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

[Trainbike46]

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.

Are all these numbers based on anything, or are they just wild guesses?

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

How is East-West Rail related to HS2 phase 2A? If it isn't, this should be in a separate thread.

(though I agree that the Aylesbury connection to EWR should be built)

 

[The Ham]

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.

9,000 movements is still 900 cars in peaks, as I said add that to the existing traffic in an existing road and you run into trouble, as a normal road (one lane in each direction) is perceived to be near capacity at 13,000 movements in a day.

Also I'd question if travel to a railway station works average 1.5 people in the car going on the train (for example commuting tends to average a car occupancy rate of 1.2), likewise you're likely to have at least some people who are dropped off at the station by others who then drive the car away (excluding taxis) which would mean more cars than you've aloud for.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Traffic calming doesn’t cost hundreds of thousands.

I think you will find at even a modest traffic calm scheme will cost more than most Parish/Town Councils can affafford. Plus highways responsibilities lie with either the County Council or Unitary Authority (depending on which part of the country you are in), Parish/Town council’s have limited or no legal powers to undertake road improvements anyway.

 

[The Ham]

I think you will find at even a modest traffic calm scheme will cost more than most Parish/Town Councils can affafford. Plus highways responsibilities lie with either the County Council or Unitary Authority (depending on which part of the country you are in), Parish/Town council’s have limited or no legal powers to undertake road improvements anyway.

Although, through Section 278 agreements, anyone can make changes to the highway if the designs are acceptable to the highway authority and they fund them.

 

[Palmerston]

Adding Coventry and potentially Wolverhampton[1] and I reckon you can get it down to:


[1] Despite having similar total passenger numbers, Coventry is significantly more London-weighted than Wolverhampton, which is overwhelmingly towards Birmingham. Here are the stats from the ORR destination matrix 2022-2023 (later years aren't dissimilar).

Origin	Destination	Total
Coventry	Birmingham New St	1,073,351
^	London Euston	540,963
Wolverhampton	Birmingham New St	859,227
^	London Euston	170,115
Birmingham Intl	Birmingham New St	635,527
^	London Euston	274,168
^	Coventry	182,601
^	Wolverhampton	103,442

If (big if) you electrify and upgrade Coventry to Nuneaton you could send some WCML services via Coventry but not Birmingham. This avoids Cov seeing a reduction in services; they won't really be needed to New Street if fast services are via HS2.

 

[The Planner]

If (big if) you electrify and upgrade Coventry to Nuneaton you could send some WCML services via Coventry but not Birmingham. This avoids Cov seeing a reduction in services; they won't really be needed to New Street if fast services are via HS2.

There was an interation sending a stopping Trent Valley service via Cov.

 

[Zomboid]

If (big if) you electrify and upgrade Coventry to Nuneaton you could send some WCML services via Coventry but not Birmingham. This avoids Cov seeing a reduction in services; they won't really be needed to New Street if fast services are via HS2.

It's not that crazy an idea - probably not imminent, but there is a reasonable amount of freight that goes that way on its way up from Southampton.

 

[Stossgebet]

It's not that crazy an idea - probably not imminent, but there is a reasonable amount of freight that goes that way on its way up from Southampton.

Yeah. I thought the idea was to send a bimode 805 via cov-nuneaton, on its journey between London and North Wales. The logic being Cov was promised it would keep 3 fast trains to London per hour.

 

[Zomboid]

Yeah. I thought the idea was to send a bimode 805 via cov-nuneaton, on its journey between London and North Wales. The logic being Cov was promised it would keep 3 fast trains to London per hour.

I think the North Wales trains need to be kept fast. It's already a political issue that HS2 is classified as an "England and Wales" project, when the benefits to Wales are hard to define. If the result is a degradation of the service they currently get in order to keep Coventry happy it'll be pretty indefensible.

 

[Palmerston]

I think the North Wales trains need to be kept fast. It's already a political issue that HS2 is classified as an "England and Wales" project, when the benefits to Wales are hard to define. If the result is a degradation of the service they currently get in order to keep Coventry happy it'll be pretty indefensible.

How much time would it add?

 

[Zomboid]

How much time would it add?

in the current timetable (so a few station stops) Nuneaton to Coventry is 33 minutes, so let's be generous and call it 20 non stop. Coventry to Rugby is 10 minutes. Nuneaton to Rugby is 15 minutes. Excluding station calls (and at present the Chester service is fast from Stafford) that's at least 15 minutes extra. I'd guess you'd add at least 20 minutes by the time you've moved over to the slows for the junction at Nuneaton and called at Coventry. More than that if you're going to call at Nuneaton and/or Rugby as well.

This on a journey time which is presently 2h05ish from Chester.

 

[FMerrymon]

in the current timetable (so a few station stops) Nuneaton to Coventry is 33 minutes, so let's be generous and call it 20 non stop. Coventry to Rugby is 10 minutes. Nuneaton to Rugby is 15 minutes. Excluding station calls (and at present the Chester service is fast from Stafford) that's at least 15 minutes extra. I'd guess you'd add at least 20 minutes by the time you've moved over to the slows for the junction at Nuneaton and called at Coventry. More than that if you're going to call at Nuneaton and/or Rugby as well.

This on a journey time which is presently 2h05ish from Chester.

The indicative service on the plans for network rail would see two trains an hour via Nuneaton and Coventry, but connecting to Manchester and Liverpool. Chester served without going that direction.

