Whither XC after HS2?

[PTR 444]

If NPR is being connected to HS2 in the Manchester area, how feasible would it be to run an hourly Penzance - Newcastle service that way?

Stopping pattern would be the same as now from PNZ to BHM, then onwards as follows:
Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford (NPR), Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, NEWCASTLE

 

[Peterthegreat]

If NPR is being connected to HS2 in the Manchester area, how feasible would it be to run an hourly Penzance - Newcastle service that way?

Stopping pattern would be the same as now from PNZ to BHM, then onwards as follows:
Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford (NPR), Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, NEWCASTLE

I think you would need to electrify Penzance to Birmingham (Bromsgrove) first. Or build hybrid stock.

 

[JonathanH]

hourly Penzance

...means no second GWR service west of Plymouth.

Given what has been written about the hoops GWR needed to go through to justify a half-hourly service frequency in Cornwall, it isn't likely to go up to 3tph.

Should the local all day service in Cornwall really be operated by trains starting in Newcastle?

(I totally get the idea of running start / end of day services in Cornwall using XC stock as at present but not all day.)

 

[PTR 444]

I think you would need to electrify Penzance to Birmingham (Bromsgrove) first. Or build hybrid stock.

Completely forgot about that! Anyways, I guess there’s nothing stopping a high speed bi-mode from being built, even if there is no political will to do so.

...means no second GWR service west of Plymouth.

Given what has been written about the hoops GWR needed to go through to justify a half-hourly service frequency in Cornwall, it isn't likely to go up to 3tph.

Should the local all day service in Cornwall really be operated by trains starting in Newcastle?

(I totally get the idea of running start / end of day services in Cornwall using XC stock as at present but not all day.)

Ah yes, capacity issues in Cornwall.
I always thought it would make sense for the line west of Plymouth to have 2tph all day. Currently (pre Covid) it has 1 from Exeter and 1tp2h from London. Maybe there isn’t the demand for all day XC to Cornwall but I could see merit in either extending this on a 2-hourly basis, or making the London service hourly to Penzance.

 

[JonathanH]

I always thought it would make sense for the line west of Plymouth to have 2tph all day. Currently (pre Covid) it has 1 from Exeter and 1tp2h from London.

GWR got the service through Cornwall up to 2tph all day pre-Covid, with some services running just Plymouth to Penzance. To get it past the DfT, they agreed for London services to be 5-car within Cornwall.

Maybe there isn’t the demand for all day XC to Cornwall but I could see merit in either extending this on a 2-hourly basis, or making the London service hourly to Penzance.

It is both demand and practicality. Cross Country doesn't just overlay on top of the services on any part of its route, it is part of the network and has to fit in

If the demand between Plymouth and Penzance is considered to be 2tph, then either GWR provide both services or XC and GWR provide one each and a decision needs to be made as to who serves Menheniot and Lostwithiel. It isn't just a case of XC running an extra service on top as there isn't demand when the number of passengers actually travelling within Cornwall is considered.

Even if XC went to Cornwall every two hours, it would be leasing two extra 125mph capable units to operate local trains in Cornwall. Plymouth is a natural end point for its core service.

 

[Purple Orange]

If NPR is being connected to HS2 in the Manchester area, how feasible would it be to run an hourly Penzance - Newcastle service that way?

Stopping pattern would be the same as now from PNZ to BHM, then onwards as follows:
Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford (NPR), Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, NEWCASTLE

It depends if the HS2 eastern branch is fully built or not, but even with an electrified Trans Pennine mainline and upgrade, Birmingham to Newcastle will be faster via Manchester than via Sheffield. That is why I think across country as it is today will change completely.

