tbtc
Veteran Member
it's inevitable that HS2 will charge a premium price
Inevitable?
HS2 will have thousands of seats to fill every hour - you're not going to fill thousands of seats by just charging premium prices.
it's inevitable that HS2 will charge a premium price
FGW HSTs have high density seating, but they're still intercity trains. The IEPs will still be an intercity train.
So why should the ECML deserve such trains but the MML only deserve commuter trains?
I agree. SNCF have realised this on their TGV, and recently launched 'Ouigo' - I suppose the easyjet of SNCF - to encourage leisure travellers to use the TGV, because it's alot cheaper.HS2 will have thousands of seats to fill every hour - you're not going to fill thousands of seats by just charging premium prices.
Because while they were suitable, Meridians could have been considered "more suitable".
Additionally I was a semi-regular user of the Turbostars Hull Trains had when its operations first started.
They seemed fairly similar in terms of making a journey bearable to the Mark 3s we put up with now.
Inevitable?
HS2 will have thousands of seats to fill every hour - you're not going to fill thousands of seats by just charging premium prices.
The commuter IEP will be more akin to the Class 395 than anything else. Which doesn't stop it being the wrong train for the Cambridge/Kings lynn service anyway- I'd suggest a 110mph capable next generation Desiro or Electorstar/Aventra, possibly in six car formations, would be a more suitable unit for that service. Or, for that matter, stick with the 365s, which with refurbishment (wifi, aircon, ideally power sockets) would be as suitable as they are now for another 15-20 years (obviously with further refurbs along the line), with a bonus that Thameslink will release more of them.
HS2 are rather in a cleft stick when it comes to prices. Charge more, and they will be accused of overcharging people (and probably not get very many passengers, look at HS1 for an example). Charge less, and people (myself for a start) will be up in arms about them undercutting existing operators, to the detriment of their services. For on-the-day tickets, I reckon they should charge exactly the same as whatever the ICWC or Chiltern operator charges, and most tickets should be inter-operable between routes - meaning you could turn up at Moor Street, buy a return to London and choose to come back via HS2 if you wanted. For advance, well, they can charge what they like
IF it weren't for the need to fit in a Corby service, you could run the MML as a simple pattern with
- 2x London - Derby
- 2x London - Nottingham
- 2x London - Sheffield (via the Erewash route, maybe some extending to Leeds?)
One of each stopping at Loughborough/ East Midlands Parkway.
(XC already provide a decent enough service from Derby to Sheffield, there's already a half hourly service from Nottingham to Sheffield, so no need for the Sheffield services to run slow via Derby/ Nottingham)
We should really move over to the HS2 thread, but my argument is that once you've paid to build HS2*, the operating costs of it should be pretty low - simple infrastructure, all electric, only a handful of stations to maintain, long trains... so very few staff required per passenger compared to conventional routes. That means there's scope to pack passengers in with cheap tickets.
(* - admittedly, this is the expensive part!)
IF it weren't for the need to fit in a Corby service, you could run the MML as a simple pattern with
- 2x London - Derby
- 2x London - Nottingham
- 2x London - Sheffield (via the Erewash route, maybe some extending to Leeds?)
One of each stopping at Loughborough/ East Midlands Parkway.
AIUI, Cambridge/King's Lynn is going to be split off from Thameslink when the connection opens and grafted onto ICEC. It makes sense that it would end up with the same stock as used on the Leeds/York semi-fasts.
That's never been official policy but rumors/guess work because the King's Lynn was expected to get IEP which has now gone out the window.
King's Lynn will be a part of TSGN until at least 2022.
Is HS2 really going to cascade some Pendolinos away from ICWC? If so, shame it'd be too late to use them on the MML. PAD-Penzance maybe?Pendolinos would be ideal, as the MML has lots of curves and also now some 125mph sections. But I think it's more likely to be IEP and/or some slightly upmarket EMUs.
Are the Melton trains only for getting stock to/from depot then? I assumed it'd be like the GW branches, requiring some form of diesel haulage (or bi-mode) to maintain the beyond-wires services.a few trains are currently extended to Derby via Melton as a way of getting them to and from depot but this won't be possible with EMUs as the wires will finish at Corby.
350s/377s are ok for stoppers, but if you think the fast mainline services can be reduced back to a 110mph top speed then something like Wessex Electrics could be made similar to Intercity standards, and allow for portion working if desirable. Outer suburban units are not appropriate for long-distance fast services.2 Class 350s an hour or one short Pendolino (the track access for a Class 350 carriage is just more than half that of a Pendolino)... I think they will chose the Class 350s.
