If HS2 phase 2a gets built, what high speed services could run?

[Nottingham59]

What high speed services could run if phase 2a gets built to Crewe?

Building phase 2a of HS2 to Crewe would bypass the bottleneck of Colwich, but without the tunnel to Manchester that would just transfer the constraints to north of Crewe. Crewe-Weaver on the WCML is full; the network south of Manchester can only handle 5 long-distance trains per hour (3 Avanti and 2 Cross Country); and Crewe station has a very restricting layout, with all sorts of crossing conflicts at the north end.

The HS2 full business case contains a "Statement of Intent" train service specification (TSS) as shown below, but this seems woefully unambitious after so much capital has been spent on building Phase One and Phase 2a, So what high speed services will actually be possible if Phase 2a ever gets built? What timetabling interventions would allow more HS2 trains get to Manchester and other destinations? What infrastructure investments would unlock more capacity north of Crewe?

 

[Zomboid]

One thing that diagram lacks is anything heading north from Birmingham, of which there really ought to be something.

 

[Nottingham59]

One thing that diagram lacks is anything heading north from Birmingham, of which there really ought to be something.

That's a good point. But they still need to get beyond Crewe to be any use.

HS2 could offer through services from London to the north via Curzon St, to fill trains north of Birmingham with the price-sensitive customer segment who don't mind the slower route via the city centre.

== == ==
For what it's worth, these are some of my thought about how to maximise capacity north of Crewe, without new infrastructure:

TIMETABLING INTERVENTIONS

• If the Handsacre spur gets built, capacity would be available to run 1tph HS2 to Stoke and Macclesfield, terminating in Platform 2 at Macc. This was planned for the full phase 2, but it could run with just phase 2a only.
• Terminate 1tph HS2 at Manchester Airport, calling at Crewe, Wilmslow and Airport to serve the wealthy Cheshire market, with good onward distribution to South Manchester suburbs by tram or local stopper. Other HS2 services via Crewe could run through to Piccadilly non-stop.
• Send South Pennine TPE services via Marple to release a path through Stockport, or ...
• Send the EMR from Nottingham via Marple to release a path through Stockport, and terminate it in the main shed at Piccadilly. Direct the corresponding Liverpool-Manchester path via Warrington Central to the Airport instead.

SPECULATIVE TIMETABLE INTERVENTIONS
I'm not sure how practical these are:

• Terminate all Chester-Knutsford-Manchester trains at Stockport. Would that release a 2-car Stockport-Piccadilly path for a 200m HS2 service?
• If paths through Crewe are a constraint, then run 400m HS2 trains through Crewe non-stop. Split the consist on open line, just south of Chelford Station where the sidings are, and send one 200m part to Airport, and one 200m to Piccadilly. Southbound, Crewe station will not be such a contraint, so the portions could run south separately and recombine at Interchange or London.
• Run 1tph 400m HS2 non-stop to Edinburgh, where there is one platform long enough to take it.

Any thoughts?

 

[Zomboid]

So getting the crayons out, I'd suggest a Birmingham - (Handsacre) - Stoke - Macc - Manchester train to replace that section of the Bournemouth XC service; that could be diverted to run via Crewe and Manchester Airport.

The Birmingham to Manchester could actually continue via Huddersfield, Leeds and York to Newcastle, and being a 200m train it would alleviate crowding on the XC (and TPE?) services. Whether it'd run via Victoria or reverse at Picc is one for the people with proper writing implements to solve.

 

[The Planner]

Ignore that diagram at the top, all bets are off on that.

• Terminate 1tph HS2 at Manchester Airport, calling at Crewe, Wilmslow and Airport to serve the wealthy Cheshire market, with good onward distribution to South Manchester suburbs by tram or local stopper. Other HS2 services via Crewe could run through to Piccadilly non-stop.

Would likely not fit at the airport as it would want a sizeable turnaround, even with the proposed platform extensions and relying on permissive working as you will still have a significant amount of trains to/from Piccadilly.

