Does HS2 Still Need 400m Trains?

[DynamicSpirit]

First off, I'll admit to a bias: I've never liked the idea of 400m trains (that is, two 200 trainsets coupled together). I understand the need for capacity, but the railway also needs to be reasonably passenger-friendly and accessible, and to my mind, expecting people to walk 400m down a platform to find their seat is pushing those bounds too far.

But now that London-Birmingham/Handsacre is the only part of HS2 being built, it seems to me there's no longer any significant justification for 400m trains: Rather, we should be building a uniform fleet of 250m-ish trains, without any expectation that they will ever be coupled in normal service.

• The vast majority of HS2 trains will spend most of their time on the classical network. They therefore need maximum capacity within the limits of the existing WCML. That presumably means making them about the same length as an 11-car Pendolino: 265 m, NOT 200m. So, too long to be coupled in normal use.
• 400 m trains will now only be able to run Euston-Birmingham, nowhere else. It makes no operational sense to have a separate micro-fleet that can only be used on that one route.
• Building for only 250m will mean you can shorten the platforms at Euston, reducing the expense of building the new station there. Since Euston represented a massively disproportionate part of the expense of HS2, that's significant (or maybe the money saved would pay for passive provision for an extra platform or two in case they are ever needed?).
• Since London-Birmingham will now carry far fewer trains than the line is specced for, capacity is not an issue (other than maybe at Euston), so having more frequent, rather than longer, trains on the London-Birmingham route should now be a possible option. Even Euston shouldn't be that much of a constraint: The 6 platforms ought to easily be able to take 12tph, and HS2 will now be replacing only 9 Avanti trains (10 if you count the proposed 2nd Liverpool one). Also with the reduced number of trains, it's doubtful that all 6 platforms at OOC will be needed, so you now have some additional capacity for running a few additional trains that terminate there, so it looks to me like 14tph should be doable on the infrastructure that's now being proposed: Easily enough to adequately serve Birmingham and other WCML destinations without 400 m trains.

Thoughts?

 

[stuu]

Agree it makes no sense to have 200m long trains now, but reducing the platform length at Euston would be the height of stupidity, as it would remove the possibility of longer trains in the future. One day high speed rail will get to Manchester, so it should be allowed for

So they probably will do that.

 

[SynthD]

You’re not meant to walk 400m down the platform. Like Eurostar, a vital part of the station is multiple points of access to the platform.

I expect there will be splits at Birmingham Int, until Crewe is built.

Don’t limit Euston to what we need for the first opening. 200 years ago Euston had one arrivals and one departure platform.

I don’t agree with your OOC platform usage, but I can’t remember an accurate answer.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You’re not meant to walk 400m down the platform. Like Eurostar, a vital part of the station is multiple points of access to the platform.

If the station entrance (or the ticket office, or the interchange with the bus station or the underground) is at one end of the station, then you're still walking 400m to the other end of the HS2 platform: It makes little difference to the passenger whether multiple points of access mean that more of that walk is on the concourse rather than the platform.

 

[SynthD]

The buffers at Euston are already far from Euston Road. The designs for OOC, BMI and BCZ (do we know the three letter code for Curzon St?) have side entrances to reduce this issue.

 

[350401]

You’re not meant to walk 400m down the platform. Like Eurostar, a vital part of the station is multiple points of access to the platform.

I expect there will be splits at Birmingham Int, until Crewe is built.

Don’t limit Euston to what we need for the first opening. 200 years ago Euston had one arrivals and one departure platform.

I don’t agree with your OOC platform usage, but I can’t remember an accurate answer.

If the hopefully incoming Labour government has any sense, could they still do the on network works at Crewe, so the 400m trains can still split there; making the most of the limited platforms at OOC and Euston? Or would 400m trains not work on the conventional network between Handsacre and Crewe?

 

[The Planner]

• 400 m trains will now only be able to run Euston-Birmingham, nowhere else.

Why? Crewe needs 15m adding to P6, nothing to P12

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why? Crewe needs 15m adding to P6, nothing to P12

You could probably do a 400m fast Glasgow and that would be it.

Personally I think standardising on 300m 12 car units with no splitting and joining would be best. A few platforms might need extending, but most places Avanti serve can presently take a 265m 11 car Pendolino, so not by much.

