Timetabling the West Coast Main Line and HS2
An exercise in designing integrated services
Report and diagrams prepared for Greengauge 21
Jonathan Tyler
Passenger Transport Networks, York
May 2011
Summary
This study was commissioned by Greengauge 21, the public-interest body
charged with making the case for high-speed railways in Britain. Its aim was
to demonstrate how capacity released on the West Coast Main Line by the
transfer of large long-distance flows to the proposed new line between the
West Midlands and London [HS2] could be redeployed to improve journey
opportunities for places that would not directly benefit from HS2. These
would be in the form both of better London services and of enhanced
connectivity between intermediate points.
Although this part of the strategy had been identified as being economically
important in the evaluation of HS2 little work had been done in detail – to
the detriment of public understanding of the potential of HS2. More
detailed analysis required the design of an operationally-credible timetable
that would meet economic and social objectives. Greengauge recognised
that the interactions between the existing and new lines implied an
integrated approach to planning, using the principles and methodologies
developed in Switzerland, The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.
The report explains the approach and describes the comprehensive
proposals in depth. Greengauge's primary area of interest lay south of the
junction between the two lines near Lichfield and thus receives most
attention, but the exercise ventures further north. This is chiefly because
the complex nature of the route predicates holistic timetabling but also
because benefits from HS2 can be located even in the planning of
conventional services in Scotland and Cumbria. It will however be essential
to recognise the need for infrastructure enhancements on the classic
network if the expected growth in passenger and freight traffic is to be
carried efficiently and with a high quality of service.
Acknowledgements
First to Jim Steer and Julie Mills of Greengauge 21 for commissioning this project, for their
forbearance as I developed the concepts and for their advice on many issues. Next to my
colleagues and friends at SMA in Zürich for enabling me to use Viriato, for their training over a
decade in the principles of integrated timetabling and for their patience in regard to the
peculiarities of railway planning in Britain. Third to the Railway Performance Society for
permission to use the data in its huge archive of train-timing records in order to understand real
performance on the West Coast Main Line. And finally, to my friends in the industry from debate
with whom over many years I have garnered understanding and ideas. The usual caveat applies:
responsibility for this document is entirely mine.
Jonathan Tyler
/
Passenger Transport Networks [PTN]
49 Stonegate, YORK YO1 8AW
/
ptn@btconnect.co.uk
/
01904 611187
2
Contents
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
HS2 and the planning of timetables
5
5
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
THE POLICY AND TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK
Methodology
Strategy and priorities
The economic and social context
Timetable principles
Working assumptions
scope / demand data and viability / infrastructure and
reliability / rolling stock / timing data and practice /
the Viriato timetabling software
6
6
6
7
8
11
THE SERVICE CONCEPT
The planning process
Conventions
Glasgow <> London
Edinburgh <> London
Preston <> London and Liverpool <> London
Glasgow and Edinburgh <> Manchester and Birmingham
Scotland, Manchester and Liverpool <> Birmingham
Manchester <> London
Liverpool <> London
Trent Valley services and the interchange dilemma
Birmingham <> London
The Coventry corridor
Regional services between Birmingham, Northampton and London
London Euston Outer Suburban services
Milton Keynes <> Clapham Junction (<> East Croydon)
Additional services in peak periods
Summary of HS2 services
Summary by station – Glasgow to Stafford
Summary by station – Manchester and the Potteries
Summary by station – West Midlands
Summary by station – Trent Valley to London
16
16
17
18
18
19
19
21
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
28
29
29
31
32
33
33
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Introduction
Winwick Junction
Cheadle Hulme
Colwich Junction and the two-track section to the north
Nuneaton North Chord
Attleborough South Junction to Brinklow Junction
Slow Lines between Hanslope Junction and London Euston
Hanslope Junction
Milton Keynes … Bletchley
Ledburn Junction
Tring
Watford Junction
Willesden Junction
London Euston
Interchanges and optimised timings at nodes
Rolling-stock diagrams and turnrounds
Freight
Improving the infrastructure
37
37
37
38
38
41
42
42
42
43
44
44
44
45
45
46
52
55
57
TABLES
1
Volume and significance of interchange at
West Coast Main Line stations
10
2
Usage of stations, Crewe to Milton Keynes, 2007/08 and 2009/10
24
3
Number of trains/hour on HS2 in different scenarios
30
4
Paths at Colwich Junction
39
5
Morning peak hour at Watford Junction
44
6
Fast Line departure sequence from London Euston, current and proposed
46
7
Proposed WCML + HS2 timetable :
Analysis of interchange opportunities and standards
48-49
8
Example of analysis of times at stations
with respect to interchange efficiency
50
9
Accelerated Glasgow > London schedule
51
10 Overview of stock-diagrams and turnrounds
53-54
11 Daytime freight paths in 2011 and forecast demand
56
12 Examples of desirable incremental improvements to infrastructure
58
Appendix A: the fundamentals of an integrated regular-interval timetable
Appendix B: Netgraphs and Train Planning (time x distance) Graphs
and Public Timetable for Standard Hour
59
at end
4
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
HS2 and the planning of timetables
The four objectives of the proposed high-speed railway between the West Midlands and
London [HS2], to be opened in 2026, are
1.1.1
 to increase capacity on the most congested corridor in Britain;
 to provide a high-speed service for a prime inter-conurbation relation, using trains
whose characteristics will confine them to the new line;
 to spread the benefits to other parts of the country by running through services, using
trains capable of operating on both the new line and the ‘classic’ railway; and
 to deploy capacity released on the West Coast Main Line [WCML] at its southern end
to enhance services for places and relations that will not gain directly from HS2.
In order to ensure that the new capacity is used effectively and to meet the three
interlocking service objectives in an optimum manner it is essential to plan in some detail. There
are two reasons for this.
1.1.2
First, railways are highly connected systems that by their nature require planning, notably
where, as in the WCML case, historic layouts are less than ideal. Thus, although HS2 will be a
straightforward piece of railway, the timetabling of services will be made operationally complex by
the link with the classic line. The implications need to be understood in order to avert the risk of
mistakes in specifying infrastructure, including any collateral projects that may be necessitated on
the existing railway.
1.1.3
Second, the several service objectives are of equal importance, and indeed the economic
and social benefits of HS2 that will accrue from improved services for other than the Birmingham
<> London link are likely to outweigh those from the big-city link itself. This means that the
timetable must be organised holistically for maximum effect, bearing in mind the possibility that
inadequacies on the WCML may need to be addressed in order to make good use of HS2.
1.1.4
The appropriateness, or otherwise, of contemporary timetabling practice in Britain is also
relevant. In the context of particular legal and institutional circumstances this aggregates requests
for paths into sequences of trains. Paths are separately identified by independent operators and
assumed, ipso facto, to have intrinsic merit. Overall service-patterns and connectivity are
demonstrably not significant, or even pertinent, considerations. And, tellingly, Route Utilisation
Strategies [RUSs] avoid timetabling and pay relatively little attention to the complete picture.
1.1.5
Such an approach differs from practice in many countries in mainland Europe, where the
concept of a network has a much stronger influence1. It can be argued that the nature of the HS2
proposals will make the European model more relevant in Britain and hence that it should be
tested at this stage, especially since developments in the economic and social environment (on
which HS2 is partly predicated) may strengthen the case for offering well-integrated services.
1.1.6
This report therefore describes a timetabling exercise conducted on European principles
and focussed on demonstrating the inter-relationships between High Speed 2 and the ‘classic’
West Coast Main Line.
1.1.7
1
Switzerland has a mapped-out progression toward its national timetable for 2030.
5
2
THE POLICY AND TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1
Methodology
The methodology for designing an integrated timetable starts with analysis and careful
balancing of all the factors, preferably unconstrained by possibly-obsolete historic arrangements
and certainly unconstrained by extraneous matters such as prior claims to paths. It considers
2.1.1
 the relative size of flows on different relations (place-pairs),
 the extent to which it is desirable and practicable to raise rail’s market share on the
types of relation where it is presently low,
 the best use of track capacity (though ‘best’ is not a simple objective function),
 appropriate frequencies for each place and relation,
 connections between services,
 the efficient utilisation of rolling stock and train crews,
 operational issues such as the organisation of services at difficult junctions and stations,
and
 railway policy within its socio-economic context.
It is not suggested that the tools exist (or ever will) for complete and provable optimisation of all
these factors, but the thinking stresses the totality. This contrasts with timetabling governed, for
instance, by absolute priority for big-city flows or by maximum output from a train fleet.
From an understanding of the factors and their interactions comes the broad concept of
the pattern of services and their association with each other that will form the ‘offer’ to travellers.
The merit of ‘standard-hour’ timetables is taken as a given (and is now commonplace across public
transport). More specifically, every effort is made to ensure even spacing of trains for every
relation and brisk connections between services. In practice these may not always be feasible
because of geographic and timing actualities, but the focus helps to identify good solutions and may
highlight schemes that could enable a specific improvement to be realised.
2.1.2
2.2
Strategy and priorities
In applying this methodology to WCML and HS2 it became clear not only that the
timetabling for each is intimately related to the other but that it is necessary to begin with the
classic line and then to follow through the implications for HS2. This is perhaps counter-intuitive
and needs explanation.
2.2.1
The first point concerns the interface between the two types of line. There is no
economic rationale in Britain for an entirely self-contained high-speed railway (except perhaps in
the very long run), however attractive that might be. HS2 is instead being planned on the basis
that only some (a minority initially) of its services will run wholly on the new line, ie. between the
purpose-built station at Birmingham Curzon Street and the dedicated platforms at London Euston.
All others will run from and to the WCML via a junction just north of Lichfield. Even when
further construction brings high-speed services along the two arms of the chosen ‘Y’ configuration
to Leeds and Manchester, trains will continue to run partly on existing tracks since independent
access to either city may prove infeasible. Pure high-speed operation (with large-profile stock)
may therefore remain limited to the Birmingham trains.
2.2.2
6
It is recognised that this presents problems. In particular it creates the risk that even
mildly degraded operating conditions on the classic railway could be imported to HS2 and imperil
its innate high standards. It is reasonable to hope that by the time HS2 is opened everyday
performance will have been substantially improved, but the risk cannot be altogether eliminated.
