Whither XC after HS2?

[Purple Orange]

There could be a Liverpool-Birmingham HS2 anyway, even with the planned "do nothing in Liverpool" HS2 scenario. But, for whatever reason, the assumption is that there wont be.

Perhaps we will just have to conclude that the DfT must assume that demand is not big enough for a 200m train every hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There could be a Liverpool-Birmingham HS2 anyway, even with the planned "do nothing in Liverpool" HS2 scenario. But, for whatever reason, the assumption is that there wont be.

There is less to be gained as it couldn't join HS2 until Crewe.

Perhaps we will just have to conclude that the DfT must assume that demand is not big enough for a 200m train every hour.

It presently has 160m every half hour so I'd figure there is.

 

[Purple Orange]

There is less to be gained as it couldn't join HS2 until Crewe.



It presently has 160m every half hour so I'd figure there is.

Is it 8-car all the time now? I thought it was just the 4.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it 8-car all the time now? I thought it was just the 4.

Ah, maybe it is 4, I forget now.

It is planned to be 5.730 (120m) if I recall.

 

[Gareth]

Can't recall the actual stats now but I recall seeing LENNON data a few years back that put Liverpool- Birmingham ahead of Leeds-Birmingham and not massively behind Manchester-Birmingham.

 

[Purple Orange]

Ah, maybe it is 4, I forget now.

It is planned to be 5.730 (120m) if I recall.

5.73?

Can't recall the actual stats now but I recall seeing LENNON data a few years back that put Liverpool- Birmingham ahead of Leeds-Birmingham and not massively behind Manchester-Birmingham.

Cool, do you have a link to that you can share please?

 

[Gareth]

Like I said, it was a while back. Might be in the 20 Miles More report.

 

[greatvoyager]

Quite possibly. If Midlands Engine Rail comes off (which appears to be the banner under which the south-west to Birmingham and onwards appears to be sitting), there may be a specific franchise name there with various operators taking on the contract.

I would say generally that NE-SW would be the only viable route to continue to some extent, but I guess we’d have to wait and see just how big an effect HS2 has.

 

[adrock1976]

I would say generally that NE-SW would be the only viable route to continue to some extent, but I guess we’d have to wait and see just how big an effect HS2 has.

Don't forget Bournemouth - North West Region as well.

Also, don't forget about intermediate journeys too. For example, Bournemouth/Hampshire - Oxford/Banbury/Leamington/Coventry and Reading/Oxford/Leamington/Coventry - Wolverhampton/Stafford/Stoke-on-Trent/Preston/Carlisle are intermediate journeys that HS2 does not cater for, nor does HS2 touch any of the routes south of the Thames that were part of the former BR Southern Region.

 

[Purple Orange]

Don't forget Bournemouth - North West Region as well.

Also, don't forget about intermediate journeys too. For example, Bournemouth/Hampshire - Oxford/Banbury/Leamington/Coventry and Reading/Oxford/Leamington/Coventry - Wolverhampton/Stafford/Stoke-on-Trent/Preston/Carlisle are intermediate journeys that HS2 does not cater for, nor does HS2 touch any of the routes south of the Thames that were part of the former BR Southern Region.

Do the passenger numbers without the Birmingham & Manchester passengers justify such a long distance service? I think it is better broken up.

Like I said, it was a while back. Might be in the 20 Miles More report.

Cheers, might look them up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

5.73?

Sorry, 5-car Class 730.

 

[cle]

It does make sense that if there were through services, that Liverpool or maybe North Wales / Preston took some on.

As mentioned, XC is not today busy because of Brum - Manc/Leeds/Bristol/Reading demand alone, or even those pairs - but the countless other pairs it offers, and the seat churn which doesn't exist much on London services. They might sell the same seat 3-4 times on a journey.

So if this has to exist afterwards, Liverpool might be a fair shout. But then again, Moor St may take on a bigger role for services headed south. Certainly those via Leamington make sense.

Liverpool will at least have Cardiff via Chester in the next few years.

 

[greatvoyager]

Don't forget Bournemouth - North West Region as well.

