Potential HS2 services

[daodao]

Moderator note: Split from

HS2 Phase 2a recieves Royal Assent

Article: https://mediacentre.hs2.org.uk/news/hs2-accelerates-north-as-mps-give-go-ahead-to-next-phase-to-crewe MPs have today (Thursday 11 February 2021) given the go-ahead to the next phases of Britain’s high speed rail network, with the Bill approving the building of HS2 Phase 2A north from...

www.railforums.co.uk

It will bring advantages for the North West but surely do nothing for the East Midlands and Yorkshire/NE if the eastern leg is not built

Even if the eastern leg is not built, 2 tph could run up HS2 and, provided a suitable connection is built and the line electrified, via the ex-MR lines to Burton, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield. All the remaining fast services on the MML from St Pancras to Leicester could then run to Nottingham.

I welcome the approval of extending HS2 to Crewe, as this is likely to carry a significant amount of traffic. However, at Crewe, services currently branch in 4 directions, so train frequency on any proposed HS lines north thereof would be much less and may not be sufficient to justify building them, particularly if train travel does not increase as hitherto predicted.

Is there any clarity yet about exactly what services would run on HS2a? It could be useful to speed up journeys from Birmingham to NW England and Scotland, not just from London.

 

[Ianno87]

Even if the eastern leg is not built, 2 tph could run up HS2 and, provided a suitable connection is built and the line electrified, via the ex-MR lines to Burton, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield. All the remaining fast services on the MML from St Pancras to Leicester could then run to Nottingham.

I welcome the approval of extending HS2 to Crewe, as this is likely to carry a significant amount of traffic. However, at Crewe, services branch in 4 directions, so train frequency on any proposed HS lines north thereof would be much less and may not be sufficient to justify building them, particularly if train travel does not increase as hitherto predicted.

Is there any clarity yet about exactly what services would run on HS2a? It could be useful to speed up journeys from Birmingham to NW England and Scotland, not just from London.

2a would bring the total service on HS2 from Euston to 10tph:

-3tph Birmingham
-3tph Manchester via Crewe
-2tph Liverpool
-1tph Preston
-1tph Glasgow

(From the 2017 Economic Case for Phase 2a)

 

[daodao]

3tph Manchester via Crewe
-2tph Liverpool

That is a significant increase over current provision from London on these routes, and given that 2 tph currently travel via Stoke and 1 tph from Euston is likely still to be routed via Stoke, possibly overprovision for Manchester in the future.

What services (if any) from Birmingham to NW England and beyond are proposed to be routed via HS2a?

 

[Ianno87]

That is a significant increase over current provision, and given that 2 tph currently travel via Stoke and 1 tph from Euston is likely still to be routed via Stoke, possibly overprovision for Manchester in the future.

Sending one via Stoke would be bad for the 20 minute interval, as it would be so much slower than HS2 Phase 2a via Crewe.

 

[daodao]

Sending one via Stoke would be bad for the 20 minute interval, as it would be so much slower than HS2 Phase 2a via Crewe.

However, it is questionable whether traffic to Manchester alone, if intermediate stops are bypassed, can justify a 20 minute interval service.

 

[edwin_m]

Even if the eastern leg is not built, 2 tph could run up HS2 and, provided a suitable connection is built and the line electrified, via the ex-MR lines to Burton, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield. All the remaining fast services on the MML from St Pancras to Leicester could then run to Nottingham.

I welcome the approval of extending HS2 to Crewe, as this is likely to carry a significant amount of traffic. However, at Crewe, services branch in 4 directions, so train frequency on any proposed HS lines north thereof would be much less and may not be sufficient to justify building them, particularly if train travel does not increase as hitherto predicted.

There still needs to be a service between Leicester and Derby, which is currently provided by the London trains. It's unlikely anything on the MML will change until whatever of Phase 2b is built, and even then the service south of Derby and Nottingham will remain very close to the current one, because Leicester and other intermediate stations still need a good level of service.