It follows that everything must be done to develop a robust plan for the classic lines.
2.2.3
The second point concerns operations. Within HS2 all trains will have the same running
characteristics, all junctions will be grade-separated, and apart from a limited issue about which
trains will stop at Birmingham Interchange their schedules are uncomplicated and carry few
interactions. In other words it is largely a matter of arranging flights of trains with almost identical
pathing specifications and of securing appropriate recovery gaps between them.
2.2.4
On the WCML the circumstances are quite different. Although we shall assume common
characteristics for the long-distance services, with 200 km/h (125 miles/h) as an extensivelyavailable maximum speed, there will continue to be 160 km/h (100 miles/h) regional and suburban
services that cannot be wholly segregated and a requirement for 120 km/h (75 miles/h) freight
paths. That presents a timetabling challenge. Moreover the line has a number of flat (not gradeseparated) junctions, both between fast and slow lines and between routes, and the likelihood of
conflicts must be prepared for.
2.2.5
Above all, the urban geography of the route makes imperative considered relationships
between services to ensure good frequencies and connectivity in a context where convenience is
likely to be a prime requirement among travellers. And, since the enhanced quality of the classic
services is expected to form a substantial part of the benefits of HS2, they must be planned well. If
the paths on HS2 were settled first it is very likely that the best solutions for WCML would be
compromised: planning a close-knit group of services through complex layouts is difficult enough
without externally-determined times for leaving and joining WCML at Lichfield High Speed
Junction. The reverse case is easier because hybrid HS2 paths co-determined with wholly classic
paths are less likely to constrain the desired pattern of the exclusive paths [but see ¶3.17.3].
2.2.6
This is a ‘total railway’ approach. It is a plan for an integrated pattern of services, and it
would set the framework for the timetable in the rest of Britain. Within such a structure there is
little scope for paths for independent operators, and it is improbable that any benefits from
making space for entrepreneurial initiatives could offset the disbenefits of unintegrated services
and lost capacity. However, a planned timetable does not in any way preclude competition for the
concessions to deliver segments of it. It would in fact be perfectly possible, and maybe even
desirable, for the high-speed and classic services between the North West and London to be
operated by different companies, so that at the margin travellers were presented with a choice
between the offers and prices on the two routes.
2.2.7
2.3
The economic and social context
The case for HS2 rests to a large extent on a continuing increase in demand for rail
travel. This is derived partly from the expected rise in population, partly from economic growth
and positive income elasticities, partly from modal gains attributable to rail becoming relatively
more attractive and partly from the journeys stimulated by faster timings. There is no reason to
believe that these factors will not be similarly instrumental in growing demand for classic services.
2.3.1
It is also possible that on at least some parts of the classic network demand may grow
even faster than on the trunk corridor for which HS2 will cater, since at present rail’s modal
shares are generally (and possibly much) lower on non-London flows. Relations where demand is
suppressed present greater opportunities for capture – and for environmental gains – if the
2.3.2
7
standard of services can be improved2. In addition, trends in land-use and commuting behaviour
may markedly expand flows such as Milton Keynes <> London.
Over and above this question of total volumes the socio-economic context is likely to
require certain features of the service-offer. The concept of sustainable economic growth implies
extensive personal mobility with a preference for rail as a lower-carbon mode. Notwithstanding
that, consumers will continue to expect high levels of convenience so long as the super-flexible
private car remains available as the alternative mode for many journeys3. This means that the
timetable must be so organised as to afford the shortest practicable journey-times and the
greatest possible choices of departures, that is, minimum generalised journey-time [GJT]. It
further means services that run from early morning to late at night, and patterns that are easy to
understand by virtue of their logic and consistency.
2.3.3
2.3.4
Consequently, our proposals represent an integrated timetable in which
 the selection of stops minimises journey-times and maximises direct connections for
the majority of top-rank WCML relations;
 other relations are served by the best practicable connections;
 the benefits of the through trains to and from HS2 are spread widely by careful
planning of their paths in association with the classic services; and
 the disposition of paths secures good spacing of opportunities to travel [OTTs].
It is our contention that circumstances well before 2026 will enhance the social role of the railway
and thus necessitate this type of timetable.
2.4
Timetable principles
The current WCML timetable is uneven in the quality of its service-offer, ranging from
outstanding to poor: compare, for example, Manchester <> London with what is offered for many
intermediate pairs. It is particularly unfortunate that many such relations at the southern end are
offered a merely hourly service on a route paralleled by the M6+M45+MI motorways. Some
deficiencies could probably be remedied by better design4, but substantial improvement depends
on transferring the big inter-conurbation flows to HS2 services, thereby freeing capacity on the
classic line. Narrowing the range of quality should increase market share where it is now low.
2.4.1
In a timetable designed to offer a real sense of convenience and wherever the market can
justify such provision services should be hourly, half-hourly, quarter-hourly – or very frequent.
The principal medium-distance inter-urban routes should run half-hourly (eg. Birmingham <>
Milton Keynes; Stoke-on-Trent <> London), the longer ones hourly (eg. Glasgow <> London).
Busy inter-urban corridors should have well-spaced trains every 15 minutes to secure ‘turn-up2.4.2
2
The WCML RUS raises this possibility, especially under the ‘global responsibility’ scenario [Network Rail
(December 2010). West Coast Main Line Route Utilisation Study – Draft for Consultation. ¶4.4.1.
www.networkrail.co.uk/browse_documents/rusdocuments/rout.../westcoastmainline_rus.pdf].
3
There are of course environmental scenarios in which resource constraints (especially energy scarcity as oil
production declines) impact profoundly and disruptively on the economy and lifestyles. However, short of such
shocks, the possibility should not be discounted of severe reductions for a combination of reasons in the use of
private cars and a corresponding dramatic increase in the demand for public transport – rapid transit and buses in
urban areas and rail for longer journeys.
4
Britain’s curious failure to apply the mirror-image rule [see ¶2.4.6] explains some weaknesses.
8
and-go’ flexibility over shorter distances (eg. Milton Keynes <> Watford Junction <> London).
Suburban services must run at least every half-hour to be remotely attractive, and the stronger
flows are normally best served by a combination of one semi-fast and one stopping service every
half-hour.
For frequencies to mesh together the pattern should be built up exclusively from intervals
of 60, 30, 15 and 7.5 minutes. The use of 20-minute frequencies should be avoided: because they
do not coincide with the 15- and 30-minute cycles of the majority of services connections become
erratic, and having different operational patterns in the two half-hours may create untoward
ripples. One solution is to plan for a 30-minute cycle stepped up to 15 minutes in the peak.
2.4.3
Connections are not just a matter for branch lines. Interchange between services on the
same line of route is important, since it can not only secure a reasonable service for flows for
which through trains are infeasible but also increase effective frequency by offering a with-change
option in addition to a through service. This is an important and apparently successful
characteristic of timetables in a number of countries in mainland Europe, although it does depend
on interchanges being well-ordered in their planning and well-supervised in real time.
2.4.4
In order to simplify marketing and information and to build customer confidence in the
offer the basic pattern should operate from start to close of service (with on-pattern short runs at
each end of the day). If at all possible peak traffic should be catered for by additional services
overlaid on the pattern rather than by instituting a different pattern. The same service should
operate every day, with adjustments at weekends insofar as demand varies. And frequencies can
be reduced in the evening provided that essential connections are maintained. Such detailed
matters have not been developed in the present exercise, but they are mentioned here as
adjustments that influence thinking on the structure of the timetable.
2.4.5
Absolutely fundamental to the design of an integrated plan is the ‘mirror-image’ rule. This
requires that the timings of a service be symmetrical around the ‘zero minute’. Thus, if the
Glasgow > London high-speed trains arrive in Euston at xx:56, it follows that northbound trains to
Glasgow will depart at xx:04. Note that all pairs of times for arrival in one direction and
departure in the other will sum to 60 (give or take slight variation due to differential running times
and margins). This is more than a neat arithmetic construct, for it ensures that what works in one
direction will always work – in reverse – in the other, whether in respect of sequences of trains,
connection plans or junction schemes.
2.4.6
Ideally too the design of the timetable will seek to achieve timings close to the zerominute at stations where the volume and importance of interchange is greatest. For example, if an
express arrives at xx:58½ and departs at xx:01½ in both directions, then a secondary connecting
service timed to arrive at xx:56½ and depart at xx:03½ will secure 5-minute transfers for
travellers in every combination of directions. The logic is summarised in a diagram in Appendix A.
2.4.7
In practice of course judgment has to be exercised since not every link between services
requires all-ways interchange or justifies extended dwells for a secondary service – and the volume
of interchange varies. Nonetheless an emphasis on timings at the principal nodes of a network is a
key characteristic of timetable design in a number of mainland European countries and preferably
would have been demonstrated here. However, for reasons outlined below [¶2.4.12], other
considerations had to take precedence.
2.4.8
It should be noted that the need for planned connections does not arise at the largest
stations where long-distance trains meet high-frequency local passenger trains, urban metros and
buses and where taxis and walking also account for a sizeable proportion of access and egress
stages. Hence on the West Coast London Euston is not the key station in this regard. Instead, as
shown in Table 1, Manchester Piccadilly and Birmingham New Street (for some routes) and
Preston and Crewe (for all routes) are the most significant.
2.4.9
9
One other feature of the approach must be mentioned. The mirror-image rule makes
stock diagrams a function of the position of each service on the clock, which is entirely
determined by the planned relationships with other services and the sum-to-60 arithmetic. This
contrasts with the practice of building timetables around intense utilisation of rolling stock and
crews. Some European administrations take the view that the marginal cost of additional stock is
justified by the network benefits of excellent connectivity. Moreover, the cost can be mitigated
where slack in diagrams can be taken up in the peak periods and where standard units facilitate
inter-working between services and so reduce turnround times [see further at §4.16].
2.4.10
Table 1
Volume and significance of interchange at West Coast Main Line stations
2009/10
station significant for volume
of interchange with highfrequency local public
transport and ‘soft’ modes
Birmingham New Street
3957161