• Send South Pennine TPE services via Marple to release a path through Stockport, or ...

Doubtful, again as you lose a fast train to/from Sheffield to/from Stockport if you do that.

• Send the EMR from Nottingham via Marple to release a path through Stockport, and terminate it in the main shed at Piccadilly. Direct the corresponding Liverpool-Manchester path via Warrington Central to the Airport instead.

Only if you can make it work on the Styals and the airport.

SPECULATIVE TIMETABLE INTERVENTIONS
I'm not sure how practical these are:

• Terminate all Chester-Knutsford-Manchester trains at Stockport. Would that release a 2-car Stockport-Piccadilly path for a 200m HS2 service?

Politically I can't imagine that wouldn't go down well. They run slow line to Slade Lane, so its not a full path.

• If paths through Crewe are a constraint, then run 400m HS2 trains through Crewe non-stop. Split the consist on open line, just south of Chelford Station where the sidings are, and send one 200m part to Airport, and one 200m to Piccadilly. Southbound, Crewe station will not be such a contraint, so the portions could run south separately and recombine at Interchange or London.

No one is splitting in the middle of nowhere. You would be blocking one of the constraints for the best part of 6 minutes to do that. Do it at Crewe.

• Run 1tph 400m HS2 non-stop to Edinburgh, where there is one platform long enough to take it.

Unlikely, it would still stop at Preston, probably Carlisle as well as it will still be slow through the station.

 

[cle]

I do think Glasgow could handle 1tph fast from Euston, but Edinburgh might justify 2tph - one being quicker because of no splitting, and could indeed call Birminham Interchange (as a fast Brum-Edinburgh) - and then maybe only Carlisle. Preston also due to speed or crew reasons. But keep it as lean as possible. You'd have 3h35 or so journeys to Haymarket.

Glasgow should also have a Curzon starter - per today - but that would be more of a Lancs/Lakes stopper also, like today. Maybe 2tph (with splitting) - one faster and one slow. Although Interchange might serve as the Birmingham->Scotland railhead, with directs from Curzon being slower and adding Crewe connectivity.

But out of BHX, Easyjet do have 1-2 flights a day to Glasgow, and 3-4 to Edinburgh - so these should be targeted with faster services.

 

[Nottingham59]

Thanks for the considered replies. Most helpful, as always:

Ignore that diagram at the top, all bets are off on that.

Good. It's way out of date, but there's nothing published since.

Would likely not fit at the airport as it would want a sizeable turnaround, even with the proposed platform extensions and relying on permissive working as you will still have a significant amount of trains to/from Piccadilly.

Even with four 200m platforms at Airport? I'm surprised if there's not enough space. And there must be a market south from the Airport, or HS2 plans for an airport station make no sense.

Only if you can make it work on the Styals and the airport.

It didn't look all that busy. I'll have to look in detail.

Politically I can't imagine that wouldn't go down well. They run slow line to Slade Lane, so its not a full path.

A non-stop path on the slow lines is still a path. This is about capacity rather than speed.

No one is splitting in the middle of nowhere. You would be blocking one of the constraints for the best part of 6 minutes to do that. Do it at Crewe.

Yeah, but splitting at Crewe will block capacity at the station, which is a big constraint. And it would use up two paths northbound across Crewe North junction. Maybe the best solution would be to convert Chelford into a Park and Ride halt (see below). Or split at Stoke-on-Trent instead.

Unlikely, it would still stop at Preston, probably Carlisle as well as it will still be slow through the station.

You'd need to extend platforms to do that.

== == == ==
The ideas in post #3 were without infrastructure expenditure. If we allow capital spending, then I'd suggest:

• 400m platforms at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle to allow splitting and joining at more than one location. I think this need is so obvious that it will be included in any decision to proceed with phase 2a.
  