The plan is for spare capacity on the HS2 Crewe-Manchester route to be used to provide Manchester-Liverpool service which (along with London-Liverpool) would also use a new link from HS2 into Liverpool. I'm not sure where you get four directions, as no HS2 service is planned towards Chester.

Sending one via Stoke would be bad for the 20 minute interval, as it would be so much slower than HS2 Phase 2a via Crewe.

I doubt there is enough capacity to run more than 3TPH London service through Stockport. I wonder if the proposed London-Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield will be brought forward from Phase 2b to 2a.

 

[daodao]

There still needs to be a service between Leicester and Derby

There would still be 4 tph from London to Leicester, but instead of the fast/slow services being split between Derby/Sheffield and Nottingham, all the fast services could go to Nottingham and the slow ones to Derby, as Derby/Sheffield would have alternative HS2 services to London.

I'm not sure where you get four directions, as no HS2 service is planned towards Chester.

Trains from London to Crewe currently branch in 4 directions. In theory, the Crewe-Chester line could be electrified and link into HS2a; I posed a question in my initial post about what services are currently proposed for HS2a because I didn't know what they are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

-2tph Liverpool
-1tph Preston

One of those is a splitter/joiner, half to Liverpool and half to Lancaster (not Preston), so that's 9.

 

[Ianno87]

I doubt there is enough capacity to run more than 3TPH London service through Stockport.

Even though there's a 3tph London service through Stockport today (well, pre-Covid).....

One of those is a splitter/joiner, half to Liverpool and half to Lancaster (not Preston), so that's 9.

That's not what the 2017 economic case says....

(I think the split/join is to enable the Macclesfield to run in Phase 2b, which could be brought forward to 2a if the relevant infrastructure to permit split/joins at Crewe is ready)

Th

The plan is for spare capacity on the HS2 Crewe-Manchester route to be used to provide Manchester-Liverpool service which (along with London-Liverpool) would also use a new link from HS2 into Liverpool. I'm not sure where you get four directions, as no HS2 service is planned towards Chester.

You're getting mixed up with NPR, which will use the Phase 2b infrastructure through Manchester Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not what the 2017 economic case says....

It's changed since then, in that case. (Edit: or am I thinking 2b?)

I believe (answering @daodao too) that the 10th train is a Macc or Stoke terminator that doesn't continue to Manchester.

 

[daodao]

It's changed since then, in that case. (Edit: or am I thinking 2b?)

I believe (answering @daodao too) that the 10th train is a Macc or Stoke terminator that doesn't continue to Manchester.

Thanks all for their clarifications about proposed services from London on HS2a.

However, no one has answered my second question, namely what services (if any) from Birmingham to NW England and beyond are currently proposed to be routed via HS2a? Using HS2a for some of these trains would bypass the slow and unpleasant crawl from Birmingham to Wolverhampton.

 

[Greybeard33]

Thanks all for their clarifications about proposed services from London on HS2a.

However, no one has answered my second question, namely what services (if any) from Birmingham to NW England and beyond are currently proposed to be routed via HS2a? Using HS2a for some of these trains would bypass the slow and unpleasant crawl from Birmingham to Wolverhampton.

I believe the latest modelled Train Service Specification for Phase 2a published by DfT is that in Annex B of the Phase One Full Business Case dated 01 April 2020 (hopefully not an April Fool!)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/939905/full-business-case-hs2-phase-one.pdf

The full TSS comprises:

• 3tph (400m) Euston - Curzon Street calling OOC and Birmingham Interchange
• 1tph (2*200m) Euston - Crewe calling OOC, splitting at Crewe to:
  - Lancaster portion, calling Warrington BQ, Wigan NW and Preston
  - Liverpool portion, calling Runcorn
• 1tph (200m) Euston - Liverpool, calling OOC, Crewe and Runcorn
• 1tph (200m) Euston - Macclesfield, calling OOC, Stafford and Stoke
• 1tph (200m) Euston - Piccadilly, calling OOC, Wilmslow and Stockport
• 2tph (200m) Euston - Piccadilly, calling OOC and Stockport
• 1tph (200m) Euston - Glasgow, calling Preston and Carlisle

Total 10tph, with no services north from Curzon Street. It appears that all 3tph to Manchester are assumed to use Phase 2a infrastructure, although I think this could cause congestion between Crewe and Cheadle Hulme.

