155mph Class 390s on HS2?
You may have to forgive the grammar, this article was based on a script for a Youtube video
Should we operate 155mph (250km/h) capable Class 390 Pendolinos on HS2? The short answer, in my opinion, is no. However, it is a complicated issue that deserves further investigation.
The renowned and well-respected railway veteran Chris Gibb has proposed that Class 390s should be fitted with new traction systems and bogies so they can operate in regular service at 155mph in non-tilt mode on HS2.
The primary benefit is capacity from Glasgow and Manchester to London. But it is also claimed that the Glasgow to London journey time will be 17 minutes slower via HS2 than the existing service.
Firstly I have to agree with the point about capacity, In fact, I was one of the first people to demonstrate that HS2 in its current form could lead to a reduction in seating capacity from Manchester and Glasgow into London. However, it is important to stipulate seating capacity.
Why is this the case? Because the new HS2 trains on order will be 200m long and were intended to work in multiple to Birmingham Curzon St and the new HS2 platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, so would be 400m long during peak hours, providing up to 1100 seats. But with no new HS2 platforms at Manchester there will be no room at Piccadilly for 400m long trains
Even if HS2 were built in full to Golborne, Glasgow would still have been served by 200m HS2 sets but would have benefited from an increased frequency, leading to an overall capacity gain. But unfortunately curtailing HS2 means no more trains can operate between Glasgow and Euston that already do currently.
The main issue is that a 265m long, 11 car Pendolinos have 589 seats, whereas the proposed HS2 units will have up to 550 seats per 200m long sets. So there could be an overall reduction in seating capacity on some routes
However, once HS2 opens to Handsacre there may still be potential to operate a so-called “classic” between Manchester and London, calling at Milton Keynes. So Manchester could see up to 4 trains per hour to London, comprised of 3 HS2 and 1 classic. This means there could still be an overall capacity gain and more choice for passengers.
Glasgow is a bit more challenging, as capacity is limited between Crewe, Warrington and Wigan and on the northern section of WCML. So without HS2 to Golborne, no more trains can operate than currently do, so technically there could be a reduction in seating capacity from Glasgow. At least for the direct Glasgow to London via HS2 service, which would replace the existing direct service.
Liverpool to London will still see an overall increase with the service increased to 2tph with HS2 to Handsacre. Even taking into account the proposed additional Avanti service from Liverpool to London. However, Gibb suggests that one service per hour should continue to use the WCML via Milton Keynes, but use the new HS2 trains. This idea possibly may have some merit, at least until HS2 is completed to Euston.
The report also recommends the existing two Cross Country services per hour from Manchester should replaced by 200m long HS2 service from Manchester to Birmingham. This would provide a capacity uplift between Manchester and Birmingham and the Chris claims would reduce the journey from 90 to 50 minutes
Although the current services stop at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton and takes 57 minutes just to get to Stafford. So is there a suggestion that some stops would be missed out between Manchester and Birmingham?
This proposal also removes the direct connectivity from Manchester with the South and South West, with XC services continuing to Bristol and Bournemouth. Although it should be pointed out that some journeys such as those to Reading could switch to HS2 and GWR, with passengers changing trains at Old Oak Common.
Manchester to Birmingham connectivity is an issue I have continually tried to raise, and I feel it has been repeatedly ignored within the HS2 debate, despite time savings between the UK's two largest regional cities that would have been transformational. But HS2 would have retained the existing service and supplemented it with new services between the UK's two largest regional cities. So, as it stands I do not think we should be replacing the existing services with HS2 services. Not least because the time-saving claiming would not be achievable without removing stops between Manchester and Birmingham.
Manchester to Birmingham
Current: 90 minutes
HS2 to Manchester: 49 minutes
The other significant proposal is to de-scope Euston to just 2, 400m HS2 platforms, to be used for the Birmingham services. Beyond that I'm not sure what Gibb is suggesting, he makes reference to Caledonian Sleeper platforms, but with no connection from HS2 to the existing station possible, they seem irrelative.
I'm working on the basis that he means to continue to build some new platforms at Euston, but only build 2, 400m long platforms. With new shorter platforms which would be served by Class 390s and 200m long HS2 units. But I can't imagine that building shorter platforms would save a significant amount of money, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.
It is worth pointing out that the current design for Euston Tunnel and the approach would not allow for a connection from HS2 to the existing platforms simply because of the lack of space available. In fact, the HS2 platforms will be lower than the existing ones due to the lack of space, to get from the tunnel portal to the station throat.
