What prevents a better and more frequent service running between Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds?

[norbitonflyer]

I would have thought that capacity at the north end of Sheffield station, and between Sheffield and Leeds may be a problem. Sheffield also doesn't have unlimited through platforms, so in the event of delays it may be a problem having one blocked by a unit from Leeds waiting on a delayed East Coast portion. It seems like the Leeds portions would also just fill up with short-distance travellers, so it may be less impactful than running the longest possible double every hour on the Leeds route

Just a thought, but could they join further south - Chesterfield for example - where there is more space. Perhaps the Leeds portion could go by the "Old Road" and miss Sheffield.

 

[AndrewE]

Just a thought, but could they join further south - Chesterfield for example - where there is more space. Perhaps the Leeds portion could go by the "Old Road" and miss Sheffield.

Sounds reasonable...
Avanti seem to have learned how to cope with trains splitting and joining at Chester to hold capacity on the core service, so with their extra Voyagers could XC manage it too? We have recently been told that it's "too difficult" for British TOCs nowadays, but I'm an optimist!
I certainly wouldn't suggest XC from the NE splitting or joining in Brum, but I wonder whether the first stop after on the NE/SW corridor might work... Gloucester or Bristol perhaps?
I'm sure I remember GWR doing it at Plymouth too...

 

[Krokodil]

The solution must therefore be send all MPs on a Voyager from Penzance to Edinburgh with no catering north of Birmingham. Pre fill the toilet tanks for an authentic experience when they all shut down half way through. Passcom going off hourly. No staff in sight. And at least one busted window per carriage. and make sure the wall panels are extra squeaky.

(I'm obviously not serious)

I am serious, didn’t a former Northern MD educate some DfT types on what the "Pacer" things were that people a long way from London were complaining about by inviting them to join a peak Liverpool to Manchester train?

But they shouldn't join at the point of origin (where they'd have a good chance of getting a seat). No, have them join at an intermediate station where they'll have to be squeezed into a vestibule with a crowbar. Add families with screaming kids for effect.

 

[YorksLad12]

Just a thought, but could they join further south - Chesterfield for example - where there is more space. Perhaps the Leeds portion could go by the "Old Road" and miss Sheffield.

Wouldn't that miss the point of a better/more frequent service between Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds, if the Leeds portion misses out Sheffield?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Wouldn't that miss the point of a better/more frequent service between Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds, if the Leeds portion misses out Sheffield?

There would still be XC services between Birmingham and Leeds, and XC services between Birmingham and Sheffield, and other services between Leeds and Sheffield. What it would avoid is what the earlier poster was worried about - short-haul passengers between Leeds and Sheffield crowding out the longer distance passengers from Leeds to points further south. (and reduce platform occupancy at Sheffield for trains joining and dividing)

 

[Killingworth]

I can see that alternating XC services Chesterfield - Barrow Hill - Leeds then north and Chesterfield - Sheffield - Doncaster then north might be able to speed service times from Birmingham to both Leeds and Newcastle.

Hourly fast paths from Chesterfield to Leeds via Sheffield for a Northern Connect (remember them?) service then becomes available.

 

[YorksLad12]

There would still be XC services between Birmingham and Leeds, and XC services between Birmingham and Sheffield, and other services between Leeds and Sheffield. What it would avoid is what the earlier poster was worried about - short-haul passengers between Leeds and Sheffield crowding out the longer distance passengers from Leeds to points further south. (and reduce platform occupancy at Sheffield for trains joining and dividing)

In that case, someone needs to change the title of the thread

As one of those short-haul passengers (until January, when my contract ends, anyone needs an experienced comms person?) I do agree on that point; which is why I'd be happy if the full NE/SW XC route only ran every three or four hours, with shorter "congestion buster" turns filling in the gaps. In the same way that "it's 5 o'clock somewhere", it's peak time along the full XC route somewhere; you can't just add a unit or coach here or there for strengthening as in the old days, they don't always exist.

The 0811 from Leeds is the big one for getting pupils to Wakefield College and workers to Sheffield around 9am, and is now mostly a 4-car unit with no room for anyone without a reserved. Even if you took out the Wakefield College students it would be full and standing until Sheffield, seat which is why I now avoid it. I still think XC needs longer trains (222s?) to reduce short-forming when there's a crew shortage too.

But all of this requires investment in rolling stock and crew, which is sadly not forthcoming.

