Whenceforth for the WCML?

[eldomtom2]

With recent statements from Starmer it looks like, outside the imagination of optimists, any extension of HS2 north of Birmingham is well and truly dead, at least on the original timescale. Where does this leave the WCML? What practical steps can be taken to relieve congestion on it?

 

[renegademaster]

Is adjusting it so it can fit double deckers from the continent within realms of feasibility? That or 15 car giga-azumas

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is adjusting it so it can fit double deckers from the continent within realms of feasibility? That or 15 car giga-azumas

In short, no. Platform lengthening to allow more than 11 cars might be though. Some services may already be feasible at near to 400m, e.g. a Euston-Crewe-Glasgow with no other stops, though only two platforms at Euston are long enough for that.

The reduced, regularised south WCML commuter service since COVID has helped a bit. More passenger capacity could be obtained by running more of it 12-car, though not all of it can be due to P9/10 at Euston being shorter ones. A similar approach (regularisation) might make sense on the north WCML, as would be banning underpowered freights that eat paths on Shap - these should really have two locomotives to ensure they can maintain full speed.

Talking of Euston's shorter platforms, I wonder if it might be feasible to lengthen them to take 11.390/12.350/10.730 if the ramps were removed and replaced with escalators and lifts? Though that may be dangerous with the "scrum".

If HS2 P1 does become a Wolmarised "Aston-Acton shuttle" i.e. not go to Euston, one option might be to merge the LNR and Avanti Birmingham service to become something a little more Chiltern like, say 4tph with different stopping patterns all run with 10.730 or 12.350, on the assumption that the people wanting the cachet of the fast service will go to Old Oak on the Lizzie?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

With recent statements from Starmer it looks like, outside the imagination of optimists, any extension of HS2 north of Birmingham is well and truly dead, at least on the original timescale. Where does this leave the WCML? What practical steps can be taken to relieve congestion on it?

There is no congestion but maybe a lack of capacity at a few pinch points so its a question of whether traffic growth will cause congestion. Based on current travel levels that isn't going to happen anytime soon so plenty of time to develop targeted solutions.

 

[The Planner]

There is no congestion but maybe a lack of capacity at a few pinch points so its a question of whether traffic growth will cause congestion. Based on current travel levels that isn't going to happen anytime soon so plenty of time to develop targeted solutions.

Once you add the second timetabled Liverpool and a single open access path (if they ever happen), then you are done, there is no more room at the inn.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Once you add the second timetabled Liverpool and a single open access path (if they ever happen), then you are done, there is no more room at the inn.

So why cancel the second part of HS2?

 

[Esker-pades]

So why cancel the second part of HS2?

Astonishingly, the government may not always have the best ideas

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Astonishingly, the government may not always have the best ideas

Surely, it's not THAT had to work out if you're qualified enough to actually be the Prime Minister. It's simple "more trains+no new track=bad". I simply cannot fathom the scale or corporate negligence that Britain is facing from the top of the State right now

 

[Sorcerer]

Is adjusting it so it can fit double deckers from the continent within realms of feasibility? That or 15 car giga-azumas

Even if the loading gauge could be modified to enable bi-level operation, it would take a long time and bring great disruption during the upgrades that might not even be worth it. Double-decker trains aren't that great because they are heavier and thus will take longer to accelerate, and they will have longer dwell times than single-deck trains, and ultimately you might not end up with any additional capacity at all in the best case scenario for these reasons. I could be wrong on that though. As for longer trains, it's possible, but easier in some areas than others, and "easy" is a relative term here.

So why cancel the second part of HS2?

Political short-sightedness from a Prime Minister nobody elected being out of touch with the country's needs and an unwillingness to invest in the railway infrastructure as a whole fuelled by simple disinterest. The question is one many of us on the forums have probably been asking ourselves for a while though.