We could have:

• 2 tph Birmingham Curzon Street - Edinburgh via HS2 western branch calling at:
  • Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle & Berwick.
• 1 tph Plymouth - Hull via Sheffield & Doncaster
• 2 tph Plymouth - Birmingham Moor Street
• 1 tph Bournemouth - Liverpool via Crewe
• 2 tph Bournemouth - Birmingham Moor Street
• 1 tph London Euston - Liverpool via Birmingham New Street (LNW)
• 1 tph London Euston - Manchester Piccadilly via Birmingham New Street & Stoke (LNW)

On the HS2 service, it would be 200m classic compatible trains. On the LNW services, it should be 8-car 350s or equivalent, but I’m not sure what would be best for the Plymouth & Bournemouths.

 

[181]

As well as journey times and convenience of through trains vs. changing, it seems to me that fares (both level and type) may make a difference to people's choice of route. Assuming walk-up fares are available via HS2, a journey north from Oxford is likely to be somewhat more expensive (albeit probably with a smaller percentage difference for longer journeys) if you start by going 50+ miles in the wrong direction; if HS2 charges a premium (whether walk-up or advance) for speed, that gives people an incentive to use other routes; and if it's advance-purchase only, even without an HS2 premium some people may consider flexibility to be worth a somewhat increased journey time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

• 1 tph London Euston - Liverpool via Birmingham New Street (LNW)
• 1 tph London Euston - Manchester Piccadilly via Birmingham New Street & Stoke (LNW).

No, no and no again. It destroyed the timetable and hopefully won't come back.

 

[JonathanH]

1 tph London Euston - Liverpool via Birmingham New Street (LNW)

No, no and no again. It destroyed the timetable and hopefully won't come back.

How come we have all these threads about Liverpool being connected to places on the south coast and everyone thinks it will be a good thing yet linking it through to London 'destroys' the timetable. Wasn't it just poor implementation of the traincrew diagrams by LNR that destroyed the timetable? There should be nothing inherently any worse with linking LNR services across Birmingham than linking XC services across Birmingham.

• 1 tph Plymouth - Hull via Sheffield & Doncaster
• 2 tph Plymouth - Birmingham Moor Street
• 1 tph Bournemouth - Liverpool via Crewe
• 2 tph Bournemouth - Birmingham Moor Street

Somewhat optimistic to think there is demand or capacity for three trains an hour from Plymouth to Birmingham or three trains an hour from Bournemouth to Birmingham unless you are suggesting cutting London services, or flighting the trains so close to the London trains that one of the services runs practically empty for much of the overlap. If it was going to be done, maybe GWR could run Plymouth - Exeter - Reading fast with the XC behind and similarly SWR Bournemouth - Southampton - London fast but I think the tracks are too congested for that these days, particularly on two-track routes.

Again, it would seem to fail the ideal of some posters for significant numbers of spare paths in the timetable.

 

[Glenn1969]

There are only 2 trains an hour showing. I think PO's plan is for XC WCML services to be cut back to Birmingham and terminate at Moor St for HS2 connections at Curzon St. But can trains coming from the Bromsgrove or Coventry lines access Moor Street? I'm also not convinced Birmingham- York/Newcastle/Edinburgh would be quicker via Manchester even with HS2/TRU in place

 

[JonathanH]

There are only 2 trains an hour showing. I think PO's plan is for XC WCML services to be cut back to Birmingham and terminate at Moor St for HS2 connections at Curzon St. But can trains coming from the Bromsgrove or Coventry lines access Moor Street? I'm also not convinced Birmingham- York/Newcastle/Edinburgh would be quicker via Manchester even with HS2/TRU in place

Ah, does 1tph and 2tph mean '1st' tph and '2nd' tph? Maybe I misunderstood. Even then, extension of a second train each hour beyond Exeter and Southampton is likely not to be possible across the day but I get the point that Plymouth and Bournemouth are being used to signify the generic origin of the service.

At present, neither the Coventry or Bromsgrove lines can access Moor Street. There is some talk of a curve at Bordesley to get Camp Hill services into Moor Street. Coventry line into Moor Street seems somewhat unlikely unless new platforms 'attached to Moor Street' are going to be built on the approach to New Street.