 

[unlevel42]

Avoiding Sheffield to the benefit Leeds passengers?-That will go down well.
What about passengers making connections at Sheffield?
Why should the number of transfers required to be made by Sheffield Region users for journey from down south need to be increased?
What is most annoying is being squashed against a window passing the dozens of idle units at the depot.
The inability of Cross Country to provide adequate carriages, the correct information on the platform(no. of wagons and their location), make reservations, catering etc.is just incompetence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The 0811 from Leeds is the big one for getting pupils to Wakefield College and workers to Sheffield around 9am, and is now mostly a 4-car unit with no room for anyone without a reserved. Even if you took out the Wakefield College students it would be full and standing until Sheffield, seat which is why I now avoid it. I still think XC needs longer trains (222s?) to reduce short-forming when there's a crew shortage too.

But all of this requires investment in rolling stock and crew, which is sadly not forthcoming.

It seems to me the fundamental problem (besides shortage of rolling stock) is that the XC routes mix up local and long-distance journeys.

If you compare with - say - the Avanti or LNER routes out of London, it's a bit different. Those services are busiest at the London end of their routes, and will also tend to only carry long-distance passengers out of London by the simple device of not stopping anywhere for ages. But as they go further North, many of them turn into local services, for example carrying passengers from Preston to Lancaster or Crewe to Chester or Runcorn to Liverpool. That's not totally ideal because it means you're carrying lots of local passengers on trains that are not really designed for that, and tend to therefore have slowish boarding, but it works in terms of capacity because the local passengers are being carried at points far from London where there are no longer so many long-distance passengers on the train.

By contrast, long distance XC services tend to stop almost everywhere even at the busiest sections of their routes, which means they are mixing local and long-distance passengers right at the point where there's no capacity to do so, as well as making journeys for long-distance passengers very slow. I wonder if a more sensible timetable would have the Scotland/Newcastle - SouthWest routes do something like, Newcastle->Leeds->Birmingham New St->Bristol Temple Meads->Exeter St Davids, not stopping anywhere else over that section of the route, but keeping a similar stopping pattern to today North of Newcastle and West of Exeter, and have separate slower services running Newcastle-Birmingham, and Birmingham-Exeter to serve the other stations. I realise though that in itself probably requires some capacity and rolling stock enhancements.

 

[Topological]

It seems to me the fundamental problem (besides shortage of rolling stock) is that the XC routes mix up local and long-distance journeys.

If you compare with - say - the Avanti or LNER routes out of London, it's a bit different. Those services are busiest at the London end of their routes, and will also tend to only carry long-distance passengers out of London by the simple device of not stopping anywhere for ages. But as they go further North, many of them turn into local services, for example carrying passengers from Preston to Lancaster or Crewe to Chester or Runcorn to Liverpool. That's not totally ideal because it means you're carrying lots of local passengers on trains that are not really designed for that, and tend to therefore have slowish boarding, but it works in terms of capacity because the local passengers are being carried at points far from London where there are no longer so many long-distance passengers on the train.

By contrast, long distance XC services tend to stop almost everywhere even at the busiest sections of their routes, which means they are mixing local and long-distance passengers right at the point where there's no capacity to do so, as well as making journeys for long-distance passengers very slow. I wonder if a more sensible timetable would have the Scotland/Newcastle - SouthWest routes do something like, Newcastle->Leeds->Birmingham New St->Bristol Temple Meads->Exeter St Davids, not stopping anywhere else over that section of the route, but keeping a similar stopping pattern to today North of Newcastle and West of Exeter, and have separate slower services running Newcastle-Birmingham, and Birmingham-Exeter to serve the other stations. I realise though that in itself probably requires some capacity and rolling stock enhancements.

I can see some sense here, though I suspect that just Leeds -> Sheffield -> Birmingham -> Bristol Temple Meads would be enough. Even then I am not 100% dropping Cheltenham would make a huge saving compared to the necessary duplication to add a service for Cheltenham. I can see why dropping places like Wakefield, Tamworth, Burton and Chesterfield could help. There is probably then market for a stopper to be added to pick up the missed stops.

Even with all of this, longer trains is likely to be sufficient.

 

[AndrewE]

I can see some sense here, though I suspect that just Leeds -> Sheffield -> Birmingham -> Bristol Temple Meads would be enough. Even then I am not 100% dropping Cheltenham would make a huge saving compared to the necessary duplication to add a service for Cheltenham. I can see why dropping places like Wakefield, Tamworth, Burton and Chesterfield could help. There is probably then market for a stopper to be added to pick up the missed stops.

Even with all of this, longer trains is likely to be sufficient.

