danielcanning
On Moderation
With Stations to act as a Park and Ride service for London?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Could a Javelin style service work on HS2?
- Thread starter danielcanning
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nottingham59
Established Member
Yes, but the P&R sites are at places like Milton Keynes and Leighton Buzzard on the WCML. Putting the non-stop trains onto HS2 releases huge amounts of capacity for commuter services on the WCML. There may even be scope to add genuine Park and Ride stations next to the M25 and major trunk routes when HS2 is operating.
But this opportunity is available only if HS2 carries all the non-stop trains, and this would not be possible if the HS2 tracks had any stations south of the West Midlands.
But this opportunity is available only if HS2 carries all the non-stop trains, and this would not be possible if the HS2 tracks had any stations south of the West Midlands.
A park and ride on HS2 would be self-defeating. However, javelin-style services are being proposed as part of the 'classic compatible' set of services. Run fast to Birmingham, then switch back to the classic lines to start stopping. HS1 and HS2 have a number of key differences in their service patterns, network function and political sensitivities so there will very rarely be exact matches in operational matters.
Nottingham59
Established Member
Isn't that the role that Bletchley will now play?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It was, appropriately, going to be Wing, wasn't it?
Well, it's got a massive double deck car park that is never (even pre COVID) more than half full...
If it was to have been anything, it should have been this. Park & ride is debatable as a sustainable practice (Ebbsfleet is a sea of empty car park, but maybe underground/multi-story is better) - but beyond a railhead and interchange spot (Oxford to Manchester in how long?) - it would be a smart place to build housing, retail etc - establish one of these new 'not-new-towns' but green eco garden cities or whatever the hell the new name was. Roads would remain pretty rural for a time, and I'd expect it would be contentious overall. But great rail links.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,372
Ah, the good old “whack a mole” HS2 Claydon park and ride or interchange.
If you’re proposing Javelins, presumably this would also require re specifying EWR to a higher standard than the 90/100mph it’s currently being built to?
I suspect most people in the Oxford area would rather have better services to Birmingham Interchange or Old Oak Common and pick up HS2 there than use EWR to connect to a long distance service.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,692
I'm fairly sure HS2 will end up being a de-facto Javelin pseudo commuter service regardless of what we do.
I expect large numbers of people using it to get from a railhead at Birmingham Interchange to Crossrail at Old Oak Common.
I expect large numbers of people using it to get from a railhead at Birmingham Interchange to Crossrail at Old Oak Common.
I wonder if the large distance between the two Birmingham stations will lead people capable of using rail to get to the current station to switch to driving to the new one.
If you’re close enough to a rail station that has a service into Birmingham that you don’t need to drive to, it seems unlikely you’d choose to drive to one further away. HS2 between the two Birmingham stations isn’t going to save that much time that it would be a massive win overall.
More likely would be people already driving to a railhead in the area such as Warwick Parkway changing, especially if you’re closer to Birmingham than Warwick is.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There is actually a reasonable argument for the Birmingham operation to be different from the others and with dedicated, high density captive stock with a single class of travel and no catering, and a more walk-up-style fare structure even if the tunnel evacuation plans won't allow standees. You could avoid trains ever being full by buying captive 400m double deck stock for Birmingham terminators anyway, that's enough capacity to grass over the M6*.
* (c) 1998ish, R. Branson.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
HS2 was specifically designed to run through the lowest-population areas between London and Birmingham, so a commuter-type service would be almost totally reliant on park and ride. This would be much less sustainable than an enhanced WCML service, where stations are more easily accessed via active modes and bus, and even if people drive to the station they are probably doing so from less far away.
Also HS2 is expected to be full to capacity with longer-distance services. Each commuter train would eliminate at least one service going further north (probably more as they are likely to be slower). They would therefore work against the objective of HS2, which is to link the major cities of the UK better by shorter journey times, with the more local benefits realised through capacity release on existing routes.
Also HS2 is expected to be full to capacity with longer-distance services. Each commuter train would eliminate at least one service going further north (probably more as they are likely to be slower). They would therefore work against the objective of HS2, which is to link the major cities of the UK better by shorter journey times, with the more local benefits realised through capacity release on existing routes.
The 4 track is very common on all HSR for station loops. As for the HS2 service, I agree - BUT - that was with Leeds and I'm even skeptical about East Midlands Parkway.
If HS2 ends up ending at Crewe (or Manchester at a push) indefinitely - there might be the ability to do what this thread is about. We're equally talking elsewhere about how captive stock might be pointless. This project has evolved.
Re Birmingham non-stop, I don't think anything is slated to skip OOC, and only 1tph skipping Interchange - which may as well become a call for uniformity. So Euston-Curzon will always be 3 stops, but Interchange-OOC could be a mere hop. You might be in Canary Wharf in under an hour.
What’s the difference in time between Ashford/Ebbsfleet and London termini on the classic lines versus Javelin and what is the difference between say Bletchley and London on classic lines/HS2?
I’m assuming that the HS1 speed and time differences will be more substantial that HS2 where the units will need to do 180mph to be even comparable.
I’m assuming that the HS1 speed and time differences will be more substantial that HS2 where the units will need to do 180mph to be even comparable.
Bletchley to London on a 1Yxx London Midland service on the WCML is 38 minutes. It is nowhere near enough to HS2 for the time on that route via an theoretical interchange station being quicker.