That’s a fair point.
To be honest, my comment was driven by the fact NE-SW is actually called the Cross Country route, so if it is abandoned they may as well try something new and forget about CrossCountry as a concept.

 

[Purple Orange]

As mentioned, XC is not today busy because of Brum - Manc/Leeds/Bristol/Reading demand alone, or even those pairs - but the countless other pairs it offers, and the seat churn which doesn't exist much on London services. They might sell the same seat 3-4 times on a journey.

I agree that there are many other journey pairs that contribute to the volume of passengers. However taking away the passengers that travel between the points of Manchester, Stockport & Birmingham and Edinburgh, Newcastle, York, Leeds and Birmingham, do the remaining passenger flows justify the current service provision?

Stafford to Stockport is a lost journey pair, but there will be at least 1 tph heading to London. Could it be that the residual market is better serviced by a service between Birmingham & Manchester that makes significantly more stops, thus picking up the passenger demand from the stations that XC will never serve too?

 

[HSTEd]

Don't forget Bournemouth - North West Region as well.

Also, don't forget about intermediate journeys too. For example, Bournemouth/Hampshire - Oxford/Banbury/Leamington/Coventry and Reading/Oxford/Leamington/Coventry - Wolverhampton/Stafford/Stoke-on-Trent/Preston/Carlisle are intermediate journeys that HS2 does not cater for, nor does HS2 touch any of the routes south of the Thames that were part of the former BR Southern Region.

Bournemouth-NW via XC will feel painfully slow compared to Clapham Junction, WLL, OOC though

 

[quantinghome]

I agree that there are many other journey pairs that contribute to the volume of passengers. However taking away the passengers that travel between the points of Manchester, Stockport & Birmingham and Edinburgh, Newcastle, York, Leeds and Birmingham, do the remaining passenger flows justify the current service provision?

Stafford to Stockport is a lost journey pair, but there will be at least 1 tph heading to London. Could it be that the residual market is better serviced by a service between Birmingham & Manchester that makes significantly more stops, thus picking up the passenger demand from the stations that XC will never serve too?

I would imagine that XC will turn into a semi-fast regional service. There will still be demand to travel to Birmingham from places not served by HS2, and myriad shorter distance journeys as well - Sheffield-Derby for example.

 

[adrock1976]

Bournemouth-NW via XC will feel painfully slow compared to Clapham Junction, WLL, OOC though

That is three changes, plus a much longer route in terms of mileage.

The shortest route from Bournemouth/Hampshire - North West Region is via Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Birmingham. The shortest route is always valid.

The true competition with no changes at all for that particular type of journey is the A34, M40, M42, and M6 roads.

 

[HSTEd]

That is three changes

Three? I make it two, but I take the point

, plus a much longer route in terms of mileage.

Mileage doesn't really matter any more.
It will be in the railways interests that people use HS2 because it will be cheaper for the railway if they do.

Railways are a bulk transport system, it is much cheaper for people to be on a succession of long electric trains (be they metro, HS2 or Southern region) than it is for people to be on a short expensive DMU that is running a shorter route

The true competition with no changes at all for that particular type of journey is the A34, M40, M42, and M6 roads.

I accept there is some benefit to a direct train, but eventually the journey time advantage will overwhelm it.

 

[Purple Orange]

I would imagine that XC will turn into a semi-fast regional service. There will still be demand to travel to Birmingham from places not served by HS2, and myriad shorter distance journeys as well - Sheffield-Derby for example.

Yes if it is modelled on a semi-fast basis I can see that.
Let’s for a moment assume only the western HS2 branch is built in full. That would mean a Leeds & Doncaster/York XC service would be valuable still. On the Manchester leg, HS2 will take the demand for Manchester & Stockport to Birmingham and the majority of demand for Manchester & Stockport to Reading and Bristol. That then leaves what to do with Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford & Wolverhampton.