Glasgow Central
2284406

Manchester Piccadilly
1924480

London Euston
1409826

Preston
1024657

Crewe
902413

Liverpool Lime Street
562080
Stockport
554107

Watford Junction
363068

Wigan North Western
342147

Milton Keynes Central
290626

Lancaster
271456

Carlisle
255644

Harrow & Wealdstone
243724
Warrington Bank Quay
235002

Wolverhampton
223569

Nuneaton
210343

Liverpool South Parkway
207563

Stafford
179940
?
Oxenholme
163941
?
Coventry
153496

Stoke-on-Trent
128958
Tamworth
128396
Rugby
103274
Motherwell
102205
station
estimated
interchanges
key node for
timetabled interchange
 for some routes
 for some routes


Source: see footnote 5.
10
The skill in designing integrated timetables is to identify and balance the various objectives
in a judicious manner, and what ultimately matters is the rigour with which the options are tested.
That has only been practicable in a broad-brush sense in the present exercise: a purpose-designed
spreadsheet built in both the mirror-image arithmetic and the relations between services in such a
way that varying a single ‘seed’ time could identify the high-level trade-offs between ideal timings at
key interchanges, stock utilisation and junction working.
2.4.11
The last of these creates a particular challenge on the West Coast. The junctions
between the two lines linking Manchester with the West Coast spine – at Norton Bridge and
Colwich – are both flat layouts. Moreover both the junction for Birmingham at the south end of
Stafford station and the crossovers between the Fast and Slow Lines in the Stafford area are also
flat. Together with a short two-track section in an otherwise four-track railway the potential
conflicts impose acute constraints on paths – and the future classic + HS2 trains will all have to be
threaded through this difficult area. The outcome of the spreadsheet analysis was that timings at
these junctions would have to be accorded priority over zero-minute connectional objectives and
over minimised stock requirements if the aim is to accommodate the maximum number of trains.
The repercussions are discussed in more detail later [see §4.15.].
2.4.12
2.5
Working assumptions
scope
HS2 will release capacity on WCML south of Lichfield High Speed Junction, and of course
environmental concern about its impacts is strongest in the same area. The principal focus of this
study therefore lay there. However the timetabling has extended northwards, for two reasons.
First, connectivity between Scotland and North West England on the one hand and both London
and places such as Milton Keynes and Watford on the other requires a geographically extensive
view to be taken of service patterns. And second, the pathing interactions, especially with the
increase in the number of trains that HS2 entails, are such that a plan merely for the lines south of
Lichfield would risk too many hostages to fortune elsewhere.
2.5.1
Obviously though the exercise needed bounds (but its effects do spread across the whole
network …). We limited (nearly) complete analysis to Stockport (by both Potteries routes),
Crewe and Birmingham to London (including the Northampton Loop). Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Manchester and Liverpool to Crewe, and Stafford to Birmingham, are fully covered in respect of
long-distance services, but local services that impinge on those routes have not generally been
considered. It is assumed that branches such as Bedford … Bletchley and St Albans … Watford
Junction would be retimed for best-fit with the main line. While every effort has been made to
devise a workable timetable for the defined area, it must be recognised that unidentified
consequences may materialise outside it. That said, there is a limit to what can be optimised in
any one exercise, and an external problem would have to be very significant indeed for it to be
necessary to revisit the principal proposals for the dominant flows.
2.5.2
demand data and viability
The purpose of the present exercise did not extend to detailed analysis of likely future
demand. Instead judgments about appropriate levels of service are based on general knowledge of
flows, a presumption that the scale of growth forecast for the HS2 corridor will be broadly
2.5.3
11
matched elsewhere and the evidence available in the draft WCML Route Utilisation Strategy.
Some allowance was also made for the response to enhanced qualities of the offer. These inputs
were supplemented by reference to the annual table of station usage published by ORR5 and by
observation of volumes, load factors and patterns of use, while the final set of proposals was
subjected to a ‘sense-check’. Obviously the whole now needs scrutiny in depth and probably
modification: it must certainly not be construed as a definitive proposal.
It should not however be judged by what would pass muster with current demand levels,
for it is based on explicit assumptions about the context fifteen years hence. In particular, if
demand grows to the extent envisaged in the case for HS2, then there will incontrovertibly be
equally strong demand for conventional services. Moreover, as explained earlier [¶2.3.3], rail will
be expected to play a leading role in securing personal mobility while respecting environmental
constraints, and it is reasonable to assume that its non-financial advantages will be recognised (the
industry collectively is developing scenarios for different futures but has much yet to do). This
does not mean that every detail will stand up, but in our judgment the plan is realistic as a whole.
2.5.4
infrastructure and reliability
It is assumed that the infrastructure of the WCML will not be significantly different in
2026, apart from the proposed works at Norton Bridge [see ¶4.4.15] and the high-speed flying
junction with HS2 north of Lichfield. Maximum speeds will remain at 200 km/h. Clearly some
scope exists for small projects to improve layouts and increase linespeeds6, and systematic
development of this style of timetable can assist in identifying promising schemes. Some examples
are outlined later [see Table 12 and the calculations in Tables 8 and 9]. No initial assumption was
made about resolution of the challenge inherent in the layout in the Stafford area: instead there is
a discussion of the outcome of designing a timetable constrained by the layout [see §4.15] and a
review of possible solutions §4.4].
2.5.5
The current condition of the route is not entirely satisfactory, and the industry is
committed to reducing the incidence of infrastructure failures in order to achieve high and
consistent standards of everyday performance. Likewise, delays caused by defects in rolling stock
remain too common despite recent improvement programmes. Since it would be unacceptable to
have a noticeable disparity between performance on HS2 and on the classic lines, it is explicitly
presumed that upgraded infrastructure, better management of vehicle fleets and tighter operating
discipline will combine to bring about a more reliable railway.
2.5.6
One of these techniques could be micro-management of the speeds of trains approaching
junctions to minimise the waste of energy and capacity inherent in braking and acceleration and to
optimise junction throughput: the Swiss Railways are running real-time trials because they are
faced with growing demand in places where they simply cannot expand the infrastructure.
2.5.7
On this basis the timing of trains incorporates small reductions in headways7, margins and
operating allowances. By the same token, extra time that has been introduced in response to the
2.5.8
5
See: Office of Rail Regulation. Station Usage Reports and Data [www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529].
6
The WCML RUS suggests [op.cit., p.88] that “all opportunities to raise linespeeds and reduce journey-times
are examined as signalling, track and switches and crossings renewals are undertaken” and also refers [p.87, section
FC1] to specific schemes for freight.
7
Network Rail has floated the idea of reducing headways in: East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review :
Draft for Consultation (August 2010). It refers to 2.5 minutes between Stevenage and King’s Cross.
12
performance regime has been eliminated from schedules: it offsets the effort and money expended
on enabling acceleration and cannot be part of a railway whose standards and style are set by HS2.
rolling stock
Services on HS2 running through from/to the WCML will use new trains designed to run
at up to 360 km/h on HS2 and at 200 km/h on the classic railway. Trains already built or trains
with similar operating characteristics will cover all other WCML services. Inter-city services are
therefore timed using Class 390 (Pendolino) performance at current linespeeds up to 200 km/h,
while regional and local services are expected to use Class 350 electric multiple units [EMUs] or
their equivalents at up to 160 km/h. In order to make full use of the Fast Lines it is assumed that
some regional services will be worked by EMUs capable of running at 200 km/h where appropriate
but also of brisk working on short hops between stations on other parts of their routes8. The
paths for freight trains assume a maximum of 120 km/h9. Selective electrification projects are
referred to in the descriptions of each service.
2.5.9
HS2 Ltd does not propose to fit tilt equipment to the classic-compatible trains since, as it
reasonably argues, the engineering of the new line will not, by definition, require tilting.
Nevertheless this presents a problem since without the facility the trains would not be able to run
at 200 km/h on the WCML (‘enhanced permissible speeds’ [EPS] only apply to tilt-fitted stock and
when the equipment is functioning correctly). Since long sections that are available at 200 km/h
under EPS are otherwise restricted to 145 – 177 km/h the impact on schedules would be
considerable. It is assumed that the matter will be resolved between the parties before 2026.
2.5.10
timing data and practice
The underlying data for headways and junction- and platform-reoccupation margins has
been drawn from the Network Rail [NR] Timetable Planning Rules [TPR] for 201210. Sectional
running times have been read off the Working Timetable for May to December 2010 (using an
archive disk deposited in the library of the National Railway Museum), together with information
from a copy of the Train Service Data Base for 2008 that was acquired for a similar timetabling
task. All this material has been modified where to do so seemed justified.
2.5.11
It appears to be recognised in the industry that the Network Rail specifications tend to
err on the cautious side. This is partly to do with the management of the performance
requirements, partly the influence of contractual relationships with the train operating companies
and partly to do with historic levels of reliability. These factors are likely to be moderated in
future while pressures to deliver an altogether better railway ought to force reconsideration of
every operating convention.
2.5.12
8
Running regional commuter services on Fast Lines on both East and West Coast routes at 200 rather than
160 km/h in order to achieve better utilisation of capacity is one of the ideas behind the Intercity Express
Programme [IEP]. The RUS discusses the issue [op.cit., p.83] but defers action in the light of putative performance
risks. However, waiting for HS2 to relieve the problem in 2026 is unlikely to be acceptable.
9
It is possible that higher speeds may be authorised for certain freight trains, with significant impacts on the
utilisation of capacity. Circumstances also exist, particularly on the hill sections over Beattock and Shap, where
capacity-consuming speed differentials could be narrowed if freights were electrically hauled. This is not necessarily
in the interests of the freight operators, but it would be to the collective benefit of the railway to organise it.
10
Available at: www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/Rules%20Of%20The%20Route/Menu/Rotp12.pdf.
13
In this light it seemed reasonable to use tighter margins in certain cases, for example for
platform reoccupation. This particularly matters where the timetable structure calls for trains to
stop or pass in quick succession to each other at the same platform. Otherwise reoccupation
times that are generous with respect to the real signalling margins or that take a pessimistic view