 

[The Planner]

I very much doubt South Coast to Moor St is a goer, as the oft trotted out reason of XC wanting 2tph via Cov and International. Even diverting an extra via Solihull now isn't the easiest of tasks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How come we have all these threads about Liverpool being connected to places on the south coast and everyone thinks it will be a good thing yet linking it through to London 'destroys' the timetable. Wasn't it just poor implementation of the traincrew diagrams by LNR that destroyed the timetable? There should be nothing inherently any worse with linking LNR services across Birmingham than linking XC services across Birmingham.

The problem was primarily that south WCML diagrams are so incredibly tight that things do often end up late (and that is accepted, the peak approach has long been "run everything to ensure capacity even if it's really late and fix it later", so almost no cancellations but plenty of delays), and it removed the ability for them to get back on time. Though messy diagrams and interworking* didn't help. The proposed new timetable (now binned) had them dropping back a diagram with a 10 or 20 minute wait at New St (depending where in the 20-into-30 minute interval pattern they were to fit) and that might have worked, but if you're going to sit at New St for 20 minutes there isn't much gained by having it joined, as budget passengers are likely willing to take the hit of a change to save money (and really, 4.5 hours is a long time on a 350/2 with no catering, so I find I want to break it up, personally).

You can use the same argument to split at Northampton, and indeed Silverlink was slightly more punctual operated that way. However, Birmingham is the second most likely rail destination from much of the route, so removing this does remove a fair whack of utility. Most people on the south WCML have no particular need of a direct but very slow service to Liverpool, and if they're on a budget then a change is acceptable as I note.

* Because if it wasn't interworked you could cancel a round trip to get it back on time (e.g. put another unit and crew out on time at Northampton and can the late one on arrival there). But you don't really want to be doing that on a daily basis, so the diagrams were only a partial fix.

 

[Metrolink]

There are only 2 trains an hour showing. I think PO's plan is for XC WCML services to be cut back to Birmingham and terminate at Moor St for HS2 connections at Curzon St. But can trains coming from the Bromsgrove or Coventry lines access Moor Street? I'm also not convinced Birmingham- York/Newcastle/Edinburgh would be quicker via Manchester even with HS2/TRU in place

I’m confused. The only services that can terminate at Moor Street are the Reading/ Bournemouth services, but that avoids Coventry and Birmingham Intl which is a must for travellers from Oxford and Reading. How is this possible (let alone feasible)? We’ve also ruled out a chord at Smethwick, so that also destroys the proposal of North West - South Coast XC services.

 

[PTR 444]

I very much doubt South Coast to Moor St is a goer, as the oft trotted out reason of XC wanting 2tph via Cov and International. Even diverting an extra via Solihull now isn't the easiest of tasks.

I know it’s an ambition for XC but will it still be relevant bearing in mind XC will most likely be dissolved between other operators once HS2 is built?

Unless Oxford - Coventry/Brum International is a significant enough flow to demand a direct service.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unless Oxford - Coventry/Brum International is a significant enough flow to demand a direct service.

It is.

 

[PTR 444]

It is.

Ahh okay. I guess Oxford-Brum Interchange won’t be quicker via OOC either.

 

[JonathanH]

Ahh okay. I guess Oxford-Brum Interchange won’t be quicker via OOC either.

No, it won't be. That would be a very long way round in any case.

 

[PTR 444]

Also, I can see Bournemouth and Southampton significantly losing out from this. If the South Coast XC service is curtailed at Birmingham New Street post-HS2, people will have quite a distance to walk if they wish to go further north on HS2. If the service is diverted to Moor Street, this won’t be as much of an issue as it is much closer to Curzon Street, but it is increasingly becoming apparent that this is being ruled out for operational and demand reasons.

