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

[MatthewHutton]

I'm sure that'll be fabulously popular with the local residents who, as a demographic, are widely known for their enthusiasm in paying more tax.

It’s pretty easy to get parish/town tax raising through the process.

The people who do stuff in the village obviously want money to keep doing that and as long as they aren’t wasteful the middle classes let them get on with it and no one else goes to the meetings anyway.

We are basically arguing about £10/month to live in a nice place which is neither here-nor-there.

 

[The Mercian]

It’s not terrible but it’s worse than Nagoya or Taichung or Frankfurt Airport get for example though.

Frankfurt airport handles about 5 times as many passengers as Birmingham airport so you’re not exactly comparing apples with apples even allowing for the NEC as a further draw. In addition the capacity freed on the classic network will mean more local and regional services from the classic BHX station so it’s hardly worse is it?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Parish/town councils have no restrictions on revenue raising.

Parish and Town council's don’t have limits on how much they can increase the precepts, but their overall budgets tend to be small so any significant road schemes would need in increases of that be equal hundreds if not thousands percent of their current budgets.

It’s pretty easy to get parish/town tax raising through the process.

The people who do stuff in the village obviously want money to keep doing that and as long as they aren’t wasteful the middle classes let them get on with it and no one else goes to the meetings anyway.

We are basically arguing about £10/month to live in a nice place which is neither here-nor-there.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Parish and Town council's don’t have limits on how much they can increase the precepts, but their overall budgets tend to be small so any significant road schemes would need in increases of that be equal hundreds if not thousands percent of their current budgets.

Traffic calming doesn’t cost hundreds of thousands.

Frankfurt airport handles about 5 times as many passengers as Birmingham airport so you’re not exactly comparing apples with apples even allowing for the NEC as a further draw. In addition the capacity freed on the classic network will mean more local and regional services from the classic BHX station so it’s hardly worse is it?

If you want people who live 30-40 minutes away by classic train then an hourly classic train followed by an hourly high speed service doesn’t really cut it. Especially when the existing service takes 2.5 hours to Manchester for example and you can drive quicker than that.

 

[The Planner]

If the parkway station in a wealthy village was causing traffic issues then there would be an effort to improve the roads.

Who is paying? Why would a council accept that?

Just because there is traffic calming doesn’t mean much. People living in a rural village are still going to drive to places and a wealthy village has the money to pay for traffic calming.

So you are expecting a levy on people when an influx of new traffic is coming in pretty much against their wishes, that is going to go down well.

Long distance traffic is pretty flat.

So you are saying no one is going to drive there in the peaks to get a train for commuting, and its a flat level of traffic all day?

No one is going to drive to Calvert who isn’t a “local”.

Waste of time building a station then, the catchment area is tiny if its just "locals"

Traffic calming doesn’t cost hundreds of thousands.

Depends on the size of the scheme.

Traffic Calming - Russell Road, Moseley - Birmingham City Council - Citizen Space

This site contains consultations that are run by Birmingham City Council.

www.birminghambeheard.org.uk

https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/article/1281/Costs-of-highway-works

This link, pertinently for Bucks, says a typical speed hump scheme is £100-150k, at prices 5 years ago, £100k now with inflation is £127k, £150k is £190k.

https://buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s12321/App%20A%20TrafficcalmingGuide_2020.pdf

 

[FMerrymon]

It’s a shame that’s no longer accessible as the capacity release either up the Trent Valley or through Birmingham could/would be transformational.

Attached some screenshots of the 5 different options studied with and without additional infrastructure.

 

[The Mercian]

Attached some screenshots of the 5 different options studied with and without additional infrastructure.

Thanks FM, will have a gander.

 

[FMerrymon]

Thanks FM, will have a gander.

These may also be of interest - the objectives of the additional released capacity plans and how each plan measures against those objectives, plus the peak commuter plan with additional intervention.

 

[eldomtom2]

If phase 2a is built the services are more than likely going to be similar to what Euston origin intercity services look like now.