While I get that the Pendolino is quite inefficiently laid out, using 200m units on the current service pattern or something like it (which is all it can really be with Phase 1 only) leaves no room for growth at all.

 

[Snow1964]

I think should still build the platforms at 400m, to allow for subsequent longer trains.

But I tend to agree that first batch of trains would be better if built to something nearer 270-300m rather than 200m.

But then I would also have built a direct link spur between HS1 and HS2 (or at least made provision for it), as still might sort our non-Schengen approach in 2 or 3 decades, so having continental gauge line with standard 400m platforms makes sense.

 

[The Planner]

You could probably do a 400m fast Glasgow and that would be it.

Personally I think standardising on 300m 12 car units with no splitting and joining would be best. A few platforms might need extending, but most places Avanti serve can presently take a 265m 11 car Pendolino, so not by much.

While I get that the Pendolino is quite inefficiently laid out, using 200m units on the current service pattern or something like it (which is all it can really be with Phase 1 only) leaves no room for growth at all.

400m doesnt fit at Glasgow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

400m doesnt fit at Glasgow.

Sorry, was getting confused about the Sleeper. If the train doesn't split it always goes to Edinburgh, right?

(A full CS set plus two locos is about 380m)

 

[Trainbike46]

First off, I'll admit to a bias: I've never liked the idea of 400m trains (that is, two 200 trainsets coupled together). I understand the need for capacity, but the railway also needs to be reasonably passenger-friendly and accessible, and to my mind, expecting people to walk 400m down a platform to find their seat is pushing those bounds too far.

But now that London-Birmingham/Handsacre is the only part of HS2 being built, it seems to me there's no longer any significant justification for 400m trains: Rather, we should be building a uniform fleet of 250m-ish trains, without any expectation that they will ever be coupled in normal service.

• The vast majority of HS2 trains will spend most of their time on the classical network. They therefore need maximum capacity within the limits of the existing WCML. That presumably means making them about the same length as an 11-car Pendolino: 265 m, NOT 200m. So, too long to be coupled in normal use.
• 400 m trains will now only be able to run Euston-Birmingham, nowhere else. It makes no operational sense to have a separate micro-fleet that can only be used on that one route.
• Building for only 250m will mean you can shorten the platforms at Euston, reducing the expense of building the new station there. Since Euston represented a massively disproportionate part of the expense of HS2, that's significant (or maybe the money saved would pay for passive provision for an extra platform or two in case they are ever needed?).
• Since London-Birmingham will now carry far fewer trains than the line is specced for, capacity is not an issue (other than maybe at Euston), so having more frequent, rather than longer, trains on the London-Birmingham route should now be a possible option. Even Euston shouldn't be that much of a constraint: The 6 platforms ought to easily be able to take 12tph, and HS2 will now be replacing only 9 Avanti trains (10 if you count the proposed 2nd Liverpool one). Also with the reduced number of trains, it's doubtful that all 6 platforms at OOC will be needed, so you now have some additional capacity for running a few additional trains that terminate there, so it looks to me like 14tph should be doable on the infrastructure that's now being proposed: Easily enough to adequately serve Birmingham and other WCML destinations without 400 m trains.

Thoughts?

I can kind of see the argument for ordering some 250ish m classic-compatible trains, but the platforms shouldn't be shortened, as it would prevent lengthening the trains in the future. And if we ever get a sensible government, HS2 will be extended further, so having the allowance for the longer trains is a good thing. At Curzon street, Birmingham Interchange and OOC 400m platforms are baked in at this point, so creating a limitation at just Euston would be very short-sighted

With Crewe having a few 400m long platforms anyway, more trains could be run by combining them south of there and splitting/joining at Crewe

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Personally I think standardising on 300m 12 car units with no splitting and joining would be best. A few platforms might need extending, but most places Avanti serve can presently take a 265m 11 car Pendolino, so not by much.

I was thinking the same (12 coaches) but I presume 200m and 400m trains will still run.