Fig.1.8 in this document gives an indicative plan of the complementary services on the southern WCML. These include 4tph Avanti:

• 1tph Euston - Piccadilly, calling Watford, Milton Keynes, Stoke and Stockport (unclear if also Macclesfield)
• 1tph Euston - Wolverhampton, calling Milton Keynes, Rugby and New Street
• 1tph Euston - Glasgow/Edinburgh, calling Watford, Milton Keynes and New Street (calls further north not detailed)
• 1tph Euston - Chester/N Wales, calling Milton Keynes and Rugby (further calls not detailed)

There are also 10tph LNW (17tph in the peaks), 1tph Southern (2tph in the peaks) and 5tph freight (2tph in the peaks).

The "staged opening" TSS is for only 6tph fom OOC for the first two years:

• 3tph OOC - Curzon Street, calling Interchange
• 1tph OOC - Liverpool, calling Crewe and Runcorn
• 1tph OOC - Piccadilly, calling Wilmslow and Stockport
• 1tph OOC - Glasgow, calling Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston and Carlisle

However, this assumed Euston opening in 2031. With the further delay (see other thread) I wonder if they might try to run the full 10tph from OOC?

HS2 Ltd has released a new flyover video of the Phase 2a route:

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, no one has answered my second question, namely what services (if any) from Birmingham to NW England and beyond are currently proposed to be routed via HS2a? Using HS2a for some of these trains would bypass the slow and unpleasant crawl from Birmingham to Wolverhampton.

If I recall rightly there will be 1tph Birmingham (Curzon St) to Carlisle (and possibly beyond) calling at all IC stations (which will be the only HS2 service at Oxenholme and Penrith, they'll lose London unlass a classic line service remains).

Edit: or is that 2B?

 

[edwin_m]

There would still be 4 tph from London to Leicester, but instead of the fast/slow services being split between Derby/Sheffield and Nottingham, all the fast services could go to Nottingham and the slow ones to Derby, as Derby/Sheffield would have alternative HS2 services to London.

Understood thanks. The latest suggestion is to finish the Eastern leg at East Midlands Parkway where it could provide service to Sheffield (via Derby) and Nottingham. This would provide more than your proposal but also cost more and probably take longer.

Even though there's a 3tph London service through Stockport today (well, pre-Covid).....

I said "more than 3TPH".

That's not what the 2017 economic case says....

(I think the split/join is to enable the Macclesfield to run in Phase 2b, which could be brought forward to 2a if the relevant infrastructure to permit split/joins at Crewe is ready)

Pretty sure the intended service pattern has changed at least once since 2017, but don't have time to go back into it now. And I'm not clear how a split at Crewe is relevant to Macclesfield.

You're getting mixed up with NPR, which will use the Phase 2b infrastructure through Manchester Airport.

That's the whole point. The two projects need to be seen as one, at least from a planning perspective.

 

[Ianno87]

Thanks all for their clarifications about proposed services from London on HS2a.

However, no one has answered my second question, namely what services (if any) from Birmingham to NW England and beyond are currently proposed to be routed via HS2a? Using HS2a for some of these trains would bypass the slow and unpleasant crawl from Birmingham to Wolverhampton.

If I recall rightly there will be 1tph Birmingham (Curzon St) to Carlisle (and possibly beyond) calling at all IC stations (which will be the only HS2 service at Oxenholme and Penrith, they'll lose London unlass a classic line service remains).