Today these towns see:

• All see 2 tph XC between Birmingham & Manchester
• Stoke has 2 Avanti between Manchester & London
• Stafford has 1 Avanti between Liverpool & London
• Wolverhampton has 1 Avanti between Scotland & London
• Macclesfield has 1 Avanti between Manchester & London

In addition Stafford has 3 semi-fast LNW to Birmingham and 1 semi-fast to London, Wolverhampton has 2 semi fast Avanti between Liverpool & Birmingham, while Stoke has 1 LNW between Birmingham & Crewe.

Post HS2, there will potentially be:

• 1 HS2 London-Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield (potentially on to Stockport & Manchester)
• 1 ICWC London-Manchester (semi-fast), calling at Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield & Stockport plus stops on the south WCML.

The HS2 and ICWC provision covers what is needed to London and at best it can be argued that the Birmingham services should, like LNW, be 1 tph semi-fast. In that scenario I would split the two XC paths as:

• 1 tph (semi-fast) Bristol-Manchester calling at:
  • Cheltenham, Birmingham, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester
• 1 tph Birmingham-Crewe calling at:
  • Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Stone, Stafford, Kidsgrove, Alsager,
• 1 tph Stoke-Manchester caking at:
  • Kidsgrove, Congleton, Macclesfield, Addlington, Poynton, Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, Manchester

This then improves commuter services in to Birmingham & Manchester as well as keeping connectivity with Stafford & Wolverhampton and Bristol etc. I’d also be tempted to extend the Birmingham-Crewe slow service to Manchester via Wilmslow, calling at Sandbach, Holmes Chapel, Goostrey, Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Handforth, Cheadle Hulme & Stockport.

That is three changes, plus a much longer route in terms of mileage.

The shortest route from Bournemouth/Hampshire - North West Region is via Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Birmingham. The shortest route is always valid.

The true competition with no changes at all for that particular type of journey is the A34, M40, M42, and M6 roads.

Not if you just do one change at Moor Street or New Street from HS2.

 

[adrock1976]

Yes if it is modelled on a semi-fast basis I can see that.
Let’s for a moment assume only the western HS2 branch is built in full. That would mean a Leeds & Doncaster/York XC service would be valuable still. On the Manchester leg, HS2 will take the demand for Manchester & Stockport to Birmingham and the majority of demand for Manchester & Stockport to Reading and Bristol. That then leaves what to do with Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford & Wolverhampton.

Today these towns see:

• All see 2 tph XC between Birmingham & Manchester
• Stoke has 2 Avanti between Manchester & London
• Stafford has 1 Avanti between Liverpool & London
• Wolverhampton has 1 Avanti between Scotland & London
• Macclesfield has 1 Avanti between Manchester & London

In addition Stafford has 3 semi-fast LNW to Birmingham and 1 semi-fast to London, Wolverhampton has 2 semi fast Avanti between Liverpool & Birmingham, while Stoke has 1 LNW between Birmingham & Crewe.

Post HS2, there will potentially be:

• 1 HS2 London-Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield (potentially on to Stockport & Manchester)
• 1 ICWC London-Manchester (semi-fast), calling at Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield & Stockport plus stops on the south WCML.

The HS2 and ICWC provision covers what is needed to London and at best it can be argued that the Birmingham services should, like LNW, be 1 tph semi-fast. In that scenario I would split the two XC paths as:

• 1 tph (semi-fast) Bristol-Manchester calling at:
  • Cheltenham, Birmingham, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester
• 1 tph Birmingham-Crewe calling at:
  • Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Stone, Stafford, Kidsgrove, Alsager,
• 1 tph Stoke-Manchester caking at:
  • Kidsgrove, Congleton, Macclesfield, Addlington, Poynton, Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, Manchester

This then improves commuter services in to Birmingham & Manchester as well as keeping connectivity with Stafford & Wolverhampton and Bristol etc. I’d also be tempted to extend the Birmingham-Crewe slow service to Manchester via Wilmslow, calling at Sandbach, Holmes Chapel, Goostrey, Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Handforth, Cheadle Hulme & Stockport.



Not if you just do one change at Moor Street or New Street from HS2.

On the Bristol - Manchester, don't forget Worcestershire Parkway, as Worcester will not be on the line of the HS2 route.