So Milton Keynes etc would lose their AWC services?

 

[MatthewHutton]

This link, pertinently for Bucks, says a typical speed hump scheme is £100-150k, at prices 5 years ago, £100k now with inflation is £127k, £150k is £190k.

OK so depending on how much traffic calming Haddenham has maybe it would be hundreds of thousands for all of it.

Certainly an individual lane restriction wouldn’t cost that much though.

Waste of time building a station then, the catchment area is tiny if its just "locals"

I think the people from Oxford, MK, Bicester and Aylesbury will mostly come by train. It’s the people from the countryside (and all the smaller places together add up) who will drive.

So you are saying no one is going to drive there in the peaks to get a train for commuting, and it’s a flat level of traffic all day?

I think for the longer distance service there won’t be much of a peak, yes. I believe that is typical. For the peak for London it will be earlier/later than the peak for other jobs and for people driving it will be the surrounding villages.

So you are expecting a levy on people when an influx of new traffic is coming in pretty much against their wishes, that is going to go down well.

The people who live in Calvert now will see their house prices increase by hundreds of thousands if a station is built. I think they will be more than happy to pay for a bit of traffic calming.

 

[JonathanH]

The people who live in Calvert now will see their house prices increase by hundreds of thousands if a station is built. I think they will be more than happy to pay for a bit of traffic calming.

Or reduced if they got subsumed by a new town. It is fairly obvious that building a station in the middle of nowhere is pretext to the building of a major settlement, just like bypasses become a new boundary for development.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Or reduced if they got subsumed by a new town.

It is unlikely that enough houses would be built at such a good location for prices for existing (and higher quality) homes to drop.

 

[FlyingPotato]

The people of Calvert may not want a station
They may kick off as any development would "change the character" of the area as with what happened with Escrick in Yorkshire

 

[MatthewHutton]

The people of Calvert may not want a station
They may kick off as any development would "change the character" of the area as with what happened with Escrick in Yorkshire

Ok so I took a look at Heronby (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heronby) and the objections are in part due to damage to an ancient woodland and to the lack of transport links.

A new station (and even a new town) at Calvert or at Stone in Staffordshire by the M6 would have excellent transport links almost by definition and it doesn’t look like any substantial woodland needs to be cut down either.

The Stone, Staffordshire location where you would put the Stoke Parkway station is actually extremely strong as you get direct Motorway access as well giving you extremely good car access. It could even be a good excuse to improve the rail based public transport more generally in Stoke with perhaps reopening? the railway to Newcastle under Lyme and opening? one to Stoke city centre.

 

[FMerrymon]

Ok so I took a look at Heronby (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heronby) and the objections are in part due to damage to an ancient woodland and to the lack of transport links.

A new station (and even a new town) at Calvert or at Stone in Staffordshire by the M6 would have excellent transport links almost by definition and it doesn’t look like any substantial woodland needs to be cut down either.

The Stone, Staffordshire location where you would put the Stoke Parkway station is actually extremely strong as you get direct Motorway access as well giving you extremely good car access. It could even be a good excuse to improve the rail based public transport more generally in Stoke with perhaps reopening? the railway to Newcastle under Lyme and opening? one to Stoke city centre.

An anti hs2 group from Stone were quite prominent, not against the line, but against a railhead at Stone that would, they suggested, increase traffic in the area. I'm not sure they'd appreciate a parkway station and all the additional traffic that would induce.

Stone was to benefit from phase 2a as can be seen from the diagrams above. 2 trains per hour, up from 1, and both extending down to Birmingham. Stoke would have been on the hs2 network, benefitted from more local services and a proposed new station called South Stoke.

In any case, one of the arguments against hs2 from "environmentalists" was that claimed parkway stations would cause more road use, even though there was only one true parkway station on the hs2 network and that was part of a large local public transport plan.

 

[Trainbike46]

The service on the Chiltern Mainline doesn’t really connect well with services beyond Birmingham.