 

[Esker-pades]

Surely, it's not THAT had to work out if you're qualified enough to actually be the Prime Minister. It's simple "more trains+no new track=bad". I simply cannot fathom the scale or corporate negligence that Britain is facing from the top of the State right now

Then I guess the current Prime Minister may not be qualified......


Slightly more seriously, there is not an appreciation outside the industry and some enthusiasts about the complexities of rail planning; it may well seem simple to us but it takes a lot for people outside to get it.


Post-announcement there is a load of work being done to give the alternatives to HS2 that need to go ahead in order to deliver the growth forecast. In a few years, those proposals will exist and the DfT can assess them. Perhaps they'll do it against the HS2 Phase 2 to see what is better.

 

[JonathanH]

So why cancel the second part of HS2?

In short because the bit that is being built has rapidly rendered the rest unaffordable.

Post-announcement there is a load of work being done to give the alternatives to HS2 that need to go ahead in order to deliver the growth forecast. In a few years, those proposals will exist and the DfT can assess them. Perhaps they'll do it against the HS2 Phase 2 to see what is better.

I suspect the Treasury will be doing concurrent work to understand whether that growth forecast can be suppressed by pricing off demand. As noted in sone other threads, the desire to spend money on the railway and indeed any transport infrastructure is fairly limited.

Spending money that doesn't exist on the WCML is no more likely than spending money that doesn't exist on the rest of HS2.

 

[350401]

Then I guess the current Prime Minister may not be qualified......


Slightly more seriously, there is not an appreciation outside the industry and some enthusiasts about the complexities of rail planning; it may well seem simple to us but it takes a lot for people outside to get it.


Post-announcement there is a load of work being done to give the alternatives to HS2 that need to go ahead in order to deliver the growth forecast. In a few years, those proposals will exist and the DfT can assess them. Perhaps they'll do it against the HS2 Phase 2 to see what is better.

The scope of future HS2/WCML service will depend on the configuration of Handsacre junction (fast or slow line connection), the interim service capacity at OOC, when Euston comes into operation, what length rolling stock is ordered, whether Crewe is lengthened to 400m, and whether some other stations can be lengthened - eg. Manchester Piccadilly and Carlisle.

The current favourite option, assuming Euston gets built, seems to be an assumption of 6 or 7 HS2 Trains north of Handsacre, with all/the vast majority of them being 2x200m units, and Crewe having 400m platforms 5 and 6. Units will then split at Crewe with various 200m services going north. The rolling stock itself being reconfigured to cram as many seats in as possible, but probably keeping the shop.

With classic services, I think could be scope to extend all the Pendolinos to 11 car and reconfigure the interior to have more seats - they are very space inefficient. A 265m class 390/1 seats 603. I expect a 275m IET would seat a lot more than that - using 2x Lumo 803s as a guide, if standard class only, you could get up to 800 seats in a 275m unit.

 

[Nottingham59]

With recent statements from Starmer it looks like, outside the imagination of optimists, any extension of HS2 north of Birmingham is well and truly dead, at least on the original timescale. Where does this leave the WCML? What practical steps can be taken to relieve congestion on it?

South of Handsacre, HS2 will give the WCML plenty of capacity, by allowing a more regular pattern on both fasts and slows.

North of Handsacre, paths are constrained as they are now by the flat junction at Colwich, two-tracks through Shugborough, and two tracks between Winsford and Weaver.

Without new tracks, ways to increase capacity might be to resignal Weaver to reduce headways (currently 4 minutes, AIUI); and increasing power / weight ratios on freight trains to improve their acceleration, by double-heading class 66s (2×2MW) or using bimode 93s (4MW) and 99s (6MW).
.
Also, there seems to be space at Crewe Warrington Wigan Preston and Carlise to lengthen platforms to 400m to allow full sized HS2 trains to serve the Northern WCML.