of reliability result in extended headways and hence lost capacity on the open track.
2.5.13
Sectional running times [SRTs] on Britain’s railway are by convention calculated in halfminutes. Either because of miscalculation or because of the effect of rounding it is apparent that
some do not reflect times commonly realised in everyday running. In any case, 30-second units
are quite crude for what aspires to be a precision railway. SRTs were therefore recalculated in
tenths of a minute, by comparing the permissible linespeed for a section with the NR data and by
analysing a set of observations11.
2.5.14
There then arises the question of provision for delays. Minor technical glitches,
temporary speed restrictions12, prolonged dwells caused by attending to the needs of customers,
small external incidents and the knock-on effects of all of these mean that it is virtually impossible
to adhere strictly to the plan. Since it cannot provide for the most disruptive events – that has to
be done by good control of a deteriorating situation and good management of recovery – the key
issue becomes what allowance to make for limited ‘everyday’ variation.
2.5.15
Current practice on Britain’s railway (except for the former Southern Region) is to insert
extra time at discrete locations in a train’s journey, usually before critical junctions and
approaching the terminus. This has the disadvantage that compensation for a delay may not be
available until some time after it has occurred and that the presentation of trains at junctions and
at busy termini may not be very orderly. Furthermore, it is evident that some historic values and
their locations are maintained only by inertia.
2.5.16
For this exercise therefore we adopted the alternative practice of the Southern and many
European systems, namely to add a percentage margin to all SRTs. We chose 5% (the Southern’s
convention)13. This does not entirely remove the difficulty of making efficient provision for
2.5.17
11
Many of the observations came from the archive of the Railway Performance Society which contains
numerous logs of runs carefully timed by its members. We are grateful to the Society for permission to use this
material (in an anonymised manner). It was supplemented by the author's own recording during the course of fieldtrips to study the working of the WCML. Where sufficient observations were available for a section some
statistical analysis was undertaken, where they were not judgment was exercised. In each case the 40 th percentile
value (approximately) was chosen from a distribution of timings on the basis that that represents typicallyachievable timings while discounting exceptional runs at one extreme and the mediocre ones at the other, with
some provision for smarter working practices (values plainly affected by signal delays or temporary speed
restrictions were first discarded from the analysis). This also allows for the fact that the defensive driving regime
and the On Train Monitoring and Recording device presently constrain most runs to a few miles/hour below the
linespeed but may be gently relaxed in the years to 2026. A detailed point, though one with implications, that
emerged from the statistics was that apparently similar EMUs can differ in their performance: the 160 km/h Class
350 units appear to need at least 1 minute more (about 4%) on stopping services between Birmingham New Street
and Coventry than the 145 km/h Class 323 units they replaced.
12
These have become much less common as improved engineering equipment and procedures have made it
possible to restore running at normal speed very soon after maintenance works have been completed.
13
This appears to correspond with the average effect of location-specific values in Britain, excluding terminal
margins. The International Union of Railways recommends 7% [Union Internationale des chemins de fer (2000).
Timetable recovery margins to guarantee timekeeping - recovery margins. Leaflet 451-1]. In France a generous
margin is applied per kilometre, which may be more logical but is less convenient in calculating SRTs. Greengauge
21 has suggested 5% for HS2-only services and 7% for those working from and to the classic railway [see:
Greengauge 21 (2009). Fast Forward: a high-speed rail strategy for Britain.
www.greengauge21.net/publications/fast-forward-a-high-speed-rail-strategy-for-britain, Appendix B, ¶2.6.1].
Broadly-speaking, SBB applies 5% on lines where all maintenance takes place under blockade, 8% on double-track
14
random events, but it does smooth out the effects14. Each estimated base SRT was rounded up to
the next tenth of a minute, then multiplied by 1.05 and rounded up again.
A similar approach was adopted toward dwell times. Values are laid down in TPR, but
again some poorly reflect actual performance and all are subject to the imprecision of half-minute
units. The same observed records as were used for analysing SRTs were scrutinised to devise
appropriate values for each station and type of train. One reason for discrepancies is that some
TPR values have not been adjusted for the longer door-opening and -closing cycles of modern
rolling stock and safety practice. Given that this absorbs capacity many in the industry would like
to see concerted action to shorten dwells15, but for this exercise we have only assumed a modest
improvement by taking a shorter time than the median observation. That also takes into account
the imperative to improve discipline in station working.
2.5.18
the Viriato timetabling software
SMA, based in Zürich, is an established independent company specialising in the planning
of railway systems. Its Viriato timetabling software, which is used by SBB [Swiss Federal Railways]
and many other administrations, is designed to support strategic projects, including ones where
the infrastructure may need to be adapted to accommodate future service concepts. It works on
the assumption that the timetable consists of coordinated, regular-interval trains. Viriato, which
PTN uses under licence from SMA, is a valuable tool for a project of the kind in hand since it both
presents decisions in the form of traditional time-distance graphs and timetable text and also
displays the chosen strategy in the form of a Netzgrafik [see the examples in Appendix B].
2.5.19
lines and >=10% on single lines but concentrates the allowance at specific locations; it also allows generous dwells
at selected stations. However this compensates for two-minute headways on busy sections and across junctions,
the argument being that if all runs well such a policy maximises utilisation and reduces interchange time at nodes,
with a safety-valve elsewhere [personal information from Swiss colleagues]. In universities in Germany and The
Netherlands a highly mathematical approach to this issue is being explored.
14
To avoid the problem of trains waiting departure time earlier in their journey because no margin has been
called for and then needing more recovery than is available in later stages it is desirable to advertise departure
times slightly ahead of the working times. This applies particularly to local services away from junctions.
15
For example, equipment design and operating procedures (such as whether it is the driver or the conductor
who releases the doors and the form of the safety checks) appear to result in the time between the train stopping
and the opening of doors being longer in Britain than elsewhere, and likewise with the time between door closing
and starting to move. In some countries doors open a few seconds before the stop (rather than some seconds
after) and are not locked until after the train is moving again. It is moot whether British practice is any safer.
15
3
THE SERVICE CONCEPT
3.1
The planning process
This chapter describes the rationale behind each service within the overall offer for the
West Coast Main Line and High Speed 2 and, most importantly, the rationale for the planned
relationships between them. As noted above [¶2.2.7] the scheme should be seen as a ‘total
railway’ proposition, that is, it seeks to optimise the utilisation of resources across the network,
and particularly track capacity, the quality of the journey opportunities presented to potential
travellers, and the paths available for freight operators.
3.1.1
Before each component service is described it is important to outline the sequence in
which they were planned. The pattern of services and the disposition of stops emerged fairly selfevidently from the geography of the route and the existing timetable, as modified by the arrival of
HS2. The present scheme has been adjusted where it seemed appropriate to do so, and no doubt
there is scope for debate about further changes.
3.1.2
Had it been possible to prioritise optimal connections at the key nodes of the network
one would have started pathing with the Glasgow <> WCML<> London train as having the most
significant set of interchanges. This would have determined timings for the Preston <> London
train with which it interconnects: note that both a Glasgow and a Preston are planned in order to
meet the expected demand on a wide range of flows not catered for by the HS2 services and
because with only one service journey times would be too extended. The Liverpool <> London
train is paired with the Preston in the opposite half-hour. That in turn fixes the paths of the two
Scottish HS2 trains in order to maximise their connectional benefits at Carlisle, Preston and
Crewe and then of the classic Birmingham <> London trains because they are required to run
between the Preston / Liverpool trains to provide even quarter-hourly intervals between Milton
Keynes, Watford Junction and London Euston.
3.1.3
The Manchester <> London WCML train is not competitive with the three Manchester
HS2 services or associated with any other services and could therefore be independently pathed,
but since it runs hourly, like the Glasgow, and has common timings with it between Rugeley North
Junction and Bourne End Junction it was logical to run it on the opposite half-hour. Meanwhile
times for the Birmingham <> London regional train were set by the desirability of a 15-minute
interval pattern between Birmingham and Coventry and of good connections with the Preston /
Liverpool pair at Rugby, both of which, by one of timetabling’s serendipities, could be achieved.
3.1.4
It so happens too that by a little manipulation we were able to arrange the Glasgow and
Manchester paths to split two of the 15-minute intervals at Milton Keynes and the Birmingham
regionals the other two, thus securing an incomparably better London frequency than is currently
offered. The regionals are of course a little slower than the six inter-cities, but more significant is
whether the Glasgow should after all stop at Watford Junction (adding 3.5 minutes to its schedule)
in order to offer complete consistency. A less happy outcome occurs on the Manchester …
Stoke-on-Trent corridor where the spacing of six inter-city or regional trains as a derivative of
timings on the WCML spine, with some concern for good HS2 connections at Stoke, disrupts the
local service [see ¶3.8.4-6].
3.1.5
Finally, pathing of the regionals established times for the Northampton <> London outersuburban trains via the connectional requirement at Northampton. This led on to the similar link
at Tring between the Northampton and the Tring <> London and, on the basis of best possible
spacing, to the path for the Milton Keynes <> Clapham Junction trains. Throughout this sequence
adjustment of the Glasgow path and hence of all other paths could have been considered had a
better overall solution been identified by the spreadsheet designed to analyse various factors. And
of course junction conflicts were always a hazard to be avoided.
3.1.6
16
In practice we had to modify the approach, for the reasons explained earlier [¶2.4.12].
Following the first cycle of timetable construction and its unsatisfactory outcome it was decided to
recast the plan around three parallel moves at Colwich Junction [see¶4.4.4 and footnote 35]. This
fixed the times of the Manchester <> WCML <> London train16 and of the two Manchester HS2
via Stoke paths. It did not change the sequence of relationships between services, but as times
were moved around the clock in keeping with the symmetry rule the location of possible conflicts
changed and paths for some other HS2 services had to be altered. The outcome, as ever, is the
best possible structure given the analytical resources available. There might be another, better