Birmingham Moor Street will connect much better when HS2 opens, as Curzon Street is next door to it. Connecting Chiltern-Moor Street-Curzon Street-Glasgow/Edinburgh/Manchester will be very sensible in the future.

A Coventry station would allow for a few more existing services to be removed from the WCML and moved to HS2. Currently only 2tph can be moved to HS2 without stations losing service - Euston-Manchester via Crewe (first stop Stafford) and Euston-Glasgow via Trent Valley (first stop Warrington). Everything else makes at least one non-Birmingham stop before reaching Handsacre, with the exception of the Chester/NWC services which as previously discussed can't be moved to HS2. With a Coventry station you can transfer an additional 1tph - the Euston-Birmingham stopping at Coventry and Birmingham, and you could also perhaps get away with cutting the London-Birmingham-Scotland/Blackpool services back to Birmingham-Scotland/Blackpool.

Of course if it's tenable to remove through expresses to the north from places like Milton Keynes, Coventry, and Nuneaton then you don't need intermediate stations and can move most AWC services onto HS2. The question is if that is politically tenable, and I confess to not really having any knowledge about that.

You're assuming current stopping patterns will have to be replicated, but that isn't at all true. When the constraints on the system change, and that will happen when HS2 opens, the optimal service pattern changes.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Birmingham Moor Street will connect much better when HS2 opens, as Curzon Street is next door to it. Connecting Chiltern-Moor Street-Curzon Street-Glasgow/Edinburgh/Manchester will be very sensible in the future.

That is fair.

Certainly there has also been a communication issue where no one has worked out the “via Moor Street” journey times.

I suspect they won’t be that brilliant because it is a fair old way on the classic line.

An anti hs2 group from Stone were quite prominent, not against the line, but against a railhead at Stone that would, they suggested, increase traffic in the area. I'm not sure they'd appreciate a parkway station and all the additional traffic that would induce.

I am surprised. Especially as you would drive straight onto the M6.

 

[Trainbike46]

Too few stations meaning you have to do lots and lots of other mitigations and the councils are continually delaying the project is part of the sky high costs.

You're assuming the councils in question would be less obstructionist if their area got a station, however:
- You would still skip most council areas even if you added more stations
- Your assumption that councils in that area would be less obstructionist if they got a station is both unevidenced and unlikely

 

[Zomboid]

Certainly there has also been a communication issue where no one has worked out the “via Moor Street” journey times.

Last thing I read they weren't going to bother with laying track on the northern side of the triangle, so there won't be any northbound service from Curzon Street.

A foolish false economy if you ask me, but killing phase 2 was also one.

 

[eldomtom2]

You're assuming current stopping patterns will have to be replicated, but that isn't at all true. When the constraints on the system change, and that will happen when HS2 opens, the optimal service pattern changes.

How do you think the optimal service pattern will change? Will that mean that some places will have, for instance, a slower but more frequent service?

 

[Zomboid]

How do you think the optimal service pattern will change? Will that mean that some places will have, for instance, a slower but more frequent service?

I think that's the idea. London to Birmingham quickly will be via HS2 and I'd expect all the classic line services to call all Intl, Cov, Rugby and MK, for example.

 

[FMerrymon]

How do you think the optimal service pattern will change? Will that mean that some places will have, for instance, a slower but more frequent service?

See the attachments above from the network rail study on post phase 2a services.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You're assuming the councils in question would be less obstructionist if their area got a station, however:
- You would still skip most council areas even if you added more stations

I mean actually if you do a north Bucks station that isn’t terrible at serving the parts of Northamptonshire the line runs through and Birmingham interchange serves Warwickshire decently.

So then if you do a Stoke Parkway that isn’t terrible at serving Staffordshire and then you are most of the way to the end of phase 2.

- Your assumption that councils in that area would be less obstructionist if they got a station is both unevidenced and unlikely

Your most challenging opponents are those who know about trains both in Britain and in other countries. Those people would 100% have changed sides with a station in their local area as they would personally benefit. They would also do a decent job of bringing other people in the community along as being able to get to Windermere in 2h40 from Aylesbury/Oxford/MK or Glasgow in 4h is pretty good and much quicker than driving.