Edit: or is that 2B?

Phase 2b.

I said "more than 3TPH".

Which HS2 won't be doing. It's 3tph replacing 3tph.

 

[edwin_m]

Which HS2 won't be doing. It's 3tph replacing 3tph.

And if London-Manchester via Stoke continued, it would be more than 3tph.

 

[Ianno87]

And if London-Manchester via Stoke continued, it would be more than 3tph.

Depends whether it needs to, if the HS2 Macclesfield service keeps Macc/Stoke-London links without requiring paths through Stockport.

 

[daodao]

Depends whether it needs to, if the HS2 Macclesfield service keeps Macc/Stoke-London links without requiring paths through Stockport.

Is the loop platform at Macclesfield long enough for a HS2 train? Even if it is, Macclesfield station isn't really equipped to service and replenish a terminating HS2 train. It would also block the loop platform for use by terminating local trains. Since the rationalisation of Macclesfield's railway facilities in the early 1960s, and closure of the ex-GC/NS line to Rose Hill in January 1070, there really isn't any capacity there for terminating anything more than a local emu, or any spare railway land on which to enlarge the current facilities. I was under the impression that any HS2 service via Stoke would continue to Manchester, as post-HS2b (if built) Stockport would otherwise lose its London service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the loop platform at Macclesfield long enough for a HS2 train? Even if it is, Macclesfield station isn't really equipped to service and replenish a terminating HS2 train. It would also block the loop platform for use by terminating local trains. Since the rationalisation of Macclesfield's railway facilities in the early 1960s, and closure of the ex-GC/NS line to Rose Hill in January 1070, there really isn't any capacity there for terminating anything more than a local emu, or any spare railway land on which to enlarge the current facilities. I was under the impression that any HS2 service via Stoke would continue to Manchester, as post-HS2b (if built) Stockport would otherwise lose its London service.

If you're building a multi-billion-pound high speed railway you can probably afford to tweak with the platform and track layout at a fairly small station.

Stockport will indeed lose its non-classic-line London service (it will keep 1tph on the classic line); its main usage is as a south Manchester Parkway station, in which role the Airport station will replace it. It mostly isn't Stopfordians walking to the station, and 1tph will be enough for that market. Indeed, it and Cov are the two big losers, which will always happen on a big change like this. Both stations only get the service they do through operational convenience and don't justify it alone.

 

[Greybeard33]

Is the loop platform at Macclesfield long enough for a HS2 train?

Yes.

 

[Ianno87]

Is the loop platform at Macclesfield long enough for a HS2 train? Even if it is, Macclesfield station isn't really equipped to service and replenish a terminating HS2 train.

What 'servicing and replenishing' would be required that cannot be done at Euston? The journey time won't even nudge an hour and a half by my reckoning, and will be a very 'commutery' service.

It would also block the loop platform for use by terminating local trains.

Most of which go to/from Stoke these days, and have done since 2008. The loop is little-used.

 

[daodao]

If you're building a multi-billion-pound high speed railway you can probably afford to tweak with the platform and track layout at a fairly small station.

It isn't a question of money, but space. Much of the former railway land at Macclesfield has been incorporated into the Silk Road bypass and the revised Hibel Road link to it. It would be simpler to continue the proposed hourly HS2 service via Stoke through to Manchester and not to run any IC services via Stoke to Euston via the existing WCML.

 

[Ianno87]

It isn't a question of money, but space. Much of the former railway land at Macclesfield has been incorporated into the Silk Road bypass and the revised Hibel Road link to it. It would be simpler to continue the proposed hourly HS2 service via Stoke through to Manchester and not to run any IC services via Stoke to Euston via the existing WCML.

But absolutely nothing needs doing. The platform is long enough and sees very little current use.

 

[daodao]

Most of which go to/from Stoke these days, and have done since 2008. The loop is little-used.