solution, but we put forward this one with some confidence.
3.1.7
Provision for freight was borne in mind during the planning of the passenger timetable but
only reviewed in detail when that was largely settled. The justification for this approach is that
Britain’s is a predominantly passenger railway (as reflected in the fact that access charges for
freight trains only cover marginal costs) and that the choices can be laid out more clearly if the
desirable timetable for it is established first in a way that makes transparent any compromise for
the benefit of freight. This means that standard freight paths need to be clearly specified within
the cycle of repeating-pattern timetables. In practice it was found that capacity could be available
for quite optimistic levels of freight traffic, although a few troublesome areas may be identified. A
full account of this is set out later [§4.17].
3.1.8
3.2
Conventions
In the descriptions the symbol ‘>’ refers to a single-direction flow or train (from A to B)
and (more commonly) ‘<>’ refers to the flow or trains in both directions. To simplify descriptions
some of the detail is given only for one direction, which by convention is southbound (or ‘up’ in
rail terminology). Because of the rigorous application of the mirror-image rule the reverse case
can always be assumed: for example, when it is mentioned that a traveller from Oxenholme has
the option of changing at Preston from a Glasgow > Birmingham train into the HS2 Glasgow >
London train, it follows that London > Preston by HS2 and forward by the Birmingham > Glasgow
will be offered with near-identical journey-times and interchange arrangements (and with times in
the two directions balanced around the zero-minute)17.
3.2.1
When specific times are quoted they are in the format xx:00.0, where ‘xx’ represents
every hour through the working day in a standard pattern. In the public timetable arrival times
would be rounded up to the whole minute and departure times down, as is normally the case
now: a departure at 09:37.8 and a final arrival at 10:46.2 in the working timetable would be
published as 09:37 to 10:47 and journey-times here are quoted on that basis. Note however that
in the Netgraph Viriato automatically rounds down, which explains why many pairs of mirror-image
times sum to 59 instead 60.
3.2.2
All the SRTs, dwells, junction margins, platform reoccupations and (the small number of)
allowances were calculated for southbound trains first and then simply reversed to form a perfect
3.2.3
16
They could have been on the other half-hour, but this would simply have shifted the entire timetable forward by
30 minutes in one direction and backward by 30 minutes in the other.
17
Many railway texts, including HS2 and Network Rail documents, tend to adopt a London-centric view and
hence refer to travel from London to the provinces. PTN prefers to emphasise bi-directionality. Similarly we
endeavour to treat places, routes and services systematically from east to west and north to south: this explains
the convention when only one direction is described (we note that while most printed timetables place the ‘down’
first, London Midland’s booklet for its London commuter services puts the ‘up’ first – which is more logical).
17
mirror image. This was done to simplify a task whose time-horizon is long and not in need of total
precision, but in fact directional variation, particularly in SRTs, is not as great as it used to be.
Gradients on electrified lines scarcely affect passenger trains, and layouts that may once have
caused variations in the time taken up in starting and stopping appear to have been largely offset
by the acceleration and deceleration capabilities of modern traction. It follows that detailed
adjustment to northbound schedules would be unlikely to cause any material problem18.
Statements that use ‘would’ mean what is planned in proposals which may – or may not –
be implemented. For stylistic variation and to convey the seriousness of the plan the future tense
‘will’ and other simple-future verbs are sometimes used but plainly carry the same conditionality.
3.2.4
The proposals are documented in Appendix B in a set of traditional time-distance graphs
for successive sections of route, together with matrix timetables and two Netgraphs that
summarise the services and display their relationships.
3.2.5
3.3
Glasgow <> London
2 trains/hour : one via HS2 and one via WCML
Although a large transfer from air to rail depends on a substantial reduction in the rail
journey-time transfers at the margin can be expected from smaller reductions: improvements in
the rail offer and, for the price-sensitive segment of the market, discounted fares, coinciding with
worsening experience of airports and flights, appear to have extended the time-threshold at which
travellers consider using rail from three hours towards four. An hourly fast Glasgow Central <>
London Euston train via HS2 is therefore a given. It would call at Carlisle and Preston to bring
those places and the regions their stations serve into the high-speed network. The journey-time
would be 3 hours 50 minutes.
3.3.1
This will be complemented by a classic service that can take more intermediate stops
because it will no longer be required to offer the fastest practicable end-to-end time. The
proposed stops are Motherwell (to serve the sizeable population of south-east Strathclyde19),
Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme, Lancaster, Preston, Crewe and Milton Keynes. This both provides
for many intermediate relations and gives the stations between Carlisle and Preston a more
consistent pattern of fast London trains. The overall time would be 4 hours 29 minutes.
Passengers have the option of changing at Preston into the HS2 Edinburgh service to arrive in
London 22 minutes earlier. Stations south of Preston are served by connecting services [see §3.5].
3.3.2
3.4
Edinburgh <> London
1 train/hour via HS2
It is thought that a timing of 3 hours 52 minutes between Edinburgh Waverley and
London Euston via HS2 would be feasible, with stops only at Edinburgh Haymarket, Preston and
Crewe. Although a four-hour timing is now being achieved via the East Coast it is unlikely to be
3.4.1
18
For example, between Crewe and Euston only about one in five SRTs differs by direction, and the end-to-end
sum only varies by 0.5 minutes. In one case Milton Keynes to Bletchley is shown as 2.0 minutes southbound and
1.5 northbound, but this is balanced by 2.5 and 3.0 respectively for the nearby Ledburn Junction … Tring section.
19
In 2009/10 only nine passengers/hour in each direction transferred between services [Table 1], which may
reflect local characteristics but may also reflect poor provision.
18
offered hourly because of the important flows requiring intermediate calls. An hourly HS2 service
for Edinburgh is therefore attractive, with the added advantage of bringing both of Scotland’s
principal cities into the HS2 nexus from the start, in anticipation of their eventual more direct
connections. Works on the classic lines in Scotland and northern England may further reduce
both the Glasgow and the Edinburgh journey-times by HS2. The Preston stop gives that city and
the many places its interchange serves a second HS2 train in each hour (spaced at xx:09 and
xx:44) and also a fast link with Edinburgh; the Crewe stop covers similar purposes.
3.5
Preston <> London and Liverpool <> London
1 train/hour each via WCML, running in an identical path every half-hour south of Weaver Junction
A principal objective for using released capacity on the classic WCML must be to secure
more systematic and frequent connectivity between the intermediate places as well as enhancing
their links with London. The key stations have been selected on the basis of their traffic potential
and their role as interchanges [see Tables 1 and 2]. Hence the proposed half-hourly service south
of Crewe would call at Stafford, Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford Junction [for Nuneaton see
¶3.10.11]. It will run alternately from Preston, Wigan North Western and Warrington Bank Quay
or from Liverpool Lime Street and Runcorn. The Preston train connects out of the Glasgow >
London. This affords stations to the north with connections for Wigan and Warrington, to
supplement (though with uneven spacing) their direct service by the Edinburgh or Glasgow >
Birmingham train. More importantly it provides Scotland and Cumbria connections for Stafford
and Rugby; these are also offered by connections at Crewe with the Liverpool train.
3.5.1
The possibility of the Preston train attaching / detaching a Chester portion at Crewe was
considered, on the basis that electrification between Chester and Crewe will most likely have
been completed and that, if it has not (and for any extensions to North Wales), the IEP electric
trains will be enabled to work in diesel mode (or be hauled by a diesel locomotive). However,
although in principle portion-working deserves to be studied seriously (and is indeed postulated in
the next section), not least for its potential benefits in the utilisation of track capacity, there are
downsides in extra dwell-time, platform occupation at busy stations and technical risk. Given the
suggestion for a North Wales <> London HS2 service [see ¶3.17.1] the case here is not strong
and the option was rejected. The Preston train would run from/to by-then-electrified Blackpool
North, or perhaps in alternate hours from/to Burnley Central via Blackburn.
3.5.2
3.6
Glasgow and Edinburgh <> Manchester and Birmingham
2 trains/hour, running coupled between Carluke and Preston
These services need to be included because they complement the Glasgow <> London
train, affect WCML plans on the busy section between Preston and Stafford and expand
connectivity for Milton Keynes. Even though traffic between Scotland and the largest English cities
other than London is expected to be one of the fastest-expanding markets it seems unlikely that
running frequent full-size trains between any city-pair will be justified in the standard-hour
framework. To demonstrate the model traditionally applied by the Dutch railway [Nederlandse
Spoorwegen] to such a situation we therefore propose not only portion-working but rotating
origin and destination pairs.
3.6.1
Thus in one hour an Edinburgh Waverley > Manchester Piccadilly unit would couple with
a Glasgow Central > Birmingham New Street unit while in the other hour the units would run
Edinburgh > Birmingham and Glasgow > Manchester. This saves valuable capacity over a busy
two-track railway north of Preston, gives passengers who prefer a through train a two-hourly
3.6.2
19
service for the relations not on the common section and offers more flexible passengers an hourly
service, alternating between a through train and a simple transfer between units20.
Preston is the natural location for (un)coupling in England, but the location in Scotland is
more complicated and our proposition is tentative. The junction between the Edinburgh and
Glasgow lines is at Carstairs. The layout is not ideal, and more problematically Carstairs is not
where one would otherwise choose to stop, since its population is small and it is not fed by local
trains serving stations in Strathclyde.
3.6.3
A more appropriate place in geographic terms is Carluke, which has both local settlement
and a feeder train service and is the junction for the Lanark branch21. Although it is 13.4 km north
of Carstairs we think it would be worth investigating its potential for development as a railhead for
the populous area south-east of Motherwell that lacks good connections by rail with England.
Obviously a time-penalty (about 12 minutes) would be incurred in running the Edinburgh portions
to Carluke and back again22, but the advantages are significant (and they include improved links
between Edinburgh and south-east Strathclyde).
3.6.4
Two other points need to be made. One is that it might be necessary to have a reserve
path to enable the two services to run separately at busy times when two units would not be
sufficient; this would mean tightly-flighted paths to maintain the connections between the two
without imposing excessive dwells (and the Edinburgh train would still have to run to Carluke to
maintain the connection there).
3.6.5
The other point is that this plan does not provide for the aspiration for through trains