(My sincere current position is neutral on HS2 - but with a stop in north/central Buckinghamshire I would be a strong supporter)

 

[Trainbike46]

By my counting, North of Crewe there currently are these fast services:
1 tph Glasgow
1 tph Glasgow/Edinburgh via Birmingham
2 tph Liverpool
1 tph Chester/North Wales
1 tph Manchester via Crewe*
2 tph Manchester via Stoke*
2 tph XC Manchester via Stoke*

*different sources disagree on how these are spread, does anyone know for sure?

I would turn this into these HS2 services after phase 2A opens:
- 1 tph Glasgow/Edinburgh (split at Carlisle), stopping at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, and Haymarket
- 1 tph Glasgow/Edinburgh (split at Carlisle) from Curzon street, stopping at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, and Haymarket
- 2 tph Liverpool, stopping at Birmingham International, Crewe, Runcorn, and Liverpool South Parkway (1tph)
-- 1 tph splitting into a Liverpool and a Carlisle or Blackpool service (with stops), if capacity north of Crewe allows
- 4/5 tph Manchester:
-- 1 tph via Crewe, stopping at Birmingham International, Crewe, as now to Picadilly
-- 3/4 tph via stoke, stopping at Birmingham International, then as now after leaving HS2 at Handsacre

*Passengers on current XC services change at Birmingham International onto HS2 services. If there is capacity for 2 tph via Crewe, instead do this:
- 2 tph HS2 via Crewe, stopping at Birmingham International, Crewe, as now to Picadilly
- 2 tph HS2 via Stoke, stopping at Birmingham International, then as now after leaving HS2 at Handsacre
- 2 tph XC via Stoke, stopping as now

How do you think the optimal service pattern will change? Will that mean that some places will have, for instance, a slower but more frequent service?

Exactly

Network rail will have better examples than I could ever come up with!

See the attachments above from the network rail study on post phase 2a services.

 

[MatthewHutton]

By my counting, North of Crewe there currently are these fast services:
1 tph Glasgow
1 tph Glasgow/Edinburgh via Birmingham
2 tph Liverpool
1 tph Chester/North Wales
1 tph Manchester via Crewe*
2 tph Manchester via Stoke*
2 tph XC Manchester via Stoke*

*different sources disagree on how these are spread, does anyone know for sure?

I would turn this into these HS2 services after phase 2A opens:
- 1 tph Glasgow/Edinburgh (split at Carlisle), stopping at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, and Haymarket
- 1 tph Glasgow/Edinburgh (split at Carlisle) from Curzon street, stopping at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, and Haymarket
- 2 tph Liverpool, stopping at Birmingham International, Crewe, Runcorn, and Liverpool South Parkway (1tph)
-- 1 tph splitting into a Liverpool and a Carlisle or Blackpool service (with stops), if capacity north of Crewe allows
- 4/5 tph Manchester:
-- 1 tph via Crewe, stopping at Birmingham International, Crewe, as now to Picadilly
-- 3/4 tph via stoke, stopping at Birmingham International, then as now after leaving HS2 at Handsacre

*Passengers on current XC services change at Birmingham International onto HS2 services. If there is capacity for 2 tph via Crewe, instead do this:
- 2 tph HS2 via Crewe, stopping at Birmingham International, Crewe, as now to Picadilly
- 2 tph HS2 via Stoke, stopping at Birmingham International, then as now after leaving HS2 at Handsacre
- 2 tph XC via Stoke, stopping as now


Exactly

Network rail will have better examples than I could ever come up with!

There needs to be some service for Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockabie?

*different sources disagree on how these are spread, does anyone know for sure?

What you have said is correct with a handful of exceptions.

 

[A S Leib]

There needs to be some service for Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockabie?


What you have said is correct with a handful of exceptions.