In this case, it may be better to abolish South Coast - Brum completely and instead run a Bournemouth - London Paddington service which would have direct connectivity with HS2 at OOC. It would mean much quicker journeys from the south coast to Manchester, but at the expense of direct trains to Birmingham. In addition, a 2tph service would run between New Street and Reading via Oxford and Coventry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this case, it may be better to abolish South Coast - Brum completely and instead run a Bournemouth - London Paddington service which would have direct connectivity with HS2 at OOC. It would mean much quicker journeys from the south coast to Manchester, but at the expense of direct trains to Birmingham. In addition, a 2tph service would run between New Street and Reading via Oxford and Coventry.

Similarly with regard to Bristol, would Bristol or Oxford-OOC (GWR) and OOC-Manchester (HS2) be quicker than Bristol-Moor St (XC) and Curzon St-Manchester (HS2)?

If so, sending the XCs into Moor St is really not important, so maintaining through services via New St would be better.

OOC really does change the game by adding quality interchange between Paddington routes and the "WCML" (i.e. HS2), that means all the main InterCity routes are connected nicely without a long trek across London.

 

[Glenn1969]

But all this depends on HS2 Phase 2 being built in full and a connection between HS2 and NPR (IF there is full NPR infrastricture). I thought that was far from certain to happen and if it happens at all it won't be until 10 years after Phase 1 opens

So presumably in my lifetime XC won't change much if at all ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But all this depends on HS2 Phase 2 being built in full and a connection between HS2 and NPR (IF there is full NPR infrastricture). I thought that was far from certain to happen and if it happens at all it won't be until 10 years after Phase 1 opens

Yes, this thread is predicated on "what happens once HS2 has been built in full".

If part of HS2 wasn't built, then the outcome would obviously change.

 

[JonathanH]

Also, I can see Bournemouth and Southampton significantly losing out from this.

To what extent is not having a through train to Manchester 'losing out'? Are these through services really that important? Bournemouth to Birmingham is already three hours, Manchester nearly five. Just how often do people even make that journey? What happens if people from Bournemouth want to get to Leeds? It would be interesting to know the number of tickets sold from Bournemouth to Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire each year and whether there really is a 'through train' effect at all. My guess is that there isn't.

 

[Purple Orange]

No, no and no again. It destroyed the timetable and hopefully won't come back.

What was it about London via Birmingham that was a problem? It seems to work for London - Scotland via Brum. To put in context my opinion, by LNW I think they should operate the service with rolling stock similar to the 350s or 730s (or whatever it is they have these days)

How come we have all these threads about Liverpool being connected to places on the south coast and everyone thinks it will be a good thing yet linking it through to London 'destroys' the timetable. Wasn't it just poor implementation of the traincrew diagrams by LNR that destroyed the timetable? There should be nothing inherently any worse with linking LNR services across Birmingham than linking XC services across Birmingham.


Somewhat optimistic to think there is demand or capacity for three trains an hour from Plymouth to Birmingham or three trains an hour from Bournemouth to Birmingham unless you are suggesting cutting London services, or flighting the trains so close to the London trains that one of the services runs practically empty for much of the overlap. If it was going to be done, maybe GWR could run Plymouth - Exeter - Reading fast with the XC behind and similarly SWR Bournemouth - Southampton - London fast but I think the tracks are too congested for that these days, particularly on two-track routes.

Again, it would seem to fail the ideal of some posters for significant numbers of spare paths in the timetable.

The 3rd path from the south west to Brum is planned as a part of Midlands Engine Rail, which I’m using as a basis for what I anticipate coming post HS2. I believe the same is true for south coast services, but I’m not 100% sure without going through their literature again.

 

[Glenn1969]

I have always thought there is a big through train effect and suppressed demand caused by overcrowding on a lot of routes that are short-formed. XC is one, TPE is another. How many passengers choose to drive to avoid the hassle of changing trains? Particularly leisure passengers?

What was it about London via Birmingham that was a problem? It seems to work for London - Scotland via Brum. To put in context my opinion, by LNW I think they should operate the service with rolling stock similar to the 350s or 730s (or whatever it is they have these days)



The 3rd path from the south west to Brum is planned as a part of Midlands Engine Rail, which I’m using as a basis for what I anticipate coming post HS2. I believe the same is true for south coast services, but I’m not 100% sure without going through their literature again.

