upgrades.

Just think of the amount of lines that could be opened/reopened outside the south and rolling stock bought for £10 billion never mind £15 Bn or £25 bn.

People say "well upgrading means that there is more scope for local services on the London_Birmingham section." That pretty meaningless for most of the country.

John

 

[pemma]

Building Birmingham - Manchester only (as suggested on this thread) at first would be meaningless

Manchester-Birmingham services get less than half the patronage of Manchester-Leeds, Manchester-Liverpool and Manchester-Preston services and they are probably fairly close to Manchester-Sheffield patronage.

What'll be the point of huge new fast trains to Birmingham only if the best we can hope for on North TPE is 4 car 380s, if we're lucky.

 

[WatcherZero]

There is a small capacity problem to Birmingham via the two routes but mainly because theyve made room for the London services at their expense. It wouldnt justify a new line on its own.

 

[RichW1]

It all has to start somewhere. The next sections to Manchester and Leeds will mean there is an opportunity IF it is taken, to have a high-speed javelin type commuter train around the Pennine national Park serving all major business districts within the metropolitan area as well as Tyne Tees. Then all these arguments about such journeys on the classic lines will be academic.

The Y shaped route is actually very smart and if there was the cash then of course Cross Country could have some new trains and use the high speed route for part of their journey dramatically cutting the frankly snail pace of the current timetable.

Only downside....the time we'll have to wait to get it built and whether such good ideas and money will prevail for such projects serving more than just the trunk north south IC services.

 

[HSTEd]

Are you referring to the Polish workers? If so they'd probably still travel by coach going back home if the coach fare is £20 and the rail fare is £80.

Well that depends how much quicker the train journey is than the coach, if they can get another shift in because they can leave later to arrive at the same time that narrows the price gap considerably.