 

[The Planner]

I can kind of see the argument for ordering some 250ish m classic-compatible trains, but the platforms shouldn't be shortened, as it would prevent lengthening the trains in the future. And if we ever get a sensible government, HS2 will be extended further, so having the allowance for the longer trains is a good thing. At Curzon street, Birmingham Interchange and OOC 400m platforms are baked in at this point, so creating a limitation at just Euston would be very short-sighted

With Crewe having a few 400m long platforms anyway, more trains could be run by combining them south of there and splitting/joining at Crewe

You are making a very big assumption Crewe doesnt get massively de-scoped in its renewals there. Its got two 400m platforms on the down, six is slightly shorter operationally on the up, so only one in that direction.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I expect there will be splits at Birmingham Int, until Crewe is built.

Now, as matters stand, can you clarify what you mean above where you state "until Crewe is built"
I confess to not being aware of other projects announced after the cancellation of HS2 north of Birmingham, being somewhat currently in ill health.

 

[Trainbike46]

You are making a very big assumption Crewe doesnt get massively de-scoped in its renewals there. Its got two 400m platforms on the down, six is slightly shorter operationally on the up, so only one in that direction.

That is definitely an assumption I'm making yes, but assuming that platforms wouldn't be shortened when there are plans for 400m services doesn't seem that unreasonable?

Obviously only a small number of services an hour could actually split at Crewe, but you probably wouldn't want to do too many in any case for reliability reasons

 

[SynthD]

Now, as matters stand, can you clarify what you mean above where you state "until Crewe is built"
I confess to not being aware of other projects announced after the cancellation of HS2 north of Birmingham, being somewhat currently in ill health.

I've stopped reading the HS2 threads here and in other places, I don't like how much insistence there is that Sunak will dictate the next 20 years. So, I say Crewe will be built because I believe 2a, 2b, 2c and maybe the Goldbourne bypass will be reinstated. It's certainly a possibility that is relevant to what Euston should be capable of in ten years time.

 

[Trainbike46]

I've stopped reading the HS2 threads here and in other places, I don't like how much insistence there is that Sunak will dictate the next 20 years. So, I say Crewe will be built because I believe 2a, 2b, 2c and maybe the Goldbourne bypass will be reinstated. It's certainly a possibility that is relevant to what Euston should be capable of in ten years time.

What is phase 2c?

2a Birmingham-Crewe
2b Crewe-Manchester
Eastern leg
golborne link

Is there some section I'm missing??

 

[SynthD]

I’ve lost sight of it, was it beyond East Midlands Parkway or beyond Manchester, to Leeds?

 

[30907]

If the station entrance (or the ticket office, or the interchange with the bus station or the underground) is at one end of the station, then you're still walking 400m to the other end of the HS2 platform: It makes little difference to the passenger whether multiple points of access mean that more of that walk is on the concourse rather than the platform.

Obviously French punters are less fussy - "stuck-together TGVs" (my daughter's description aged 4 or so) are common, and serve termini in Paris and Marseille as well as numerous through stations. OeBB and DB aren't far behind: not sure DB gets above 350m, and Austria has no termini served by double Railjets.

 

[snowball]

What is phase 2c?

Phase 2c has never been official terminology for anything.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’ve lost sight of it, was it beyond East Midlands Parkway or beyond Manchester, to Leeds?

Kinda both. If I recall correctly, the original plans had an Eastern leg that would have meant trains from Euston went to Leeds via the new station near Birmingham International, then East Midlands/Toton, all on new high-speed track. Then when the Eastern leg got ditched, the talk was of trains to Leeds instead going up to Manchester then somehow across using unspecified NPR improvements to the cross-Pennine track (the details of that were never really fully established). And of course, now there will be no HS2 trains to Leeds - the only trains diverted to use HS2 will be the Avanti WCML fasts (9/10 tph of them - hence this thread - though I wouldn't be surprised if the higher speeds cause growth in passenger numbers that then requires a few more tph to be added in in the future.)

 

[Meerkat]

I expect there will be splits at Birmingham Int, until Crewe is built.