 

[350401]

Also, there seems to be space at Crewe Warrington Wigan Preston and Carlise to lengthen platforms to 400m to allow full sized HS2 trains to serve the Northern WCML

I was travelling the WCML the other day, and on a quick glance there is also space to lengthen the platforms at Wilmslow and Macclesfield. The issue on the Manchester services is Stockport; platform lengthening there would be very difficult, if not impossible. For the Manchester HS2 services, this causes a real issue. 200m is too short, and 400m won't fit there. The options therefore are - 1) run 200m units, and reconfigure the interior to fit in more seats. 600 seats in an 8 car unit is realistic if the kitchen is reduced, the number of table seats reduced, and first class reduced. 2) Order 2 or 3 trailer cars per unit to lengthen the trains to 250/275m 3) Run 400m trains as much as possible, lengthening platforms where possible and splitting the 400m trains where required.

 

[snowball]

Surely, it's not THAT had to work out if you're qualified enough to actually be the Prime Minister. It's simple "more trains+no new track=bad". I simply cannot fathom the scale or corporate negligence that Britain is facing from the top of the State right now

Only if you regard the railways as important. This government, and especially this prime minister, don't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was travelling the WCML the other day, and on a quick glance there is also space to lengthen the platforms at Wilmslow and Macclesfield. The issue on the Manchester services is Stockport; platform lengthening there would be very difficult, if not impossible. For the Manchester HS2 services, this causes a real issue. 200m is too short, and 400m won't fit there. The options therefore are - 1) run 200m units, and reconfigure the interior to fit in more seats. 600 seats in an 8 car unit is realistic if the kitchen is reduced, the number of table seats reduced, and first class reduced. 2) Order 2 or 3 trailer cars per unit to lengthen the trains to 250/275m 3) Run 400m trains as much as possible, lengthening platforms where possible and splitting the 400m trains where required.

My favoured option would be to reconfigure the HS2 order to 275m or 300m units with ASDO or maybe a combination of the two.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

and increasing power / weight ratios on freight trains to improve their acceleration, by double-heading class 66s (2×2MW) or using bimode 93s (4MW) and 99s (6MW).

Another great question: why haven't we been using electric locos on the WCML for freight instead of relying on 66s for so long?

 

[350401]

My favoured option would be to reconfigure the HS2 order to 275m or 300m units with ASDO or maybe a combination of the two.

That's probably not an option unfortunately, as given the contract has been awarded, any changes to the tendered specification are very expensive as its unpicking an existing contract. It would be better to do a separate order for trailer coaches - think Class 390 lengthening - and then have the WCML operator fit them into the trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's probably not an option unfortunately, as given the contract has been awarded, any changes to the tendered specification are very expensive as its unpicking an existing contract. It would be better to do a separate order for trailer coaches - think Class 390 lengthening - and then have the WCML operator fit them into the trains.

As WMT did something very similar with the 730 order, I suspect it's feasible. But certainly yes do the cheaper of the two, if that means spare units they could always be used elsewhere e.g. fully electrified GWR services to free up 80x.

 

[HSTEd]

Well I suppose it depends on what happens with HS2 at this point.

Assuming it gets stuck out at Old Oak Common you could probably still get significant capacity relief for the WCML by flooding HS2 with cheap advances and trying to pull away the budget sensitive crowd, even if the journey time is not really faster than what ICWC/Avanti has now.
But it all depends what happens to passenger numbers, on a quarter-by-quarter basis ICWC is back in late 2013, WMT is back in 2011.

If we resume the previous trend then it will still be 5-10 years for loads to return to 2019 levels. If the underlying trend has reduced permanently, once short term recovery is complete, then it will be longer.
Population growth in England is falling over time, so it will be interesting to see over the next couple of years what happens to passenger growth.

 

[RobShipway]

Given the age of the class 390 units, I don't think that any of the units are likely to be lengthened. What is more likely is that the class 805/807 units will be lengthened instead from say being 5 car class 805 to being 6 car and the class 807 maybe lengthened to being 9 car.