But MER will only happen if Phase 2b goes ahead in full. That is currently far from certain and in any case is a 2040 at the earliest project like NPR

 

[Bletchleyite]

What was it about London via Birmingham that was a problem? It seems to work for London - Scotland via Brum. To put in context my opinion, by LNW I think they should operate the service with rolling stock similar to the 350s or 730s (or whatever it is they have these days)

There were a few issues, but the main one as I see it was that the south WCML local services (unlike Avanti West Coast) aren't exactly punctual. To cram in the full peak service you get a lot of "4 minutes here, 7 minutes there" type delays. These are accepted (because there isn't a viable alternative to them as things stand) but it's much easier to get them back out if they get too bad on any given day by turning self-contained services short after the peak. This is why when things get really bad they get split at Northampton.

The trouble is that when you have tight through diagrams with lots of unit and crew interworking (and the unit and crew diagrams are separate, so you get units stuck places blocking platforms with no crews), this ends up in a right mess because you can't easily fix it in that way.

If the south WCML service was thinned in line capacity terms post HS2 then that through service might well work, or you could run it like was proposed as a workaround with a long layover at New St. But it looks like the capacity will be used to cram in a metro-style service as far as MKC, and if that is done there won't be a lot of improvement.

If you couple it with a lack of real passenger benefit (its main purpose was making WMT more money by poaching passengers off Avanti) there seem few reasons to do it in a "post-franchise" world. Genuine budget passengers will accept the change because price is a priority.

In some ways it wasn't dissimilar to the Ormskirk-Colne-Blackpool S circuit - "oh, look what we can cram in" - and that failed, too, and they found they had to put an extra unit in, which they could have done by just putting it on Ormskirk-Preston (to upgrade to hourly) and leaving Colne the way it was, keeping it simple and avoiding knock-on.

 

[Purple Orange]

https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1571/midlands-rail-hub-summary-report-final-june-2019.pdf

http://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1692/final-midlands-engine-rail-report.pdf

This was my source for the additional Bristol & Reading services. It also proposes additional services to other cities too. Reading is a bit more blurred, as they propose doubling the number of services to Birmingham Airport from 1 to 2 tph, but keep the route via Solihull on their map too, suggesting 3 tph from Reading to Birmingham.

But MER will only happen if Phase 2b goes ahead in full. That is currently far from certain and in any case is a 2040 at the earliest project like NPR

Not all the MER projects are dependent upon HS2, but I think it is unlikely that phase 2 East does not go ahead, albeit later than the west branch and in line with NPR (or the hybrid NPR/TRU - I doubt a route via Bradford will happen, but one via Huddersfield will).

Then again, that is the point of the thread - what happens post HS2 to XC? Lots or permeations to consider.

There were a few issues, but the main one as I see it was that the south WCML local services (unlike Avanti West Coast) aren't exactly punctual. To cram in the full peak service you get a lot of "4 minutes here, 7 minutes there" type delays. These are accepted (because there isn't a viable alternative to them as things stand) but it's much easier to get them back out if they get too bad on any given day by turning self-contained services short after the peak. This is why when things get really bad they get split at Northampton.

The trouble is that when you have tight through diagrams with lots of unit and crew interworking (and the unit and crew diagrams are separate, so you get units stuck places blocking platforms with no crews), this ends up in a right mess because you can't easily fix it in that way.

If the south WCML service was thinned in line capacity terms post HS2 then that through service might well work, or you could run it like was proposed as a workaround with a long layover at New St. But it looks like the capacity will be used to cram in a metro-style service as far as MKC, and if that is done there won't be a lot of improvement.

If you couple it with a lack of real passenger benefit (its main purpose was making WMT more money by poaching passengers off Avanti) there seem few reasons to do it in a "post-franchise" world. Genuine budget passengers will accept the change because price is a priority.