On the Birmingham - Crewe via Stoke, don't forget Barlaston as that is due to have proper trains (metal wheels on metal rails, not the present day rubber tyres on tarmac roads) calling there again in the near future.

My previous post was responding to the changes required and the longer route via Clapham Junction and Old Oak Common, being as HS2 does not go anywhere near any of the ex BR Southern Region routes.

 

[cle]

I agree that there are many other journey pairs that contribute to the volume of passengers. However taking away the passengers that travel between the points of Manchester, Stockport & Birmingham and Edinburgh, Newcastle, York, Leeds and Birmingham, do the remaining passenger flows justify the current service provision?

You've named quite a few major places on both main lines. So excluding half the network will exclude a lot of usage, yes!

But yes, how about Cheltenham to Birmingham, Derby to Leeds, Wolves to Manc, Sheffield to Durham etc etc endlessly. I get your dogma about splitting them at Birmingham. I get the rationale, but it would need to be accompanied by an increase in service either side to compensate a change where today there isn't one and people gladly travel through.

Bristol to Manchester as a service is not wildly 'long haul' either - and it's a pair of important markets, to the point where a lack of direct rail services opens up the market to a short flight.

Also remember that running through New St is better than terminating there, and Moor Street, even with an extra platform or two, is not huge. I suspect the solution is a compromise. I don't think we need Aberdeen to Penzance services especially, but they aren't really that in consumer use case.

 

[Purple Orange]

You've named quite a few major places on both main lines. So excluding half the network will exclude a lot of usage, yes!

But yes, how about Cheltenham to Birmingham, Derby to Leeds, Wolves to Manc, Sheffield to Durham etc etc endlessly. I get your dogma about splitting them at Birmingham. I get the rationale, but it would need to be accompanied by an increase in service either side to compensate a change where today there isn't one and people gladly travel through.

Bristol to Manchester as a service is not wildly 'long haul' either - and it's a pair of important markets, to the point where a lack of direct rail services opens up the market to a short flight.

Also remember that running through New St is better than terminating there, and Moor Street, even with an extra platform or two, is not huge. I suspect the solution is a compromise. I don't think we need Aberdeen to Penzance services especially, but they aren't really that in consumer use case.

I fail to see how this is dogma, other than simply seeking to point out what appears to be plain obvious to my eyes: 2 tph on XC on a path that shadows HS2 is a waste of capacity. Reduce the number of tph to at most 1 tph and make it a semi-fast with more stops. Let’s take the journey pairs you mentioned:

• Cheltenham to Birmingham. There would be no need to change anything here.
• Derby to Leeds: Yes a XC service like today would work, if HS2 is not running to Totton, plus Midlands Connect have plans for this route.
• Wolves to Manc: I see no reason why if starting your journey at Wolverhampton you wouldn’t get on a more frequent service to Birmingham, then up to Manchester in a significantly faster time. Wolverhampton becomes no different than a destination like Walsall or Sutton in this regard. Or take a slower semi-fast service.
• Sheffield to Durham: a NE-SW service should perhaps remain, but not 2 tph. In fact there will be some places tha5 lose out and perhaps Sheffield will always be that destination. The other scenario is that NPR wish to run Sheffield-Leeds services on HS2 track, but there is nothing to stop an NPR service from Sheffield continuing to Durham & Newcastle. Again, Midlands Connect have plans for this journey pair too
• Bristol to Manchester: 3 hours on XC with no change, or 2 hours 20 mins with a change, including a very generous 20 min change at Birmingham.

The point I’m trying to get through here is a network that will lose many passengers to HS2, therefore it should be changed. With all the service proposals from HS2, NPR and Midlands Connect (of which NPR and Midlands Connect don’t actually need to rely upon dedicated new infrastructure), I see a very small residual XC market and the paths may be better given to other, shorter distance services, that satisfy greater numbers of passengers.