between Scotland and Liverpool. That should not compromise serving the other pairs properly
(recent growth rates suggest that demand has been suppressed by infrequent services for many
years past and a still-scrappy timetable). Feasible solutions are that in selected hours the
Manchester portion could be diverted to Liverpool, given the frequent trains between Preston and
Manchester (both routes will soon be electrified), or some trains could convey a third unit if
platform lengths permit.
3.6.6
The Edinburgh trains will call at Haymarket and the Glasgow trains at Motherwell. The
combined train will call at Lockerbie and south of Carlisle at all three intermediate stations to
Preston. The Manchesters will then call at Bolton and Oxford Road. The Birminghams will call at
Wigan and Warrington (this is their through Scotland service), Crewe and Wolverhampton. A
wide range of connections can be made, including a 21-minute connection at Preston into the
Glasgow HS2 train. Travellers between Edinburgh and Stafford, Rugby, Milton Keynes and
Watford Junction will have an hourly connection at Crewe off the HS2 train and an alternative off
the Birmingham train, while similar half-hourly OTTs are provided for relations such as Lancaster
<> Milton Keynes.
3.6.7
20
For many years from the start of the Dutch integrated timetable In the late 1940s the cycle at Amersfoort
(which was rebuilt for mass cross-platform interchange) was that in one half-hour a Groningen > Den Haag +
Leeuwarden > Rotterdam train (joining at Zwolle and splitting at Utrecht) would exchange passengers with an
Enschede > Amsterdam + Schipol (splitting at Amersfoort), with the opposite pairing in the other half-hour.
Although that was modified in the national recast in 2006, partly because of performance problems and partly
because of the overall stepping up of frequency and capacity, the principle remains. From observation and from
discussions with Dutch railway staff it is evident that the scheme has become so well established that the majority
of travellers are largely indifferent as between the through-train and changing options. Because the units are
corridor-connected some transfers between them take place within the trains while they are on the move.
21
Carluke is used by about 48 people/hour, Carstairs by 2 (and Lockerbie by 24). Source: see footnote 5.
22
Running the Edinburgh train via Shotts, Holytown, Mossend South Junction and Motherwell would appear
more logical, but this route is 12.2 km longer and (without electrification) rather slower than the Carstairs route.
20
3.7
Scotland, Manchester and Liverpool <> Birmingham
5 trains/hour : one Scotland, two Manchester (one fast, one semi-fast), two Liverpool
The proposals for this group of services are based not only on considerations of the
appropriate journey-times and frequencies but also on the opportunity to bring them together
into a coherent framework. Four trains are arranged as two pairs in standard paths south of
Stafford: in one half-hour a Liverpool is followed into Birmingham by the Glasgow (or Edinburgh)
and in the other half-hour the second Liverpool is followed by the Manchester fast. The Scottish
train and the faster Manchester do not call at Stafford. The Manchester semi has its own path and
includes a stop at Congleton.
3.7.1
Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke-on-Trent thereby have a halfhourly connection with Wolverhampton and Birmingham New Street, although the two trains are
not as well spaced as is desirable. Liverpool Lime Street, Runcorn and (possibly) Hartford have an
even half-hourly service.
3.7.2
Some of these trains will be cross-country services running south of Birmingham, but no
specific plans have been developed at this stage beyond illustrating a matching path between New
Street and Coventry: it is fully understood that this implies that an integrated WCML + HS2
timetable will inevitably require a recast of the national timetable. Note too that this presupposes
that the spacing and sequence of the five WCML trains can set the framework for the congested
corridor between Wolverhampton and Birmingham New Street.
3.7.3
3.8
Manchester <> London
4 trains/hour : three via HS2, and one via WCML with 5 stops
Manchester presently has three London trains/hour. Two run via Stoke-on-Trent, one of
which calls at Macclesfield, the other at Milton Keynes, and one via Wilmslow calling also at
Crewe; all three call at Stockport. This scheme gives proper priority to the dominant Manchester
<> London inter-conurbation market, but it has several disadvantageous features, especially the
21/39-minute intervals for Stoke and the limited connectivity between Manchester and
intermediate stations23. HS2 offers the opportunity to institute a more balanced service.
3.8.1
It is proposed to run three HS2 Manchester trains every hour. As now, two would call at
Stoke-on-Trent24 and one at Wilmslow. The latter would not call at Crewe (whose HS2 service is
provided by other trains). Neither of the Potteries trains would call at Macclesfield, but both
demand and socio-economic considerations justify best-practicable connections at Stoke (achieved
once an hour, less well for the other train). In these proposals the Stoke service runs half-hourly
at the expense of near-even 20-minute intervals for Manchester in order to highlight the need to
evaluate that particular trade-off. It is possible that the second Stoke train may only be required at
selected peak hours. Journey-times are 102 minutes via Stoke or 100 via Wilmslow.
3.8.2
23
The skip-stop scheme means that Macclesfield <> Milton Keynes requires a change: that is reasonable enough
and the daytime pattern is admirably regular, but typically the connection is made by different services (the
Northern local southbound and CrossCountry northbound), and morning and evening services vary. The effect of
timetables of this kind on perceptions of the service is insufficiently understood.
24
The omission of calls at Stoke in the HS2 outline of services was presumably an error.
21
This leaves scope for the hourly train via WCML to call at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stokeon-Trent, Milton Keynes and Watford Junction, affording much-enhanced connectivity, albeit only
once per hour. However, integration would ensure that connections at Crewe (or Stafford) will
supplement this with three other OTTs/hour for the intermediate stations, for example, between
the Manchester > South Wales service and the Glasgow > London. The end-to-end journey-time
by the direct train would be 130 minutes, only a few minutes slower than that now offered.
3.8.3
The stations between Stockport and Stoke-on-Trent other than Macclesfield are
presently served only by an hourly all-stations local. This is inadequate for the two larger
settlements of Congleton and Kidsgrove and unattractive for outer-suburban areas like Bramhall
and Poynton. Prestbury however has only four users (entries and exits) per call and Adlington
two. Pathing the service is difficult now and has a disproportionate impact on more important
paths. It will become even more difficult if the route is to take the two extra services proposed
(the London express via WCML and the Manchester <> Trent Valley <> London).
3.8.4
With the six trunk paths arranged for best effect overall the only possible paths for a
Manchester <> Stoke local involve unacceptably-extended dwells in the loop at Macclesfield. To
avoid that, six minutes would have to be taken out of the schedule by a combination of using trains
with even smarter acceleration, higher linespeeds and possibly closure of the least-used station(s).
The alternative we propose is to stop the Trent Valley train at Congleton and Kidsgrove, thereby
providing them with a direct WCML service and a good connection into an HS2 train, and to
curtail the local to run only between Manchester and Macclesfield.
3.8.5
Even so, the outline path in the timing graph shows that the desirable half-hourly
frequency would only be possible by inserting an allowance of about four minutes in the Trent
Valley regional. These circumstances nicely illustrate the need to address infrastructure, rollingstock and timetabling strategies together – and the proposal to reroute some Trafford Park
freights via Stoke instead of via Crewe will only add to the complexity.
3.8.6
3.9
Liverpool <> London
3 trains/hour : two via HS2 and one via WCML
The WCML path has been described above, in a pairing with the Preston train to provide
a strong service for the main intermediate stations. It has been suggested in the HS2 documents
and elsewhere that the Liverpool <> London and West Midlands <> London services should be
combined, but running via Birmingham would impose an unacceptable time-penalty for flows not
served by HS2, risk importing operational difficulties from one section to the other and probably
cause overcrowding. In any case, prior considerations here have resulted in too long a dwell at
New Street for this option to be viable.
3.9.1
Merseyside plainly justifies at least one and preferably two hourly HS2 services, both on
traffic and on regional-inclusivity grounds. One is planned to run Liverpool Lime Street <>
Liverpool South Parkway (?) <> Runcorn <> London Euston. In keeping with the HS2 outline
proposals it is suggested that the second service should run via and call at St Helens Junction and
Warrington Bank Quay, ie. joining the WCML at Winwick Junction rather than at Weaver
Junction and utilising a route that will by then be electrified. The timings are 99 minutes via
Runcorn and 112 minutes via Warrington, and arrivals at Euston are at even 30-minute intervals.
Pathing difficulties and the need for fast journeys by the two Scottish trains exclude Wigan North
Western from direct service by HS2 trains, but a brisk connection with the Liverpool via
Warrington train is offered instead.
3.9.2
3.10
Trent Valley services and the interchange dilemma
2 trains/hour
22
Stations on the Trent Valley route between Stafford and Rugby have presented difficulties
for train planners for many years. None of them have the traffic potential of the principal stations
on the WCML (not helped in the case of Rugeley Trent Valley and Lichfield Trent Valley by their
edge-of-town locations), and hence none justifies regular stops in long-distance expresses. Several
have (or could have, given proper timetabling) significant interchange functions. Over the years
unsatisfactory compromises have been made.
3.10.1
The present arrangement of an hourly all-stations service supplemented by selective stops
in peak-hour expresses to cater for London trips is better than many, and business has been
growing. However the all-stations train, though operated with quality 160 km/h stock, is
handicapped by a poor path, including running between Crewe and Stafford via Stoke (which is
good for the latter but lengthens connections from the north) and then running via Northampton.
The timings are tediously long and betray characteristic directional imbalance25.
3.10.2
Usage data from before and after the timetable recast is shown in Table 2. The growth
for all the stations listed except Lichfield is about 9% over the two years, but Rugeley and
Atherstone have responded in spectacular fashion to the improved service. Interchange has
grown by about 11%, but very variably: a large rise at Rugeley and smaller rises at Tamworth,
Rugby and Milton Keynes are offset by falls at Crewe and Lichfield. Some but not all of the
explanation lies in the timetable changes (assuming that the data themselves are reasonably sound).
3.10.3
HS2 opens the opportunity to do something better. The core requirement is for Lichfield
Trent Valley, Tamworth and Nuneaton to have as fast a service as possible for their London
traffic, a half-hourly frequency to ensure the convenience that will attract custom and good
connectivity up and down the line. The plan is to secure this by running two separate hourly
services with these calls, at near-even intervals on their common central section.
3.10.4
One would run between Manchester Piccadilly and Euston, calling also at Stockport,
Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, Rugby and Milton Keynes, with a connection for Watford
Junction. The other would start at Crewe (or perhaps from Liverpool or Chester) and serve
Stafford and the same stations to Rugby. It would then be routed to Northampton in order to
give that town better connectivity with the north, and from there it would run non-stop to