No, I would think that with this the service will be so much more attractive that you will need to double the capacity of all of them! Fast ("limited stop") services even in the current paths will soon fill up with people once they discover that they can get on, and the locals and semi-fasts will also attract more custom - places like Burton seem to generate quite a bit of business (whenever I have been there or travelled through.)

It must have been said somewhere upthread that this is a line (NE-SW) that has massive suppressed demand for trains at all 3 speeds, and it seems mad that for no extra crew costs you could easily triple capacity if you moved the right rolling stock in and it hasn't been done.

 

[Topological]

No, I would think that with this the service will be so much more attractive that you will need to double the capacity of all of them! Fast ("limited stop") services even in the current paths will soon fill up with people once they discover that they can get on, and the locals and semi-fasts will also attract more custom - places like Burton seem to generate quite a bit of business (whenever I have been there or travelled through.)

It must have been said somewhere upthread that this is a line (NE-SW) that has massive suppressed demand for trains at all 3 speeds, and it seems mad that for no extra crew costs you could easily triple capacity if you moved the right rolling stock in and it hasn't been done.

I do agree to an extent, but my point was more that if the current 4/5 carriages operated as 8/9 then that would be a huge uplift. It would probably not be necessary to add faster services as well.

The need for a Birmingham commuter train on the route has been raised in other threads. That would be a slower than present service. Of the two other speeds a slower one seems to be the next logical step.

A fast service has good motivation, but without associated infrastructure skipping a few stops is not going to give a major journey time lift. People would just take the first train that came instead of waiting for a "fast" versus the current "semi-fast".

I still think there's a chance that something will happen to enable the "fast" to be via HS2 into Curzon Street.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It will be interesting to see if the headquarters of GBR being on the route at Derby makes any difference. That night give more cause for politicians/railway leaders who aren't aware a chance to sample the delights.

 

[Nottingham59]

I still think there's a chance that something will happen to enable the "fast" to be via HS2 into Curzon Street.

I expect that to happen.

When the Secretary of State for Transport was the MP for a Sheffield constituency, I would have said it was a dead cert. But she's gone now, unfortunately.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I still think there's a chance that something will happen to enable the "fast" to be via HS2 into Curzon Street.

Well as I understand it, even the curtailed HS2 will connect to the WCML at Handsacre - and that will definitely allow much faster Manchester-Birmingham services into Curzon Street. So I would expect those to be a near certainty. But I can't really see how you'll get fast trains from the NorthEast into Curzon Street without substantial reinstating of cancelled bits of HS2. Without that - well I'd guess you could without much difficulty build a connection from the existing Derby-Birmingham line to let trains run to Curzon Street, but that doesn't gain you anything speedwise (other than reducing congestion at New Street).

 

[Nottingham59]

you could without much difficulty build a connection from the existing Derby-Birmingham line to let trains run to Curzon Street, but that doesn't gain you anything speedwise (other than reducing congestion at New Street).

as you say, that would not speed up trains from central Birmingham to Derby by much, but relieving New Street would make a huge difference there.

But it would speed up trains from London to Derby and Sheffield by around 15 minutes, and thus increase capacity on the MML by reducing the speed variations on trains using the MML fast lines.

And it would introduce new journey opportunities by connecting Derby and Sheffield to Birmingham Airport and to Heathrow via Old Oak Common. So a big gain possible for a relatively short spur from the HS2 junction at Hams Hall to the Birmingham-Derby line at Kingsbury. And it would get HS2 services to Yorkshire.

 

[Topological]

Well as I understand it, even the curtailed HS2 will connect to the WCML at Handsacre - and that will definitely allow much faster Manchester-Birmingham services into Curzon Street. So I would expect those to be a near certainty. But I can't really see how you'll get fast trains from the NorthEast into Curzon Street without substantial reinstating of cancelled bits of HS2. Without that - well I'd guess you could without much difficulty build a connection from the existing Derby-Birmingham line to let trains run to Curzon Street, but that doesn't gain you anything speedwise (other than reducing congestion at New Street).

IF there is capacity on HS2, then it is a relatively cheap way to bring HS2 to the East Midlands. The benefits of reducing congestion in New Street would also help motivate a service from Curzon Street to the North East.

There is also an opportunity to then put a local train from Tamworth to Birmingham New Street in the gap freed by the CrossCountry branching off to HS2. That removes the capacity at New Street argument, but does offer a service many people are arguing for on various threads.

I appreciate that new infrastructure is needed, and that is not something we rush to create in the UK, but there do seem to be benefits.

as you say, that would not speed up trains from central Birmingham to Derby by much, but relieving New Street would make a huge difference there.