However, as per @HSTEd comment above it does depend on what happens to passenger numbers. You have to also remember that certainly for the next 10 - 15 years, the UK may still have an ageing population in comparison to the amount of children being born each year. This may mean, depending on train prices and cost of fuel, people may use their cars more to do their travelling than use public transport, if they do any travelling at all.

It maybe me, but I really do think that both the NHS and Network Rail should just have bodies that just say to the Government that we need x amount of money this next year and leave them to decide how that money is spent, rather than starting a project like HS2 and then saying that after stage 1 is built it is cancelled.

 

[The Planner]

South of Handsacre, HS2 will give the WCML plenty of capacity, by allowing a more regular pattern on both fasts and slows.

Only between Euston and Rugby. Things will come to a screeching halt at Handsacre if you are putting 7tph HS2 on. Even to the point that you may never get past 1tph for LNWR for example.

North of Handsacre, paths are constrained as they are now by the flat junction at Colwich, two-tracks through Shugborough, and two tracks between Winsford and Weaver.

Without new tracks, ways to increase capacity might be to resignal Weaver to reduce headways (currently 4 minutes, AIUI); and increasing power / weight ratios on freight trains to improve their acceleration, by double-heading class 66s (2×2MW) or using bimode 93s (4MW) and 99s (6MW).

Crewe Weaver can do 3 minutes now AIUI, but the section immediately north of Crewe cannot. Its north of Preston you need to deal with (though that is in hand)

Another great question: why haven't we been using electric locos on the WCML for freight instead of relying on 66s for so long?

Diesel is cheaper and you cannot force a FOC to use the wires.

 

[Silenos]

I suspect the Treasury will be doing concurrent work to understand whether that growth forecast can be suppressed by pricing off demand.

Reducing service frequencies, reliability and comfort are probably equally effective, and much work has already been done in trialling these. Combined with increased pricing it should be perfectly possible to reduce or even reverse growth if that is deemed desirable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Diesel is cheaper and you cannot force a FOC to use the wires.

No, but it should certainly be a contractual requirement not to eat paths by running underpowered trains over Shap. If they want to use diesel, put two 66s on for that section.

The charges should include a significant component based on how many nominal 125mph passenger paths are used. If they use two, it should cost twice what it costs for one. That'd concentrate minds.

 

[The Planner]

No, but it should certainly be a contractual requirement not to eat paths by running underpowered trains over Shap. If they want to use diesel, put two 66s on for that section.

The charges should include a significant component based on how many nominal 125mph passenger paths are used. If they use two, it should cost twice what it costs for one. That'd concentrate minds.

Process doesnt allow for it. Same way as someone could bid for a 230 south of Rugby, if it fits then you would have to do an awful lot of work to reject it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Process doesnt allow for it. Same way as someone could bid for a 230 south of Rugby, if it fits then you would have to do an awful lot of work to reject it.

I suspect changing the process and associated legalities is probably cheaper than 4-tracking the thing.

 

[The Planner]

I suspect changing the process and associated legalities is probably cheaper than 4-tracking the thing.

The time taken probably would be the same! The failed attempt to alter the timetable dates took long enough.

 

[Nottingham59]

No, but it should certainly be a contractual requirement not to eat paths by running underpowered trains over Shap. If they want to use diesel, put two 66s on for that section.

The charges should include a significant component based on how many nominal 125mph passenger paths are used. If they use two, it should cost twice what it costs for one. That'd concentrate minds.

The Network Code AIUI already has provision for Network Rail to charge supplementary congestion charges on congested infrastructure.

It's an absolute scandal that these have never been imposed.

 

[The Planner]

The Network Code AIUI already has provision for Network Rail to charge supplementary congestion charges on congested infrastructure.

It's an absolute scandal that these have never been imposed.

You have to declare congested infrastructure first. As it stands there are only four places declared, Castlefield, Euston to Ledburn, Wrexham to Bidston and Leicester to Cricklewood.

 

[HSTEd]

Wrexham to Bidston

Why would Wrexham to Bidston be particularly congested, or is there some political reasoning behind this?