London, thus satisfying another real gap.
3.10.5
Inevitably this is another compromise (for example, the Northampton routeing means
that London arrivals and departures are rather close together), but it would be a marked
improvement. Journey-time would be 88 or 100 minutes between Lichfield Trent Valley and
London (using the local service to Birmingham and then changing to HS2 would take at least 105
minutes); the faster train would save about six minutes compared with the present one-change
option. Provision for services in the peak is described later [¶3.16.1].
3.10.6
Rugeley serves a modest-sized town and has the connecting service with Birmingham via
Walsall that has yielded disappointing results but could perhaps be developed with the help of
decent connections. Atherstone is a large village, with minimal, though growing, use of its station.
The options of calling half-hourly (at the cost of extended times for other users of the service) or
of only calling hourly at these two stations would need to be examined. For the present purpose
the latter is illustrated, with the stops in the Crewe train.
3.10.7
25
Throughout times between Crewe and London are 196 minutes southbound and 170 northbound. The
standard non-stop time from Stafford to London is 80 minutes, yet the time by the Trent Valley train from
Lichfield, 28 km further south, is 129 minutes; by changing at Rugby the time can be cut to 94 minutes (though the
GB Rail Timetable conceals this). Observation suggests however the existence of an ultra-price-sensitive segment
of the market that will tolerate a slow (and refreshment-less) service at bargain-basement prices.
23
Table 2
Usage of stations, Crewe to Milton Keynes, 2007/08 and 2009/10
entries and exits
entries and exits
interchanges
interchanges
2007/08
2009/10
2007/08
2009/10
Crewe
1900155
2034546
996926
902413
Stafford
1250054
1553692
153274
179940
Rugeley Trent Valley
11854
53028
4969
35677
Lichfield Trent Valley
248477 *
743490
34413
30218
782032
884504
81663
128396
4757
40006
0
0
706972
894958
197157
210343
Rugby
1160481
1382974
52904
103274
Milton Keynes
4690023
4627076
173130
290626
Tamworth
Atherstone
Nuneaton
Source: see footnote 5. The figures are based on ticket records and estimates of the use made of
various types of travelcard; interchanges are simulated using the ticket data and the ORCATS timetable
model. A great deal of work has been put into improving this material in recent years.
The figures for Lichfield, Tamworth and Nuneaton include passengers on the cross-routes: the lack of
more detailed public data, for example in respect of north <> south movements, hinders informed
debate. No data is given for Norton Bridge, and fewer than three people use Polesworth each week.
* Up to this year no adjustment was made for the use of West Midlands travelcards.
The connectional links of these services are important. First, they depart southbound
from Stafford immediately after the Preston or Liverpool train and precede the next of that pair
into Rugby, thereby affording a wide range of connections north and south. Second is the
question of the transverse routes at Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth and Nuneaton.
3.10.8
The link at Lichfield between the Trent Valley and the Birmingham suburban services has
potential as a more convenient route between the north-eastern suburbs and Sutton Coldfield and
the national network to the north than having to travel via New Street, but interchange presently
only adds 4% to the station’s footfall. Not enough is understood about the deterrent effect of the
detour as against the benefits of enhanced connections at Lichfield26. In any event the timings of
the Lichfield <> Redditch service will be determined by larger factors than connections at Trent
Valley (although mirror-image means that they will be equally good in both directions – or equally
bad). As it happens the proposed WCML times are nodally ideal, but if a doubled WCML
frequency at Trent Valley justified extending all the Birmingham trains, rather than every other,
from Lichfield City to Trent Valley no wait would be excessive even with non-ideal times.
3.10.9
26
Poor connections between the outer ends of suburban networks and the inter-urban network are a feature
of Britain’s railway. See ¶3.6.3-4 for the south-east Strathclyde example and ¶3.10.7 for Walsall and think also of
the rather cavalier treatment of Watford Junction in the current WCML timetable [¶3.21.18].
24
Connections at Tamworth and Nuneaton may be more important, but much turns on the
pattern of services on the respective routes, the availability of alternative routes and the
practicality of organising good interchange times. For example, the loss of many connections
between Leicester and East Anglia on the one hand and north-west England on the other as a
consequence of removing stops from the standard schedules of all long-distance fast trains at
Nuneaton has been much criticised. The time-cost of restoring them is probably difficult to justify,
and any benefits would certainly depend on reasonably tight as well as absolutely regular
interchange times.
3.10.10
In any case, the Derby <> Stoke-on-Trent <> Crewe service may merit enhancement,
and running it from/to, say, Leicester might yield a stronger return in terms of the relations that
would gain than would any Nuneaton solution. This analysis does not include the issue of whether
links between the north-west and Coventry via Nuneaton could be made better than routeing via
Birmingham: if that were to be so the argument for additional calls at Nuneaton might be
strengthened. The fact that interchange already adds a non-trivial 23% to the footfall certainly
needs consideration.
3.10.11
Similarly, Tamworth is a station built for interchange that is presently under-used for that
purpose, with only a 15% increment over the native use. The regional geography does not
support a major role: for example, East Midlands <> North West England flows are best
concentrated on the Manchester – Sheffield corridor and to a lesser extent via Crewe and Stoke.
However, Tamworth does have some scope for links between the cross-country services and
places to the south on WCML, notably Milton Keynes (and also Stafford to the north). Once
again, however, the value of such connections depends on their quality in respect of waiting-times
and overall speeds and of good real-time management to build confidence in their reliability.
3.10.12
In the light of these issues no allowance has been made for interchange traffic in
determining service provision at Lichfield, Tamworth and Nuneaton. That would need a more
comprehensive timing exercise and careful evaluation of a range of options in which these
interchanges would probably be a modest but not determining factor. It is worth adding that a
better understanding of the potential market for flows of the kind involved here is highly desirable.
3.10.13
3.11
Birmingham <> London
4 to 6 trains/hour : up to four via HS2 and two via WCML
The high-speed service between the new station in Birmingham and the rebuilt London
Euston lies at the heart of the HS2 scheme. It is a prime requirement, albeit not sufficient in itself
to justify construction. It will be the only ‘pure’ high-speed service, that is, the only one capable of
being operated by large-gauge rolling stock captive to the line. Evaluations of the HS2 proposals
have assumed a frequency of three trains/hour, rising to four in the peaks, all stopping at the large
interchange near Birmingham International.
3.11.1
The disadvantage of three trains/hour at even 20-minute intervals was noted earlier
[¶2.4.3]. This would be of less significance if HS2 were self-contained, but it does need to be
evaluated carefully because of the inter-working with WCML, particularly if the frequency shifts
from three/hour to four/hour in the peak. Alternative options are two trains/hour off-peak and
four in the peak, or two/hour supplemented not only in the peak but also by Interchange (only) <>
Euston services as required. In addition, additional London capacity would be available if classiccompatible services were to call at Interchange, since its status as a railhead for a large area would
presumably attract traffic from and to northern England, leaving seats free on the Euston leg.
3.11.2
However it is not clear how significant this last will be, and there is the usual question of
added journey-time for the majority flow to/from London. It is also not obvious which trains to
stop, given the need for a useful frequency. It may be that future services between the two arms
3.11.3
25
of the ‘Y’ and Birmingham Curzon Street will offer more flexible and frequent connection with the
International + Interchange area, despite the transfer in Birmingham. In these circumstances, and
since four paths will be needed in some hours at least between Interchange and Euston, four
complete paths have been included in the plan in order to help define the interaction between
them and the WCML + HS2 paths – while none of the latter includes a call at Interchange. The
journey-time of 49 minutes for the prime service has been taken from the HS2 documents.
These documents suggest only one train/hour on the classic route. This is unlikely to be
acceptable or desirable, and two/hour at even intervals are specified here. The Birmingham New
Street <> London Euston service of three trains/hour now calls at Birmingham International and
Coventry, and then in turn at one of Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford Junction. Like the
Manchester service this provides well for the dominant flow but substantially less well for other
flows. Travellers between the intermediate places – and policy-makers expecting rail to take a
higher modal share – could receive great benefits from the transfer of the big flow to HS2.
3.11.4
Moreover, there are some difficulties with the geography of the classic and new routes.
Only one of the three current trains in each hour is extended to serve Wolverhampton and
Sandwell & Dudley, and it might be hoped that there too a half-hourly service could be instituted,
bearing also in mind that some (and perhaps not a trivial number of) travellers would prefer a
through train to the transfer between New Street and Curzon Street (or the similar separation
between International and Interchange). And people now connecting between suburban trains and
London trains at New Street might be reluctant to make the transfer and hence be irritated if the
classic service is reduced from three to only one per hour.
3.11.5
It is also suggested that Walsall could benefit from through London trains. This could be
achieved by a half-hourly alternation with Wolverhampton but not otherwise (the frequency of
trains between Wolverhampton and New Street is such that a good connection with the otherhalf-hour Walsall train would be guaranteed).
3.11.6
Serving Coventry needs careful thought. For some sectors of its catchment it might be
attractive to use Interchange as a railhead, although this would be mostly by car and thus both
socially undesirable and an offset to the carbon advantages of HS2’s modal capture from road. For
the centre of the City and the inner suburbs however a reduction to an hourly not-quite-as-fast
train would be a serious detriment.
3.11.7
For all these reasons it is considered essential to plan a half-hourly service. Advantage
would be taken of the availability of capacity, post-HS2, to have both stop at Milton Keynes and
Watford Junction, thereby providing a convenient pattern along this corridor. The running time
between New Street and London would be 82 minutes – a few minutes faster than now because
the extra stop is covered by removing padding. The requirement for a West Midlands <> Rugby
service will be met by accelerating, and doubling the frequency of, the regional service [see §3.13]
while Rugby <> London will be served by the half-hourly Preston / Liverpool service, also with the
two intermediate stops.
3.11.8
3.12
The Coventry corridor
Up to 10 trains/hour
It is generally agreed that the service pattern between Birmingham New Street and
Coventry is less than satisfactory. Problems arise because the capacity is not available in each
hour on this two-track route for three fast London services, two services on the Birmingham <>
Leamington <> Oxford axis, two Northampton trains and an appropriate local service. One