It would prevent an expansion of the local service at Macclesfield to 2 tph, which would be one of the potential benefits from diverting most of the Manchester-London trains away from the ex-NS line onto HS2.

If the HS2 service terminates at Macclesfield, it would soon be cut back to Stoke, as there would be very little use of the train on the last leg from Stoke to Macclesfield. It would be better to run it through to Manchester, enabling Stockport to retain a London service if/when HS2b opens.

 

[The Planner]

It isn't a question of money, but space. Much of the former railway land at Macclesfield has been incorporated into the Silk Road bypass and the revised Hibel Road link to it. It would be simpler to continue the proposed hourly HS2 service via Stoke through to Manchester and not to run any IC services via Stoke to Euston via the existing WCML.

It is using dead time in a diagram, originally it was terminating at Stoke. As mentioned, Macclesfield has room to terminate and the resignalling in a years time allows for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't a question of money, but space. Much of the former railway land at Macclesfield has been incorporated into the Silk Road bypass and the revised Hibel Road link to it. It would be simpler to continue the proposed hourly HS2 service via Stoke through to Manchester and not to run any IC services via Stoke to Euston via the existing WCML.

You're missing the point of the classic service. The classic services are about connecting Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby to places, not for actual Manchester-London passengers. Removing them would be a serious connectivity downgrade for these growing Home Counties and south Midlands towns.

 

[daodao]

You're missing the point of the classic service. The classic services are about connecting Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby to places, not for actual Manchester-London passengers. Removing them would be a serious connectivity downgrade for these growing Home Counties and south Midlands towns.

Of those 3 places, only MK had a direct service to Stoke and Manchester pre-Covid. The traffic from MK to Stoke and Manchester is likely to be miniscule compared to the traffic from London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of those 3 places, only MK had a direct service to Stoke and Manchester pre-Covid.

That's exactly the point.

A huge part (I'd go as far as to say the main part) of the HS2 business case is removing InterCity services from the south WCML to allow the intermediates, which have long had a "compromise" service, to be served better, both with local services and further afield. This is increasingly important as Milton Keynes continues to grow. It's presently heading towards 300K population, but a plan has been published to take it to 400,000+ in the next 30 years.

HS2 is not about making journeys to Manchester and Birmingham slightly faster. If that was all it was for, it would be a colossal waste of money.

In some ways, it would make more sense if it was called the "West Coast Mainline Capacity Project", but that's not "sexy". In effect, its purpose is to "6-track" ("8-track" south of Watford) the WCML.

The traffic from MK to Stoke and Manchester is likely to be miniscule compared to the traffic from London.

Which is why 1tph is adequate. The traffic from London will be on HS2, on which there are already 3tph to operate via Crewe.

 

[Ianno87]

It would prevent an expansion of the local service at Macclesfield to 2 tph, which would be one of the potential benefits from diverting most of the Manchester-London trains away from the ex-NS line onto HS2.

Or both 2tph locals could run through to Stoke. HS2 terminating in no way "prevents" this. The only thing it prevents is them terminating at Macclesfield.

 

[edwin_m]

It would prevent an expansion of the local service at Macclesfield to 2 tph, which would be one of the potential benefits from diverting most of the Manchester-London trains away from the ex-NS line onto HS2.

If the HS2 service terminates at Macclesfield, it would soon be cut back to Stoke, as there would be very little use of the train on the last leg from Stoke to Macclesfield. It would be better to run it through to Manchester, enabling Stockport to retain a London service if/when HS2b opens.

The local service question probably depends on detailed timetabling issues - probably the terminating HS2 train will only occupy the platform for a shortish time each hour so a local could use it at other times.

I guess the Macclesfield could run through to Manchester once Phase 2b bypasses the Stockport bottleneck, although I'm not sure if it's the best use for a high speed set. There will presumably still be 2TPH Manchester-Birmingham on the classic line then, so Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield should still get a reasonable fast service to Manchester.