But it would speed up trains from London to Derby and Sheffield by around 15 minutes, and thus increase capacity on the MML by reducing the speed variations on trains using the MML fast lines.

And it would introduce new journey opportunities by connecting Derby and Sheffield to Birmingham Airport and to Heathrow via Old Oak Common. So a big gain possible for a relatively short spur from the HS2 junction at Hams Hall to the Birmingham-Derby line at Kingsbury. And it would get HS2 services to Yorkshire.

These are all compelling arguments for the necessary additional piece of track.

It may take HS2 to be running first so that voters appreciate the benefits, but it looks like a quick vote winner to get that link put in.

 

[The Planner]

As I have noted before though, its not "just" a connection. Its electrification, resignalling and all sorts from Kingsbury to the East Mids.

 

[Nottingham59]

its not "just" a connection. Its electrification, resignalling and all sorts from Kingsbury to the East Mids.

And with 4tph and mostly rated at 125 mph, it's a very good candidate for electrification compared to some.

 

[Topological]

And with 4tph and mostly rated at 125 mph, it's a very good candidate for electrification compared to some.

IF the Midland Mainline is completed then Derby to Birmingham has some sense.

The missing link is Sheffield to Leeds, but again that feels like a sensible next step (via Wakefield) so that the only part to electrify is the link to the ECML. You would presumably do Sheffiled to Doncaster as a part of the same process.

Suddenly there would be a lot of commuter trains under wires as well.

 

[Kingsbury Jn.]

Was the proposal to rebuild the Stonebridge line from Whitacre Jn. to Birmingham Gateway HS2 station ever taken seriously? With the cancellation (postponement?) of the Eastern leg, such a project would give a partial solution to access to HS2 from the Derby and surrounding areas and electrification would be an added bonus, especially if tied in with wiring the line to Nuneaton.

 

[Class 170101]

I don't believe once the missing XC service is put back that there is any spare capacity between New Street and Derby. That route has mixed speeds which eat capacity for fun.

75mph freight or less, 100mph 170s, and 125mph Voyagers.

It needs to be making use of the existing paths for doubled 170s (up to 2x3 cars if possible) and Doubled Voyagers 220 / 221 Combination. If there are any Class 222s available then that might help in future though I get the impression these may well end up in Scotland based on the Invitation to Tender.

 

[Halish Railway]

I don't believe once the missing XC service is put back that there is any spare capacity between New Street and Derby. That route has mixed speeds which eat capacity for fun.

75mph freight or less, 100mph 170s, and 125mph Voyagers.

It’s even worse that you make it out to be - Add in the flat junctions, the fact that northbound trains from Kingsbury Oil terminal have to reverse on the mainline, the restrictive 3 aspect signalling with block sections at least 1.5 miles long and the slow turnouts onto passing loops (Elford in particular) that cause any trains using them to come to a near stop as the signal won’t clear until the train has slowed to a controlled speed.

I think if the Derby to Birmingham line undergoes any upgrade, ideally coinciding with electrification, more four-tracking between Burton and Tamworth is a must, as well as a short spur from south of Wilnecote to HS2, using the safeguarded Eastern leg alignment would be useful to create another route into Birmingham for any additional trains.

 

[The Planner]

Was the proposal to rebuild the Stonebridge line from Whitacre Jn. to Birmingham Gateway HS2 station ever taken seriously? With the cancellation (postponement?) of the Eastern leg, such a project would give a partial solution to access to HS2 from the Derby and surrounding areas and electrification would be an added bonus, especially if tied in with wiring the line to Nuneaton.

It was just another pie in the sky report. HS2 obliterates the route anyway. I believe Michael Byng, who is anti HS2, was part of it.

It’s even worse that you make it out to be - Add in the flat junctions, the fact that northbound trains from Kingsbury Oil terminal have to reverse on the mainline, the restrictive 3 aspect signalling with block sections at least 1.5 miles long and the slow turnouts onto passing loops (Elford in particular) that cause any trains using them to come to a near stop as the signal won’t clear until the train has slowed to a controlled speed.

Going in is worse.

 

[Gathursty]

Living in Greater Manchester, I'm used to politicians talking about Transpennine Express and Northern frequently especially as part of Levelling up the North, in particular Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham.

Do politicians in Birmingham regularly talk about CrossCountry given Birmingham is the key centre of the XC network? All I can think of is Andy Street talking about the Metro extending to Wolverhampton a few years ago.