 

[The Planner]

I fail to see how this is dogma, other than simply seeking to point out what appears to be plain obvious to my eyes: 2 tph on XC on a path that shadows HS2 is a waste of capacity. Reduce the number of tph to at most 1 tph and make it a semi-fast with more stops. Let’s take the journey pairs you mentioned:

• Cheltenham to Birmingham. There would be no need to change anything here.
• Derby to Leeds: Yes a XC service like today would work, if HS2 is not running to Totton, plus Midlands Connect have plans for this route.
• Wolves to Manc: I see no reason why if starting your journey at Wolverhampton you wouldn’t get on a more frequent service to Birmingham, then up to Manchester in a significantly faster time. Wolverhampton becomes no different than a destination like Walsall or Sutton in this regard. Or take a slower semi-fast service.
• Sheffield to Durham: a NE-SW service should perhaps remain, but not 2 tph. In fact there will be some places tha5 lose out and perhaps Sheffield will always be that destination. The other scenario is that NPR wish to run Sheffield-Leeds services on HS2 track, but there is nothing to stop an NPR service from Sheffield continuing to Durham & Newcastle. Again, Midlands Connect have plans for this journey pair too
• Bristol to Manchester: 3 hours on XC with no change, or 2 hours 20 mins with a change, including a very generous 20 min change at Birmingham.

The point I’m trying to get through here is a network that will lose many passengers to HS2, therefore it should be changed. With all the service proposals from HS2, NPR and Midlands Connect (of which NPR and Midlands Connect don’t actually need to rely upon dedicated new infrastructure), I see a very small residual XC market and the paths may be better given to other, shorter distance services, that satisfy greater numbers of passengers.

Wolverhampton is like Coventry in that it sits on the balance. HS2 say 41 minutes Curzon St to Picc. Quickest Wolves to New St is 17 minutes currently (with XC ironically). Transfer to Curzon St is going to be 15 minutes in a journey planner at least. So you are up to 73 minutes, current XC journey time is 69 minutes, they don't win.

 

[HSTEd]

That just tells me that we need a chord at Smethwick Galton Bridge!

 

[Purple Orange]

Wolverhampton is like Coventry in that it sits on the balance. HS2 say 41 minutes Curzon St to Picc. Quickest Wolves to New St is 17 minutes currently (with XC ironically). Transfer to Curzon St is going to be 15 minutes in a journey planner at least. So you are up to 73 minutes, current XC journey time is 69 minutes, they don't win.

On that basis yes, you’re right. It presupposes that the future New Street to Piccadilly service won’t have additional stops though. I’d expect at least a Congleton stop added in, but that probably doesn’t shift the dial too much.

According to the Trainline (and being pedantic), the direct journey times range from 71 mins to 74 mins.

Anyhow let’s say there is 1 tph, with a 4-car diesel from Bristol to Manchester on the current XC service pattern. Is that adequate capacity given the vast majority of passengers who board at New Street, Stockport & Piccadilly today will have transferred to HS2?

Should the service really be a class 350 from London to Birmingham to Manchester?

 

[adrock1976]

That just tells me that we need a chord at Smethwick Galton Bridge!

Would be very difficult to do, as you have both the old and new mainlines of the canal nearby.

 

[Class172]

Would be very difficult to do, as you have both the old and new mainlines of the canal nearby.

Not to mention the height difference between the lines at that point. If you really wanted a chord you might have a better chance near Soho but even then we're still being somewhat liberal with the crayons.

 

[cle]

I fail to see how this is dogma, other than simply seeking to point out what appears to be plain obvious to my eyes: 2 tph on XC on a path that shadows HS2 is a waste of capacity. Reduce the number of tph to at most 1 tph and make it a semi-fast with more stops. Let’s take the journey pairs you mentioned:

• Cheltenham to Birmingham. There would be no need to change anything here.
• Derby to Leeds: Yes a XC service like today would work, if HS2 is not running to Totton, plus Midlands Connect have plans for this route.
• Wolves to Manc: I see no reason why if starting your journey at Wolverhampton you wouldn’t get on a more frequent service to Birmingham, then up to Manchester in a significantly faster time. Wolverhampton becomes no different than a destination like Walsall or Sutton in this regard. Or take a slower semi-fast service.
• Sheffield to Durham: a NE-SW service should perhaps remain, but not 2 tph. In fact there will be some places tha5 lose out and perhaps Sheffield will always be that destination. The other scenario is that NPR wish to run Sheffield-Leeds services on HS2 track, but there is nothing to stop an NPR service from Sheffield continuing to Durham & Newcastle. Again, Midlands Connect have plans for this journey pair too
• Bristol to Manchester: 3 hours on XC with no change, or 2 hours 20 mins with a change, including a very generous 20 min change at Birmingham.