What would you split at Birmingham? You don’t want extra trains through Colwich.
Crewe is in the north and will help lots of local and regional trains so hopefully a case can be made not to descope it too much, certainly not in a way that restricts future building of 400m platforms.
Splitting HS2 trains at Crewe for Liverpool/Preston/Blackpool/Scotland/Wales (future) seems a good way of getting a lot of value out of a 6 platform Euston.
Will the train design be adaptable - ie relatively simple to have 200m and 250/300m and change them in the future?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What would you split at Birmingham? You don’t want extra trains through Colwich.
Crewe is in the north and will help lots of local and regional trains so hopefully a case can be made not to descope it too much, certainly not in a way that restricts future building of 400m platforms.
Splitting HS2 trains at Crewe for Liverpool/Preston/Blackpool/Scotland/Wales (future) seems a good way of getting a lot of value out of a 6 platform Euston.
Will the train design be adaptable - ie relatively simple to have 200m and 250/300m and change them in the future?

If the service as it stands after the last announcement of HS2 with that line going no further north than Birmingham and different rolling stock used for any services north of Birmingham, surely any split services would have to take place in Birmingham itself. Mention is made above of splitting trains at Crewe, so whilst I admit to be far less knowledgeable on future railway service proposals north of Birmingham than others on this website, I would welcome clarification on what was entailed in the HS2 curtailment announced last week.

 

[RobShipway]

My belief was that there was going to be two/three fleets on HS2. One fleet doing the services between Euston - Birmingham Curzon Street and then the other fleets doing London - elsewhere via HS2.

Now my understanding was that the joint Alstom/Hitachi trains would be doing the HS2 Shuttle services between Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street, with the 7 car AT300's and Pendolino's using HS2 doing London - Blackpool North, London - North Wales and London - Glasgow/Edingburgh services?

 

[The Planner]

My belief was that there was going to be two/three fleets on HS2. One fleet doing the services between Euston - Birmingham Curzon Street and then the other fleets doing London - elsewhere via HS2.

Now my understanding was that the joint Alstom/Hitachi trains would be doing the HS2 Shuttle services between Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street, with the 7 car AT300's and Pendolino's using HS2 doing London - Blackpool North, London - North Wales and London - Glasgow/Edingburgh services?

The captive HS2 stock plans went ages ago. It was/is one fleet of classic compatible stock.

 

[RobShipway]

The captive HS2 stock plans went ages ago. It was/is one fleet of classic compatible stock.

Then for future needs you do need to be building 400M platforms, as it will cheaper to build that today from new than having to extend the platforms later, which is a lesson that was learned by the Victorians.

 

[Chester1]

What would you split at Birmingham? You don’t want extra trains through Colwich.
Crewe is in the north and will help lots of local and regional trains so hopefully a case can be made not to descope it too much, certainly not in a way that restricts future building of 400m platforms.
Splitting HS2 trains at Crewe for Liverpool/Preston/Blackpool/Scotland/Wales (future) seems a good way of getting a lot of value out of a 6 platform Euston.
Will the train design be adaptable - ie relatively simple to have 200m and 250/300m and change them in the future?

Splitting and joining 2 x 200m trains at Crewe is a good option. It requires minimal infrastructure upgrades and there are obvious services to join. 2 x Liverpool with 1 x Preston and 1 x Manchester. In the long run Chester and Holyhead would be another option if the government is serious about electrification. London - Birmingham still needs 400m trains in the long term to have sufficient capacity.

300m is too long for the second type, ~250m i.e. two additional coaches would fit the WCML platform lengths best. I don’t see the problem with having a mixture of 200m and 250m units because its simpler than the current and future Avanti fleet. The rolling stock order is now too big and varying the contract to have fewer units but the same number of coaches would be a good compromise between DfT and Alstom + Hitachi.

 

[snowball]

If the service as it stands after the last announcement of HS2 with that line going no further north than Birmingham and different rolling stock used for any services north of Birmingham, surely any split services would have to take place in Birmingham itself. Mention is made above of splitting trains at Crewe, so whilst I admit to be far less knowledgeable on future railway service proposals north of Birmingham than others on this website, I would welcome clarification on what was entailed in the HS2 curtailment announced last week.

I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that when they say it will go no further north than Birmingham, they mean it will go no further north than Handsacre.

 

[Energy]

My belief was that there was going to be two/three fleets on HS2. One fleet doing the services between Euston - Birmingham Curzon Street and then the other fleets doing London - elsewhere via HS2.

There were plans for some classic compatible and some European gauge stock when full HS2 was planned.

Classic compatible would have been procured first for the phase 1 opening and European gauge later for the Manchester/Leeds opening.