Eighteen of the twenty-one daily services from Lockerbie to Carlisle are provided by Scotland to Manchester Airport services; given the lack of mention, I'd assume no change (although I think those services either need to go to 2tph or 9-10 carriages).

 

[Trainbike46]

There needs to be some service for Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockabie?

Sorry, I should have specified: if there is space for a Carlisle splitting from the Liverpool, those would be served by that service. If there is not, add them in split across the 2tph to Edinburgh/Glasgow.

I had forgotten about Lockerbie, which gets a very irregular service at the moment. The TPE Manchester services could take care of that?

What you have said is correct with a handful of exceptions.

Thank you!

 

[FMerrymon]

I am surprised. Especially as you would drive straight onto the M6

That's part of the problem with that idea, it really would encourage more road traffic and not just the M6. HS2 stations all have connectivity with other public transport networks. Not viable there and too far away from the existing station.

(My sincere current position is neutral on HS2 - but with a stop in north/central Buckinghamshire I would be a strong supporter)

And what about if no hs2 station but that connectivity for Aylesbury that hs2 enables is delivered as per the current plan? You'll see on those released capacity diagrams, Aylesbury gets mentioned.

 

[The Ham]

Even if you get 5 million trips a year by car (and maybe 10 million a year in total) we are still only talking 800 cars an hour in all directions which is well within the capacity of a high quality two lane road.

10 million car movements a year is just shy of 14,000 movements a day in each direction, that's likely to be 1,300 movements in the peak hours.

However, even if we assume you're 800 movements, you could only take at that to existing roads of (say) 300 movements per hour otherwise the combination of existing and proposed traffic would cause significant congestion.

Just because there is traffic calming doesn’t mean much. People living in a rural village are still going to drive to places and a wealthy village has the money to pay for traffic calming.

It's unlikely that they would pay for it.

Traffic calming doesn’t cost hundreds of thousands.

See below

This link, pertinently for Bucks, says a typical speed hump scheme is £100-150k, at prices 5 years ago, £100k now with inflation is £127k, £150k is £190k.

With construction inflation being higher than general inflation the upper end of that range may even be above £200,000.

Even somewhere with a population of 10,000 people that's likely to be about 4,250 homes so closer to £50 in extra taxes.

The complication is that rarely will Parish/Town councils reduce their tax take. Even allowing for them to raise the money over a 5 year period, that's likely to be £12 in extra taxes each year going forwards.

(The thinking being we've upset the residents to raise that money, only a few will likely remember exactly when the increase was due to reduce and so few would complain when it doesn't, if they do then the lack of reduction can be blamed on inflation)

 

[MatthewHutton]

10 million car movements a year is just shy of 14,000 movements a day in each direction, that's likely to be 1,300 movements in the peak hours.

However, even if we assume you're 800 movements, you could only take at that to existing roads of (say) 300 movements per hour otherwise the combination of existing and proposed traffic would cause significant congestion.

My very optimistic calculation on ridership is 10 million passengers in total, of which half come by public or active travel.

Then of the remainder 5 million come by car with an average occupancy of 1.5 per car. So 9000 per day in total. Of note I believe passenger numbers generally quoted in the UK count once for departure and once for arrival.

I guess there is a question about people getting lifts or coming by taxi which would see two car movements per trip. Perhaps a total of 12,000? If there is a particular London peak it will a) be before the local peak and b) will be focused on the villages closest to and to the north of the station.

That's part of the problem with that idea, it really would encourage more road traffic and not just the M6. HS2 stations all have connectivity with other public transport networks. Not viable there and too far away from the existing station.

The stone parkway station is presumably going to be located where the Stafford-Stone railway crosses the M6 and HS2 which are very close together at that point.

And what about if no hs2 station but that connectivity for Aylesbury that hs2 enables is delivered as per the current plan? You'll see on those released capacity diagrams, Aylesbury gets mentioned

Sure. But it has to happen. And currently East West Rail to Aylesbury is cancelled.

To be fair the plans do look to be making the cross country trains go all via Coventry which is good for Banbury/Leamington spa.