  
• Park and Ride station at Chelford, with 420m platforms and a big carpark in the empty fields alongside. It could pay for itself by acting also as a long-stay car park for the airport. You could double up the existing station, but cheaper would be to relocate the station to just south of the village and build 2x400m platforms alongside the sidings that are already there, leaving two through roads in the middle. Total cost less than £50M, if you don't bother with full platform canopies, based on the cost of new stations on the Camp Hill line.
  
  
• 400m platforms at Glasgow Central and at Edinburgh. And Stoke-on-Trent.
  
  
• Two extra tracks between Slade Lane Junction and Longsight, to give six tracks all the way north of Slade Lane. I think there is space without too much demolition.
  
  
• 2 x 400m platforms at Manchester Piccadilly (probably too expensive)
  
  
• Quad the line from Acton Bridge to Weaver Junction, wih a new station at Weaverham to replace Acton Bridge and Hartford. Plus a northbound chord from Mid-Cheshire line to the WCML slows, to grade separate Harford LNW junction. Send all freight via Middlewich, to give around 5 extra paths for HS2 to Liverpool / Warrington / Scotland.

All of the above would be far cheaper than HS2 phase 2b West with its tunnels under Crewe and South Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Even with four 200m platforms at Airport? I'm surprised if there's not enough space. And there must be a market south from the Airport, or HS2 plans for an airport station make no sense.

You currently have 8 tph using the Airport, with TPE expecting a 9th. If you are using longer trains, which the airport remodelling is for, then you are permissively working. A 200m train is not going to allow for anything significant behind it.

It didn't look all that busy. I'll have to look in detail.

As above. 9tph passenger expected, alongside any freight, and several of those are stoppers.

A non-stop path on the slow lines is still a path. This is about capacity rather than speed.

Yes, but you aren't feasibly going to expect a HS2 train to suddenly use the slows from Edgeley to Slade Lane.

Yeah, but splitting at Crewe will block capacity at the station, which is a big constraint. And it would use up two paths northbound across Crewe North junction. Maybe the best solution would be to convert Chelford into a Park and Ride halt (see below). Or split at Stoke-on-Trent instead.

That's only a constraint if there are multiple southbound paths conflicting. You are still using two paths north of Chelford in your example.

You'd need to extend platforms to do that.

That will happen anyway, HS2 trains will stop at Preston and Carlisle,

== == == ==

• Park and Ride station at Chelford, with 420m platforms and a big carpark in the empty fields alongside. It could pay for itself by acting also as a long-stay car park for the airport. You could double up the existing station, but cheaper would be to relocate the station to just south of the village and build 2x400m platforms alongside the sidings that are already there, leaving two through roads in the middle. Total cost less than £50M, if you don't bother with full platform canopies, based on the cost of new stations on the Camp Hill line.

What about all the infrastructure improvements needed to the roads around Chelford? or is that someone else's problem? Its 12 miles and a 25 minute journey on A roads from there to the airport.

• 
  
  
• Two extra tracks between Slade Lane Junction and Longsight, to give six tracks all the way north of Slade Lane. I think there is space without too much demolition.

Not sure what that releases. You still need a junction with the fasts.

• 
  
  
• Quad the line from Acton Bridge to Weaver Junction, wih a new station at Weaverham to replace Acton Bridge and Hartford. Plus a northbound chord from Mid-Cheshire line to the WCML slows, to grade separate Harford LNW junction. Send all freight via Middlewich, to give around 5 extra paths for HS2 to Liverpool / Warrington / Scotland.

Not a chance of sending the freight that way, the time penalty would be massive without spending loads on speeding up the route on the Independents all the way through Middlewich to Hartford.

 

[Zomboid]

The issue with this question is really that HS2 is about creating capacity where it is parallel to the WCML, so the answer to what can we do to the north is going to be pretty much what happens now.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think if phase 2a happens then there will be enormous political pressure for all trains to stop in Birmingham and Stoke with perhaps the fast Glasgow one skipping the latter.

It will all be necessary to keep costs down.

 

[Zomboid]

I don't see why there would be pressure for all trains to stop in Birmingham, and 2a will bypass Stoke, that's kind of the point.