Why do I oppose this plan? I think Richard Bowker put it best, during the interview that Chris Gibb did with Green Signals. Richard said “The critics will say you're letting the politicians off the hook” [Green Signals episode 35]. This was said when Sunak was in power and Richard appeared to be playing devil's advocate. But I do still agree with the sentiment.
In essence, it begs the question, why should any Government continue to develop HS2 if we can just operate some Pendolinos along the route and call it a day? I know Gibb does make further suggestions about Northern Powerhouse Rail and Handsacre to Crewe. But it could be all too tempting just to use slower trains on HS2 and perhaps carry out some upgrades on the WCML.
Gibb's proposal also means that Birmingham's services will have to run slower and could operate a maximum of 186mph, instead of between 200mph (320km/h) and 225mph (360km/h). It wouldn't be practical or possible to operate trains with a speed differential ranging from 45mph to 70mph and maintain the headway. Although I appreciate HS2 is primarily about capacity, but it doesn't seem right to cut the benefits for Birmingham, just so we can operate Class 390 on HS2.
Gibb also said during the Green Signals interview that he is “challenging” the industry to see if it's possible to re-engineer Class 390s. This seems to be a change from the tone of the report, which makes it seem as if it is already possible.
Perhaps instead we should be challenging the industry to find a cost-effective and practical way to modify the HS2 rolling stock order and instead order 250m or 260m long HS2 sets, which would have more capacity than Class 390s despite being a similar length. I'm not saying all units, but perhaps 8, 10 to 12, to operate peak Manchester and Glasgow services would be sufficient?
I understand there may also be an issue with the Washwood Heath Depot and the maintenance hall may not be long enough to accommodate longer sets. But perhaps the units could be maintained in existing WCML depots with the installation of new equipment?
I also have to question the “up to 17 minutes longer” claim between Glasgow and London, to which I wasn't able to get a satisfactory answer to what this means. As far as I can tell, it most certainly will not mean services from Glasgow to London via HS2 would be 17 minutes slower than today. As even the most pessimistic time penalty for non-tilting trains between Glasgow and Handsacre would be more than made up for with the time saving between Handsacre and London.
And plans to lift the non-tilt speed on the WCML are already well in advance and a special speed limit can be applied on straight sections of the WCML to allow no-tilting multiple units to travel at 125mph, rather than 110mph, further reducing the time penalty.
Raising the MU speed to 125mph on straight sections of the northern WCML would benefit Transpennine Express services served by Class 397s. In addition, raising the non-tilt MU speed is already planned for Avanti services operated by Class 805s (which do not tilt) between Crewe and London.
Also, as far as I can tell, there may still be scope for a Lancaster to Euston service within the current HS2 plan, This service would have stopped at Preston, Wigan and Warrington, then joined with a Liverpool HS2 service at Crewe. This means it will only occupy a single path between Crewe and Handsacre.
This could mean that the Glasgow service could make fewer stops on the WCML, further reducing the overall journey time. This service would have been introduced only after HS2 was completed to Crewe but before the completion of HS2 to Golborne. So would have operated over the constrained section between Crewe and Wigan.
I imagine capacity for this service would be released by running the Glasgow service non-stop south of Preston. But I'm not sure if there would be scope to run the Lancaster service to and from Glasgow instead.
What I'm trying to say is, that there are other options and this proposal could be seen as defeatest. But I think ultimately there may be little point in running the proposed full HS2 timetable until HS2 is open to Euston. So this gives the Government time to reconsider its decision and come up with a better plan than operating 25 to 35-year-old trains at 155mph on HS2.
Until HS2 opens to Euston, it may be better to operate limited service from Manchester to Old Oak Common, perhaps, 2 HS2 trains per hour to Old Oak, with 2 classic services to Euston. Similarly, Liverpool to London could be 1 HS2 and 1 Classic service per hour
Admittedly this leaves a question about Glasgow, to which I don't have a satisfactory answer. Perhaps an alternating HS2 and Classic service, with 260m long HS2 trains. This would provide Glasgow with a connection to Old Oak Common, whilst maintaining capacity into Euston.
I know I'm just a solitary railway commentator and Chris has decades of experience has the support of many within the rail industry and should be said has my full respect. But myself and others, including industry experts I have spoken to privately disagree with this proposal, as pragmatic as it may seem on the surface.
If you would like to consider buying me a coffee and please head over to ko-fi ko-fi.com/rail_focus. I also have a Patreon. Any support you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. And don't forget to share the blog ;)
Twitter - Facebook - Youtube
Comments
Post a Comment