 

[cle]

Feels to me like a service like that would then become a TV stopper (as an extra perhaps) - if it was in leiu of a Northampton loop, it would net out about the same, but of course they run Weedon now so it would be a downgrade for those users too.

I suspect 2tph fast (or 3tph but calling at Watford/MKC - Rugby doesn't need as much and gets TV services) - is fine for Coventry. It's not a massive market in isolation. And some in the southern / western catchment might head to Interchange.

 

[FMerrymon]

I think the North Wales trains need to be kept fast. It's already a political issue that HS2 is classified as an "England and Wales" project, when the benefits to Wales are hard to define. If the result is a degradation of the service they currently get in order to keep Coventry happy it'll be pretty indefensible.

A political issue based on Plaid not understanding, or intentionally misleading on, the Barnett formula, but that's for another thread.

 

[Zomboid]

A political issue based on Plaid not understanding, or intentionally misleading on, the Barnett formula, but that's for another thread.

That's as may be, but it is still an issue. And even if not I would struggle to justify a degradation of the service that North Wales receives resulting from HS2. There's only about 7 trains a day that venture beyond Chester as it is.

 

[Palmerston]

The indicative service on the plans for network rail would see two trains an hour via Nuneaton and Coventry, but connecting to Manchester and Liverpool. Chester served without going that direction.

Looking at this chart, and seeing the freight trains going Cov to Walsall, I recall there were plans by someone to run direct services on this route to London, starting somewhere like Shrewsbury. That would also alleviate the possible reduction in Cov and Wolverhampton direct services. I don't know if this was just a pie-in-the-sky plan or something that might actually go ahead.

 

[The Mercian]

Looking at this chart, and seeing the freight trains going Cov to Walsall, I recall there were plans by someone to run direct services on this route to London, starting somewhere like Shrewsbury. That would also alleviate the possible reduction in Cov and Wolverhampton direct services. I don't know if this was just a pie-in-the-sky plan or something that might actually go ahead.

Think it was this

New direct train service planned between Shropshire and London - BBC News

Services from WSMR could see direct trains between north Wales, Shropshire and London.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[FMerrymon]

Think it was this

New direct train service planned between Shropshire and London - BBC News

Services from WSMR could see direct trains between north Wales, Shropshire and London.

www.bbc.co.uk

The plans for local routes through Birmingham, such as Coventry-Wolverhampton, was covered by this https://www.wmre.org.uk/our-strategies/west-midlands-rail-investment-strategy/ without HS2 some of that will no longer be possible. Coventry-Wolverhampton should still see some increase.

Midland Connect have been pushing for improvements on the line between Birmingham and Shrewsbury - for the added capacity, it requires HS2 and I've noticed lately the capacity aspect is no longer mentioned in articles about it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c623v2kzw1xo

That's as may be, but it is still an issue. And even if not I would struggle to justify a degradation of the service that North Wales receives resulting from HS2. There's only about 7 trains a day that venture beyond Chester as it is.

Agree, unlikely to go down well. Electrification could give North Wales quite a boost if it allowed HS2 and possible NPR services to run, but I'm led to believe it was would not be a simple task.

 

[The Mercian]

And it looks like NR have kiboshed it now as well (quite sensibly imv)

Network Rail objects to direct London trains from Wrexham - BBC News

Concerns over capacity on the line and the safety of a Shropshire level crossing have been raised.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[MatthewHutton]

That's as may be, but it is still an issue. And even if not I would struggle to justify a degradation of the service that North Wales receives resulting from HS2. There's only about 7 trains a day that venture beyond Chester as it is.

7 trains a day is more than 2 hourly. And I think the argument from the Welsh would be that it should be hourly.

I think you just have to electrify the line to Holyhead and run some HS2 services there.

Given the Leeds thing isn’t happening anytime soon if ever use some capacity from that.

9,000 movements is still 900 cars in peaks, as I said add that to the existing traffic in an existing road and you run into trouble, as a normal road (one lane in each direction) is perceived to be near capacity at 13,000 movements in a day.

Also I'd question if travel to a railway station works average 1.5 people in the car going on the train (for example commuting tends to average a car occupancy rate of 1.2), likewise you're likely to have at least some people who are dropped off at the station by others who then drive the car away (excluding taxis) which would mean more cars than you've aloud for.

Yeah but it’s long distance typically and not commuting - so I would expect occupancy to be higher.

Like look if you had 12k car rides a day and let’s say for arguments sake 1200 at peak then yes with a 2 lane road in each direction of its 600 per direction or 10 per minute. Of course at the end of that road it will only 300 per direction.

If you built/upgraded a two lane road in three directions then the peak would be 400 per direction and at the end of that road only 200 in each direction on the main road.

And of course in both cases a fair amount of traffic would be local and wouldn’t be going that far so all those figures would be lower.

5m rides a year by car would also be massive for a parkway station. Didcot and Bristol get about 3 in total I believe - and Bristol gets all trains stopping for that ridership.

I think you will find at even a modest traffic calm scheme will cost more than most Parish/Town Councils can affafford. Plus highways responsibilities lie with either the County Council or Unitary Authority (depending on which part of the country you are in), Parish/Town council’s have limited or no legal powers to undertake road improvements anyway.

Highways agencies are keen to do stuff if someone else finds the money.

And £200k would be £200/house as a one off for a village with a thousand homes. Or £100/house if there was £100k of CIL money from local housing development.