So long as Birmingham has services going both north and south then there'd be no reason why everything has to go in and out of Curzon St. And Stoke will need to retain fast Manchester and London services, but the details of those are debatable.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I don't see why there would be pressure for all trains to stop in Birmingham, and 2a will bypass Stoke, that's kind of the point.

So long as Birmingham has services going both north and south then there'd be no reason why everything has to go in and out of Curzon St. And Stoke will need to retain fast Manchester and London services, but the details of those are debatable.

Because politically if you want it built without endless delays there have to be meaningful benefits for the people along the route - unlike with phase one.

Otherwise as with phase one there will be endless complaints, mitigations and delays.

 

[Zomboid]

But as I said, if Birmingham has trains heading north they can be separate from the trains to/from London. They should be really, as London - Birmingham can be served by 400m trains, but Birmingham - Manchester/ Glasgow/ wherever would probably be 200m. The 400m trains will be best kept shuttling up and down the main line, and stuff going beyond can be kept separate.

 

[MatthewHutton]

But as I said, if Birmingham has trains heading north they can be separate from the trains to/from London. They should be really, as London - Birmingham can be served by 400m trains, but Birmingham - Manchester/ Glasgow/ wherever would probably be 200m. The 400m trains will be best kept shuttling up and down the main line, and stuff going beyond can be kept separate.

Maybe all the Birmingham trains stopping will be sufficient (to be clear I do typically mean a parkway station on the line not in the centre)

 

[Nottingham59]

Maybe all the Birmingham trains stopping will be sufficient (to be clear I do typically mean a parkway station on the line not in the centre)

I think all trains from London to Curzon St will call at Interchange, because they will be slowing down anyway to take the 230kph turnout at Delta Junction.

A through train stopping at Interchange has a time penalty of around six minutes, which at 360kph translates into around 35km distance deficit. That's an awful lot of time penalty. I suspect most trains heading towards Crewe will be timetabled not to stop.

 

[The Mercian]

The issue I have with any suggestion to not have Phase 2b is the restrictions this then places on the McR-Crewe and Mcr- Stoke lines to massively upgrade local and regional services we get in the area. As a resident in between Alderley Edge and Macc I’d be all for building a mega station at Chelford which would make my life in getting to Manchester, Brum and London very easy but I’m less convinced it’s the right place to put anything! (Also good luck building anything in the Tatton constituency with NIMBY in chief Ms McVey as the local MP.) In my view I wouldn’t want any HS2 services running on either of the existing lines as I’d much prefer the increased frequency/connectivity and capacity that HS2b provides on the Crewe and Stoke lines and HS2b would still be relatively accessible for me and others in the Cheshire diaspora at McR Airport. I would argue the current Mcr airport station proposal for HS2b makes the exact same mistake as at Birmingham Interchange and should be much more integrated in the airport infrastructure preferably directly underneath it.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think all trains from London to Curzon St will call at Interchange, because they will be slowing down anyway to take the 230kph turnout at Delta Junction.

A through train stopping at Interchange has a time penalty of around six minutes, which at 360kph translates into around 35km distance deficit. That's an awful lot of time penalty. I suspect most trains heading towards Crewe will be timetabled not to stop.

If the rail industry cannot manage to have stops along the way in the same way as other countries with high speed rail then it’s difficult to see any extensions being politically viable.

Also I am sure the dwells could be sped up with fully level boarding, better signage and platform edge doors to reduce delays.

The issue I have with any suggestion to not have Phase 2b is the restrictions this then places on the McR-Crewe and Mcr- Stoke lines to massively upgrade local and regional services we get in the area. As a resident in between Alderley Edge and Macc I’d be all for building a mega station at Chelford which would make my life in getting to Manchester, Brum and London very easy but I’m less convinced it’s the right place to put anything! (Also good luck building anything in the Tatton constituency with NIMBY in chief Ms McVey as the local MP.) In my view I wouldn’t want any HS2 services running on either of the existing lines as I’d much prefer the increased frequency/connectivity and capacity that HS2b provides on the Crewe and Stoke lines and HS2b would still be relatively accessible for me and others in the Cheshire diaspora at McR Airport. I would argue the current Mcr airport station proposal for HS2b makes the exact same mistake as at Birmingham Interchange and should be much more integrated in the airport infrastructure preferably directly underneath it.