There's an interesting letter in May's Modern Railways, advocating suitable guage clearance to avoid the need for TASS and allow additional routes to be used for tilting trains.They would be no better at sharp curves without the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds on TASS installation and gauging work.
Now that the MML is being upgraded to 125mph, I'd say maybe. Previously I'd have said the IC225s should be retained on the ECML or cascaded to the GWML, and I still think they are more suited to those two routes than anywhere else, with the ECML probably being slightly prefrable for them. I really hope the 91s and mrk4s get to run in regular service at 140mph before their retirement, and both GWML and ECML are supposed to be getting ERTMS.What about Class 91s/Mark 4s from the ECML?
On the Great Western, not just west of Taunton but also Reading to Taunton via Westbury look like they might find tilt useful.I wish someone would articulate the reasoning behind tilt on the WCML and nowhere else.
There are many routes, eg like MML, west of Taunton, north of Darlington etc which would benefit from tilt, but it never seems to be an option.
That's interesting, I've wondered once or twice in the past whether Intercity should have had some of the routes from Waterloo.442s were going to be painted in IC 'Executive'
The 444s still have most of their doors in the right places, they certainly don't look like suburban units from the outside to me.with 444s finally putting the tin hat on it.
What exactly is the suituation now? Assuming the 'direct line' is the SWT service via Havant I think there are a mixture of slower and faster services. If so, my opinion is that the outer-suburban (class 450) units might be suitable on the slower trains, but all the faster runs should be 444s (or Wessex Electrics, but Southern have them now). Since there probably aren't enough 444s, I'd like to see more built which would cascade the 450s off faster Portsmouth services to Lymington and (after putting down some third rail or erecting some OHLE) the Southampton-Romsey/Salisbury services to release some 158s.look at what's happened the Portsmouth direct line
Sounds sensible, outer-suburban trains on stoppers, Intercity units to overtake them.Well it's worth remembering that when 170s first showed up they were intended to be used on all stops services between St Pancras and the main MML destinations whilst HSTs would run limited stop services. The idea being that if you wanted to travel from Chesterfield to St Pancras you'd board a 170 at Chesterfield and then change at Derby onto an HST that might only call at Leicester on it's way to St Pancras.
To extend on this I would have
London-derby calling at Leicester.
London to derby calling at wellingborough, Kettering, Leicester, loughborough, East Midlands parkway, long eaton and spondon
London to Nottingham calling at Leicester
London to Nottingham calling Luton or airport parkway, Bedford, wellinborough, Kettering, market harborough, Leicester, syston, sileby, Barrow upon soar, loughborough, East Midlands parkway and beeston
London to Sheffield calling at Leicester
London to Sheffield calling Kettering, Leicester, alfreton, and sheffield.
And use the 156s freed onthe derby to Crewe line with the dog boxes of that being used on a shuttle between Corby and Kettering
Inevitable?
HS2 will have thousands of seats to fill every hour - you're not going to fill thousands of seats by just charging premium prices.
I don't think stopping the London services at such minor stations would work, not least because the ones south of Loughborough only have very short platforms. There is always going to be a need for Nottingham-Leicester and Nottingham-Derby trains that can serve these places. With a timetable recast (separating the electric legs) these could be EMUs. If Derby-Birmingham isn't electrified then it would be a good idea to extend the Birmingham-Nottingham as an hourly fast to Lincoln.
Well it's worth remembering that when 170s first showed up they were intended to be used on all stops services between St Pancras and the main MML destinations whilst HSTs would run limited stop services. The idea being that if you wanted to travel from Chesterfield to St Pancras you'd board a 170 at Chesterfield and then change at Derby onto an HST that might only call at Leicester on it's way to St Pancras.
It was quite European in it's thinking, but of course in this country we have the cult of 'everywhere must have a regular direct service to London' so it was never all that popular, coupled with issues over capacity with the small 170s and MML ended up going for 222s as a replacement.
That's what SDO is for and I'd guess that the vast majority of passengers that use these stations are regulars they'd quickly get to know where on the train they need to alight.