The point I’m trying to get through here is a network that will lose many passengers to HS2, therefore it should be changed. With all the service proposals from HS2, NPR and Midlands Connect (of which NPR and Midlands Connect don’t actually need to rely upon dedicated new infrastructure), I see a very small residual XC market and the paths may be better given to other, shorter distance services, that satisfy greater numbers of passengers.

A lot of folks won't bother changing to save 20-40 mins. Especially different stations in Birmingham, no matter how close. People hate Birmingham

And the examples that I gave are just that. I get the point about semi-fasts, but frankly I think there will be capacity for both.

It'll be like today's Birmingham-Liverpool services - can be used end to end, but also a lot of intermediate regional and local use. To be honest, other than being a Voyager, the Birmingham-Manchester isn't that more upscale. You still have 5-6 stops between them. The difference is a lack of alternatives!

So I can see similar services running, because why not and they all need to end somewhere - but being used in different ways and less big city to big city. Yes, with a bit more to the likes of Congleton and Hartford. Things which skip Macclesfield or Stafford probably won't. But not a huge pattern change.

 

[Purple Orange]

A lot of folks won't bother changing to save 20-40 mins. Especially different stations in Birmingham, no matter how close. People hate Birmingham

And the examples that I gave are just that. I get the point about semi-fasts, but frankly I think there will be capacity for both.

It'll be like today's Birmingham-Liverpool services - can be used end to end, but also a lot of intermediate regional and local use. To be honest, other than being a Voyager, the Birmingham-Manchester isn't that more upscale. You still have 5-6 stops between them. The difference is a lack of alternatives!

So I can see similar services running, because why not and they all need to end somewhere - but being used in different ways and less big city to big city. Yes, with a bit more to the likes of Congleton and Hartford. Things which skip Macclesfield or Stafford probably won't. But not a huge pattern change.

If you’re adding more stops, the time difference expands. It will get to the point where Birmingham-Manchester may as well become one continuous stopper.

Stoke Branch:

• 3 tph Manchester Piccadilly - Birmingham New Street (116 mins)
  • 55 mins: Manchester Piccadilly - Stoke (stopper)
  • 36 mins: Stoke - Wolverhampton (LNW)
  • 25 mins: Wolverhampton - Birmingham New Street (stopper)
• 1 tph Bristol - Manchester Piccadilly via Stoke (180 mins)
• 1 tph HS2 London Euston, OOC, Birmingham Interchange, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly (90 mins)

Crewe Branch:

• 3 tph Manchester Piccadilly - Birmingham New Street (117 mins)
  • 56 mins: Manchester Piccadilly - Crewe (stopper)
  • 36 mins: Crewe - Wolverhampton (LNW)
  • 25 mins: Wolverhampton - Birmingham New Street (stopper)
• 1 tph London Euston - Manchester Piccadilly via Birmingham New Street (163 mins)
  • 73 mins: London Euston, Watford, Milton Keynes, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street
  • 90 mins: Birmingham New Street, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly.
• 1 tph TfW South Wales to Manchester to continue via Crewe & Wilmslow.

 

[cle]

How are you pathing 6tph Wolves-New St all stations, with the other faster services which will still use this line? Such as those via Shrewsbury (maybe with stoppers among them) and those via Crewe, but not to Manchester. Seems like a skip/semi or flighted arrangement would be necessary.

Also, you probably don't need 8tph+ stopping from Wolves to B'ham. I think 6tph could be good for local journeys, but interspersed with 6tph fast/with one stop, if that could be pathed.