The challenge with HS2 phase 2b is that it will attract more opposition as it goes closer to housing unless you go for a full tunnel under Manchester which will be expensive.

Also it will need to integrate well with local public transport and probably have some parking.

 

[Zomboid]

The problem is Curzon St will be a terminus.

Let's say there's 3tph from London to Curzon, they'll quite possibly all stop at Interchange.

Then there's 3tph London to Manchester (2 via Stoke, 1 via Crewe) perhaps one of those will stop at Interchange.

1 tph London to Glasgow, similar stopping pattern to today, doesn't stop before Warrington.

2tph London to Liverpool, one via Handsacre and Stafford, 1 via HS2 to Crewe with a call at Interchange. The via HS2 can split at Crewe to provide a service which stops more often up the WCML, alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

1tph Birmingham to Scotland via HS2 to Crewe and then via the Styal lines where it takes over the TPE WCML service to Edinburgh and Glasgow (effectively a southern extension of the TPE service).

1tph Birmingham to Manchester via Handsacre and Stoke, taking over one of the XC paths from Stone into Manchester.

Birmingham to Manchester might need another train, but without taking XC out I'm not sure if it'll fit into Piccadilly.

Remaining on the WCML is the West Midlands to Scotland service via Wolverhampton and the Chester/ North Wales services. Would be nice to have the latter on HS2 since the project is supposedly an England and Wales thing, but that'd mean the HS2 trains would need to be Bi-modes. There's also an XC from New Street to Manchester that hasn't been displaced.

 

[Nottingham59]

If the rail industry cannot manage to have stops along the way in the same way as other countries with high speed rail then it’s difficult to see any extensions being politically viable.

Also I am sure the dwells could be sped up with fully level boarding, better signage and platform edge doors to reduce delays.

It's not the dwell time, unfortunately. My figure was based on a 2-minute dwell time (120s). The time penalty comes from decelerating from 360kph at normal in-service braking (220s), but most from accelerating back up to line speed again (534s).

 

[MatthewHutton]

The problem is Curzon St will be a terminus

I am sure everyone will be happy enough with a stop at Birmingham Airport.

Not all the ICE trains go into Frankfurt Hbf but they do stop at the airport. Plus the Shinkansen stops at Shin Osaka/Shin Yokohama/Shin Kobe and not the traditional centre and people are happy enough with that.

It's not the dwell time, unfortunately. My figure was based on a 2-minute dwell time (120s). The time penalty comes from decelerating from 360kph at normal in-service braking (220s), but most from accelerating back up to line speed again (534s).

The Shinkansen does 4.5 minute stop penalties in revenue service on the Sanyo Shinkansen so it should be possible to match that.

You can see that by looking at the timetable and comparing the early morning Kodama’s that aren’t passed with a Nozomi.

 

[poffle]

I would think the Scottish services will need to call at Crewe. That is where you will pick up passengers coming off the legacy WCML coming from north of London and heading north of Crewe. Also passengers coming from Wales and the northern part of the Midlands.

I don't think there is any proposal that the Avanti type services on the legacy WCML will go much north of Crewe. Ffir passengers coming from Liverpool and Manchester heading for Scotland it makes sense to point them towards a HS2 train to Crewe and then change to the Scottish service at Crewe. This will then relieve pressure on the local services within the North West.

 

[SynthD]

Because politically if you want it built without endless delays there have to be meaningful benefits for the people along the route - unlike with phase one.

Why can't phase one show us what phase two can do? It's not like the railway to Handsacre is the odd one out for how smoothly it has been tolerated by NIMBY always-drivers.