Is HS2 actually going to be much faster than current rail options for London-Leeds? It seems to take a rather indirect route to get there. My opinion is that HS2 phase one should be HS1 - Euston Cross - Birmingham (Central) - near Stafford - Crewe - Manchester (with the London-Birmingham section completed and openned first, but work carrying on without stopping after that). Most services wouldn't terminate at Birmingham but fan out at Crewe, rather than perpetuating the problem with the current WCML that Liverpool/Manchester/Chester etc. to London trains bypass Birmingham. Phase 2a would then be the link from the Manchester branch of HS2 to Wigan/Preston, though as with Birmingham I would have this as an extention from the Manchester station (which would no longer be a terminous) rather than bypassing Manchester. HS1 to Old Oak Common (assuming that the Euston Cross proposal still passes there) should be 4-track to allow a future HS3/4 to Bristol/Southampton.I really don't think there is anything like enough demand in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands to fill thousands of seats each hour. I certainly think there will be demand for high speed travel to London but not at the levels that people are predicting. And so given that we already have a short fall of £3B HS2 will have to raise their prices. Some customers will happily pay the premium, some won't.
Surely 350s suffer the exact same problems, draghty central doors eating space out of the passenger area (creating more standing room, less seats or leg room at them, fewer tables), as class 170s?In terms of the class 170's, it wasn't just capacity that was the problem. Right from the start they were clearly not suited to intercity travel in the same way that class 350's are. Central doors create draughts and serve no advantage where there are limited stops.
(XC already provide a decent enough service from Derby to Sheffield, there's already a half hourly service from Nottingham to Sheffield, so no need for the Sheffield services to run slow via Derby/ Nottingham)
I thought the Derby route was faster than the Erewash even though it's less direct, due to line speeds and fitting around the freight?
Surely 350s suffer the exact same problems, draghty central doors eating space out of the passenger area (creating more standing room, less seats or leg room at them, fewer tables), as class 170s?
As you say, a limited-stop train should have no need of central doors, hence why I think anything with 'Express' or 'Intercity' in the title ('regional express', 'transpennie express' etc.) really should have Intercity or 5-WES/158/444-style stock.
Could anyone tell my what time savings we would be looking at between a journey from Sheffield Midland to London by HST compaired to an Electric hauled service ?
Not without quite a bit of work.
Is HS2 actually going to be much faster than current rail options for London-Leeds? It seems to take a rather indirect route to get there.
Do I remember the bosses at the time taking about "emptying the M1" or some such phrase?
With the 170s, the hourly service became:
- two HST fast to Leicester and onwards to either or Nottingham or Derby+Sheffield
- plus two stopping 170 to Leicester and onwards to Derby or Nottingham,
with cross-platform changing at Leicester between the stopping and fast services for the two basic routes.
Stations south of Leicester got a much-improved frequency, and stations Leicester and northwards got a faster service with fewer stops.
The 170s were also used on extra extended services to Burton and Barnsley (and Matlock?). Whatever happened to those services? The Barnsley ones at least weren't that attractive in journey time, compared to changing at Sheffield onto a fast.
I found the 170s pretty uncomfortable, cramped, noisy and hard seats compared to the HST, particularly when I found myself on 170 on a London-Sheffield Sunday all-stops service.
The increased service level was evidently a success, as the 222s were ordered, giving much more of an inter-city ambience than the 170s, some of which were only 2-car units
I thought the Derby route was faster than the Erewash even though it's less direct, due to line speeds and fitting around the freight?
I'm not quibbling with your history, but it should also be mentioned that National Express extended the 170s from two to three coaches when demand proved that there was a requirement for longer trains...
A lot of the cost of the works to allow IEP would depend on whether signalling needs replacing and/or electrification needs to happen or be upgraded.
The other IEP enabling works which have happened is when upgrades to the gauge of the line happens to allow larger containers on freight trains.
All of the above can be done so that the cost to clear a route for IEP's is fairly low (i.e. new signals/gantries/other line side equipment and structures are located far enough away from the track that it means that they don't have to be moved to allow IEP's to use the line).
The cost to allow IEP's to run has to be weighed up against the cost of lengthening platforms to allow longer 23m stock trains to run as there is less wasted space (i.e. 9 pairs of doors and coach joints compared with 10 on a similar length train) which means that there is more space for seats.
Thanks, forgot that, so their toe in the water (2-car) became a leg in the water (3-car) and then they dived in wholeheartedly (222s)!
Erewash/Toton could still be a viable route for a speedy Sheffield-London service if required (but that's a big if, and Derby loses out unless you do something additional).
13x 2 coach 170s became 17x 3 coach 170s
Could anyone tell my what time savings we would be looking at between a journey from Sheffield Midland to London by HST compaired to an Electric hauled service ?
Sorry to be a pedant (someone has to I suppose), but they actually only ordered 10 centre cars in 2000. These had about 20 First Class seats in a more spacious arrangement than behind the driving cabs.
The Meridians that replaced them (the 222/0 4 car units) actually had less seats than the 3 car units did, so although ambience improved to IC standard, seating capacity decreased by a small amount