In some ways it wasn't dissimilar to the Ormskirk-Colne-Blackpool S circuit - "oh, look what we can cram in" - and that failed, too, and they found they had to put an extra unit in, which they could have done by just putting it on Ormskirk-Preston (to upgrade to hourly) and leaving Colne the way it was, keeping it simple and avoiding knock-on.

So how come a London-Birmingham-Manchester service has been proposed post HS2? Surely that can work. If it was run by ICWC would that be a better outcome?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So how come a London-Birmingham-Manchester service has been proposed post HS2? Surely that can work. If it was run by ICWC would that be a better outcome?

It's less about who runs it and more about it being a low-number-of-stops InterCity service on the fast lines with decent slack in the timetable. The Liverpool debacle basically involved joining already tightly timed commuter services together which is a very, very different game indeed, particularly given the punctuality issue on slow-line services I mention.

It might be that post-COVID reduced commuting would allow the peak-time commuter service to be thinned to be the same as the all-day service but with 12-car sets. If so, it might well then work. The issue was that if someone breathed on a peak-time service into Euston* that would have knock-on at Runcorn in the mid-afternoon as there was no simple way to reset it all back.

* Or more realistically, a wheelchair user needed to be boarded, or there was a minor fault with a set of doors requiring a phone call to the depot and a kick. It really didn't take much at all to mess it up.

 

[Purple Orange]

It's less about who runs it and more about it being a low-number-of-stops InterCity service on the fast lines with decent slack in the timetable. The Liverpool debacle basically involved joining commuter services together which is a very, very different game indeed, particularly given the punctuality issue on slow-line services I mention.

It might be that post-COVID reduced commuting would allow the peak-time commuter service to be thinned to be the same as the all-day service but with 12-car sets. If so, it might well then work. The issue was that if someone breathed on a peak-time service into Euston* that would have knock-on at Runcorn in the mid-afternoon as there was no simple way to reset it all back.

* Or more realistically, a wheelchair user needed to be boarded, or there was a minor fault with a set of doors requiring a phone call to the depot and a kick. It really didn't take much at all to mess it up.

Oh I see you, yes I agree with that. My suggestion wasn’t as detailed or rigid as saying it should remain looking like the current Liverpool LNW service, but rather it could be more akin to the Avanti service pattern (but via New Street), however it should be the same TOC as LNW running WCML services as far as Manchester & Liverpool. I would change the rolling stock to something with doors at thirds, and between Brum & Manc there should be additional stops like Congleton.

 

[Glenn1969]

https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1571/midlands-rail-hub-summary-report-final-june-2019.pdf

http://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1692/final-midlands-engine-rail-report.pdf

This was my source for the additional Bristol & Reading services. It also proposes additional services to other cities too. Reading is a bit more blurred, as they propose doubling the number of services to Birmingham Airport from 1 to 2 tph, but keep the route via Solihull on their map too, suggesting 3 tph from Reading to Birmingham.

Not all the MER projects are dependent upon HS2, but I think it is unlikely that phase 2 East does not go ahead, albeit later than the west branch and in line with NPR (or the hybrid NPR/TRU - I doubt a route via Bradford will happen, but one via Huddersfield will).

Then again, that is the point of the thread - what happens post HS2 to XC? Lots or permeations to consider.


So how come a London-Birmingham-Manchester service has been proposed post HS2? Surely that can work. If it was run by ICWC would that be a better outcome?

I think it's unlikely that HS2 East does go ahead and if it does it won't open until after my 70th birthday (Sept 2039). I also think "via Huddersfield" is just the Transpennine Route Upgrade and won't link to HS2 at Manchester. The populations of the WY and GM boroughs say "via Bradford" would benefit more people who live on a corridor that is in dire need of transformation (I think Bradford has the worst express offer of any city of its size in England and a way needs to be found to take more cars off the M62, A62 and A58 over the pennines). But due to cost I don't think it will happen