A more valid comparison would be the journey time from Aylesbury or Wendover to London where a HS2 intermediate station would smash the current journey time but the people of those towns would, I expect, rather have countryside and settle for a slow service than the development that would ensue from having faster trains to London (and the Midlands / North).
there’s an awful lot of people in the West Midlands that live near a station that has a reasonable service to Birmingham, yet choose to drive to International for the train to London. I used to do it myself from Sutton Coldfield, and I know a number of people who do it from there, or Droitwich / Bromsgrove etc.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I can't see Javelin services on HS2, but I coikd see it happening on NPR. A Liverpool-Newcastle service will have 10 station calls and ideal for Javelin train.
What do you mean by a Javelin train in this context?
Nottingham59
Established Member
Where would you envisage NPR services calling? My suggested stops would be:
Lime St, LS Parkway, Warrington LL, Man Apt, Man Picc, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle. This is 9 intermediate stops.
I think there should be a regional express service, with 8tph between Liverpool and Leeds with this calling pattern. Perhaps 2tph continuing on to Newcastle and 2tph to Sunderland. Though I fear that the limitations of the Piccadilly throat will stymie even this modest ambition.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I think NPR trains will be high speed trains, with doors at thirds and a capacity of circa 500 passengers. Similar in style to a Javelin and capable of 140 mph, but it would need to be longer to achieve the required capacity.
I think the 10 stations would be: Liverpool Lime Street, Warrington, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle.
The limitations aren’t at the Piccadilly throat, but rather the capacity beyond the NPR lines after Marsden to Leeds and Warrington to Liverpool. The station should really be able to accommodate 4 tph terminating from London in the middle two platforms (giving a 30 min frequency per platform), with 8 tph arriving from Liverpool & Birmingham on the western pair of platforms before heading off to Leeds (giving a 15 min frequency per platform). The reverse would happen on the eastern pair of platforms.
There is also a question of whether 8 tph are really needed to run Liverpool-Warrington-Airport-Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds? A far better approach would be to extend the NPR line all the way to Leeds with new platforms, so you could have the potential of:
- 2 tph Liverpool, Piccadilly HS2, Leeds, Newcastle (as above)
- 2 tph Liverpool, Piccadilly HS2, Leeds, Hull
- 4 tph Birmingham, Piccadilly HS2, Leeds
- Run semi-fasts & stoppers on the chat moss & existing trans pennine mainline via Manchester Victoria providing services for St. Helens, Newton, Stalybridge, Dewsbury among others.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
NPR will be a somewhat lower-speed service than HS2 simply because stations are close enough together that 350km/h trains won't reach their maximum speeds anyway. It's possible some could run non-stop from Manchester to Leeds, but half of this will be limited to 160km/h or so because it's classic infrastructure.
Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds trains, assuming they operate at all, will need to be capable of 350km/h to avoid getting in the way of other trains on HS2 south of Manchester. This isn't such an issue for Liverpool trains because they share for a shorter distance, and that section also includes some speed restrictions as well as the Airport station. I suspect Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds will be standard HS2 stock, possibly with a longer dwell time due to the door spacing, rather than having yet another variant with 350km/h capability and a door spacing optimised for shorter dwell times.
Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds trains, assuming they operate at all, will need to be capable of 350km/h to avoid getting in the way of other trains on HS2 south of Manchester. This isn't such an issue for Liverpool trains because they share for a shorter distance, and that section also includes some speed restrictions as well as the Airport station. I suspect Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds will be standard HS2 stock, possibly with a longer dwell time due to the door spacing, rather than having yet another variant with 350km/h capability and a door spacing optimised for shorter dwell times.
Nottingham59
Established Member
My assumption is that "NPR" would (eventually) give us a four-track railway all the way from Liverpool to Leeds. If it doesn't, then it will never generate the wider economic impacts that have been promised. But maybe a topic for another thread...
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I think NPR will need train stock similar in capability to TPE’s 802s and the Javelin - both capable of 225km/h (140mph) but NPR will run at 200km/h (125mph). Yes, half the journey between Liverpool & Leeds might be limited to 160kmh, but half of it won’t be as a good 60km will be on new NPR & HS2 track. Then there is the ECML. to contend with.
Agreed. I’d say the line to Leeds is a more pressing priority than the line to Liverpool, as there will be the CLC and Chat Moss lines plus the line serving NPR & HS2 trains, whereas Leeds-Manc just has the existing two lines.
If NPR & HS2 starts off with 4 tph to Liverpool and 2 tph to Birmingham from Leeds via Manchester, plus 3 tph to London from Manchester, I think it will be more important to grow the London & Birmingham services to 4 tph each rather than the Liverpool to 6 tph or 8 tph on that particular line. (Assuming a maximum of 12 tph are permitted on HS2 track through the south Manchester tunnel).
That's showing absolutely no sign of happening unless you count some other parallel route as contributing some of the four.
Nottingham59
Established Member
Yes, you are right. When the IRP stated "We are funding quick-win upgrades around Leeds station. On top of this, we will carry out enhancements at Leeds station as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail. We will undertake a study to understand the most optimal solution for Leeds station capacity." (para 3.65), I had assumed this would (could?) include four tracking from Dewsbury to Leeds. But it doesn't look that way, unfortunately.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I'd say "station capacity" indicates it is looking at the station area rather then the line as far away as Dewsbury. We've already discussed several times on other threads that there is capacity to run 8TPH Manchester fasts plus a 30min interval stopping service on that section even with double track.
- Status