Yes, 2a alone is weak in what it adds, it relies on 2b and 2c just like any other broken up plan does. It's possible that the Preston-Carlisle platform extensions could happen in this phase, but they aren't as critical as 400m splits at Crewe are. Much of the chart at the top of the page looks achievable.

 

[Nottingham59]

The Shinkansen does 4.5 minute stop penalties in revenue service on the Sanyo Shinkansen so it should be possible to match that.

4.5 mins stop penalty is about right for a 300kph line with two minute dwells. My modelling of HS2 shows 277s, which is 4.6 minutes.

But the design speed for HS2 before and after interchange is 360kph. The stop penalty from that speed is 354s (6 minutes). An HS2 train will get to 300kph in 212s, but then take another 322s to get to 360kph.

 

[Zomboid]

Will HS2 actually run at 360? Seems a bit unnecessary to go that fast over such a short distance, 300 would probably do the job.

 

[Amata Lux]

debatable

literally?

 

[The Planner]

Why can't phase one show us what phase two can do? It's not like the railway to Handsacre is the odd one out for how smoothly it has been tolerated by NIMBY always-drivers.

Yes, 2a alone is weak in what it adds, it relies on 2b and 2c just like any other broken up plan does. It's possible that the Preston-Carlisle platform extensions could happen in this phase, but they aren't as critical as 400m splits at Crewe are. Much of the chart at the top of the page looks achievable.

2A solves Colwich. It is far from weak.

 

[Transilien]

Remaining on the WCML is the West Midlands to Scotland service via Wolverhampton and the Chester/ North Wales services. Would be nice to have the latter on HS2 since the project is supposedly an England and Wales thing, but that'd mean the HS2 trains would need to be Bi-modes. There's also an XC from New Street to Manchester that hasn't been displaced.

The North Wales Coast line (I think) is still planned to be electrified under the Integrated Rail plan

 

[MatthewHutton]

Why can't phase one show us what phase two can do? It's not like the railway to Handsacre is the odd one out for how smoothly it has been tolerated by NIMBY always-drivers.

Phase one is only high speed rail project in the world not to benefit the people who live on the route and it is also the worlds most expensive one. It’s an example of what not to do.

Will HS2 actually run at 360? Seems a bit unnecessary to go that fast over such a short distance, 300 would probably do the job.

Ignoring stops, padding, acceleration etc London-Manchester is 300km so at that speed it crudely takes an hour. At 360km/h it would take 50 minutes - a time saving of literally 10 minutes.

Once you take acceleration and stops into account the time saving will be less.

I have no idea what dwells are achieved in Japan - maybe they are also 2 minutes and Japanese politeness slows them down. However if we can manage 2 minutes dwells here without fully level boarding or proper indicators you could undoubtedly get boarding times down meaningfully by having those things.

 

[The Planner]

Phase one is only high speed rail project in the world not to benefit the people who live on the route and it is also the worlds most expensive one. It’s an example of what not to do.

Ignoring stops, padding, acceleration etc London-Manchester is 300km so at that speed it crudely takes an hour. At 360km/h it would take 50 minutes - a time saving of literally 10 minutes.

Once you take acceleration and stops into account the time saving will be less.

I have no idea what dwells are achieved in Japan - maybe they are also 2 minutes and Japanese politeness slows them down. However if we can manage 2 minutes dwells here without fully level boarding or proper indicators you could undoubtedly get boarding times down meaningfully by having those things.

I would say Japanese culture makes it better, not slower!

 

[MatthewHutton]

I would say Japanese culture makes it better, not slower!

That would be my gut feeling too. And honestly I would expect they are doing 60-90 second stops with slower acceleration.

But certainly as we are currently doing 120 second stops on our long distance services if we adopt their practices we should be able to somewhat shorten that. It’s difficult to argue that we cannot get queuing by the right entrance etc if it is printed on the platform accordingly - even if those queues are somewhat less orderly than East Asia.

2A solves Colwich. It is far from weak.

I would really like to see 2A at least if possible.