Oxford train has to run via the less-favoured Solihull route, and by dint of clever timetabling the
3.12.1
26
two Northamptons and a local train give each intermediate station two trains/hour (Marston
Green and Tile Hill get three), though mostly at uneven intervals. None of these trains can be
pathed to run through from/to Wolverhampton to provide the local connectivity which is desired
by the Passenger Transport Executive.
With the London service reduced to two trains/hour and the Northampton trains calling
only at International space is made for both Oxford trains to run via Coventry, flighted just ahead
of the Londons. Fortuitously the path of the regionals that is determined by their connections at
Rugby falls close to the mid-point between the London and cross-country pairs, thus giving a neat
quarter-hourly frequency between New Street, International and Coventry. In turn that leaves
capacity for four trains/hour calling at all stations if, or at such times as, required, albeit not quite
regular and with an extended dwell at International. This is defensible on the basis that the
principal demands are for services between the respective adjacent stations and Birmingham and
Coventry, that travel on local relations across International is relatively limited and that time can
be saved by passengers willing to change (in rapid-transit style) at International on journeys
to/from the two cities.
3.12.2
Some other possibilities may open up in the Coventry area. The local authorities are
promoting an upgrade of the line between Nuneaton and Coventry, including doubling the
(inappropriate) hourly frequency to half-hourly and adding two new stations. On the other side of
Coventry local interests are pressing for Kenilworth station on the Leamington line to be
reopened, a scheme which would require a new service since the long-distance trains that pass
through could not sensibly be stopped for local traffic. Taking these schemes together suggests a
through service from Nuneaton to Leamington. This would benefit from electrification of both
lines, which would itself have further network benefits.
3.12.3
An alternative policy would be to retain Nuneaton <> Coventry as a shuttle (and thus not
involve crossing the layout at Coventry) and extend the Birmingham locals to Leamington. Our
proposals for the main line appear to allow only two crossings an hour, at predetermined times
that might not be ideal for connections at Nuneaton. A further possibility would be a through
service between Coventry, Leamington and London Marylebone. All this presupposes that the
southbound freight movements between Nuneaton and Leamington have been diverted via Milton
Keynes and the Bletchley Flyover to Oxford. It also carries implications for the layout and
working of Coventry station and its associated junctions. Because agreement on the service
pattern on the main line is required first timetabling of these ideas has not been pursued at this
stage.
3.12.4
3.13
Regional services between Birmingham, Northampton and London
2 through trains/hour
In the standard hour the existing regional service comprises one through train between
Birmingham New Street and London Euston via Northampton and a Birmingham <> Northampton
train connecting there with the Trent Valley service. The southbound intervals are 20 and 40
minutes at Birmingham and 29/31 at Euston; northbound they are 8/52 at Euston and 15/45 at
Birmingham. Transfer-times at Northampton are 15 minutes. There is also a Northampton <>
London service hourly, although its spacing is not ideal. This is an unsatisfactory pattern, the
result of designing an asymmetric timetable dominated by the fast Birminghams at 20-minute
intervals. While that may have been the best solution in 2008 it is essential to do better post-HS2.
3.13.1
Clearly connectivity along the route requires two trains/hour at even intervals and with a
careful selection of stops and well-defined relationships with complementary services. It is
proposed that the trains call at Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Long Buckby,
3.13.2
27
Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bletchley, Leighton Buzzard and Watford Junction. This yields a
considerable acceleration by removing stops at the intermediate stations between New Street and
Coventry [as described above, §3.12] and at Wolverton, Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead.
For example, Birmingham <> Northampton would go from 61 minutes at uneven intervals to 51
minutes at even intervals (the time by road is about 65 minutes) and Coventry <> Leighton
Buzzard from 71 minutes hourly to 58 minutes half-hourly.
The regional trains are timed to connect out of the Preston / Liverpool service at Rugby,
affording greatly improved connectivity between the North West and Northampton (which rests
at the moment with the slow and only hourly Trent Valley train). And as described above,
Northampton would also have for the first time an hourly non-stop London train, taking 48
minutes compared with a best time of 59 minutes now (one Virgin service runs up in the morning
in 48 minutes but has no equivalent in the return evening peak).
3.13.3
3.14
London Euston Outer Suburban services
2 half-hourly services
The stations served at present by the three Northampton trains but not covered by the
new regional service would have a new Northampton <> London service. This is essentially the
existing Milton Keynes train extended north and doubled in frequency. It would call at all stations
to Hemel Hempstead, then Watford and fast to Euston and is timed to leave Northampton
immediately behind the regional train in order to minimise journey-times for station-pairs that are
not directly connected. The outcome for each station is discussed below [§3.21].
3.14.1
Levels of demand and the need to serve other stations further south justify a separate
Tring <> London service half-hourly. This would continue, but (at a slight time-cost) with an
additional stop at Wembley Central to enhance links with that area and the ‘DC’ line. Again good
connectivity is achieved by timing it out of Tring just 3 minutes after the Clapham Junction has
called (transfer-times are currently 22 minutes southbound and 12 northbound).
3.14.2
3.15
Milton Keynes <> Clapham Junction (<> East Croydon)
2 through trains/hour
Use of the West London line to provide direct trains between the WCML and the
Southern lines at Clapham Junction is a recent and increasingly popular development. However a
merely hourly frequency is unattractive in a dense urban area, and at peak periods the trains are
grossly overcrowded (though they could be doubled in size). It is natural therefore to envisage
doubling the frequency. Timings were determined by the overall plan for the Slow Lines. It was
not possible to review the paths south of Wembley; as it happens, one of them is not incompatible
with the current path, particularly southbound, but over the coming years the West London and
Southern timetables will have to be modified anyway – and the painfully slow progress through the
Willesden maze will one hopes be accelerated. In further references we describe this service as
running to/from Clapham Junction because it has not been timed on the West London Line, let
alone south of Clapham – and because it may be more important to secure the half-hourly
frequency and rely on the myriad connections there than to run it through to East Croydon.
3.15.1
3.16
Additional services in peak periods
28
No provision has been made for extra inter-city trains in the peak. The peak on HS2 is
discussed below. At the regional level two overlaid services are proposed. First, the Trent Valley
would benefit from a half-hourly fast service. This would start from Lichfield, call at Tamworth,
Nuneaton and Rugby, and then run non-stop to London; the time from Lichfield would be 78
minutes, a little slower than the present peak trains but a more frequent, dedicated service (which
also relieves other trains of this function). On the West Midlands <> Northampton <> London
axis frequency would be doubled. The additional trains would run between Coventry and Euston
(for pathing reasons not quite splitting the off-peak 30-minute interval exactly) and would omit the
call at Watford Junction.
3.16.1
Capacity exists on the Slow Lines to run a half-hourly service in the peak to supplement
the Northampton and Tring trains. It would start from Milton Keynes and call at all stations to
Watford Junction except Cheddington, then Harrow & Wealdstone and London Euston. Although
it would be timed rather close to the Northampton as far as Hemel Hempstead (no other path is
feasible) its stops at Apsley and Kings Langley neatly split their normal 30-minute intervals.
3.16.2
3.17
Summary of HS2 services
The plan for HS2 services is summarised in Table 3 [p.30], and those that run from and to
the classic line were described in previous sections in context with their associated wholly classic
services. That is how they should be conceived, not as a separate operation superimposed on the
existing network. In brief, two would serve Scotland, three Manchester, two Liverpool and one
Chester and North Wales. One Manchester, the Liverpool via Warrington and the Chester might
not run at every hour initially but would certainly be required in the peak. Their paths, calling
points and connections have been carefully arranged to spread HS2’s benefits across the network
from Stafford northwards, although the exigencies of planning an integrated timetable prevented
ideal arrangements in some cases.
3.17.1
On the assumption that HS2 can operate robustly at 16 trains/hour there are eight other
paths. Four of these are taken by the Birmingham service [see §3.11 for a discussion of the
demand and pattern]. The other four paths are reserved for the Yorkshire and East Midland
services that will use the eastern arm of the ‘Y’ route when it is completed. A prima facie case
exists for providing a start-up service from the outset as far as Sheffield via a curve connecting the
Wichnor Junction … Lichfield line with HS2.
3.17.2
Because the eight classic + HS2 paths were determined by factors on the WCML they do
not present at Water Orton South Junction, where the WCML link joins the HS2 spine, in a
sequence that fits neatly with a regular quarter-hourly pattern for the Birmingham trains. If that is
felt to be paramount (as it probably should be) then either the trains passing from and to the
WCML will need pathing allowances between Lichfield High Speed Junction and Water Orton
South Junction in order to fit them in neatly between the Birminghams or a feedback loop to the
WCML timetable will be required.
3.17.3
The former solution was adopted in this exercise, partly because time and resources did
not permit a further recycling of the plan: it is not perfect, but a margin may be justified to help
insulate HS2 from operating difficulties on the classic line. As part of this arrangement the four
East Midlands trains are timed as two half-hourly pairs. Looping back to recast WCML may not be
satisfactory either: it is bound to have extensive repercussions, and a solution may depend on
resolving the Colwich problem [§4.4].
3.17.4
29
Table 3
Number of trains/hour on HS2 in different scenarios
HS2 Technical Appendix #
proposed integrated
WCML + HS2 timetable
off-peak
peak
Edinburgh
off-peak
peak
1
1
1
1
Glasgow
1
1
Preston
0
1
Manchester
3
3
3 (? 2)
3
Liverpool
2
2
2 (? 1)
2
Chester + North Wales *
1
1
1 (? 0)
1
Birmingham
3
4
2 (? 3)
4
Yorkshire
2
2
East Midlands
2
2
11 - 15
16
total >
10
12
* assuming electrification at least between Chester and Crewe and bi-mode electric / diesel IEP sets.
# High Speed Two Ltd (December 2009). High Speed Rail : London to the West Midlands and Beyond. HS2
Technical Appendix. Appendix 2, pp. 23-24.
There will be some available capacity on the Lichfield arm. A delta junction is planned in
the Water Orton area, so that as well as the Lichfield and Birmingham routes meeting at South
Junction a spur will run from Water Orton East to Water Orton West to provide access to
Birmingham Curzon Street from the north. All three angles of the delta will be flying junctions so
that no conflicts will occur other than from the merging moves (and the engineering will minimise
that effect). For the present purpose we therefore assume a capacity of 16 trains/hour on all
arms. The proposed timetable sends twelve trains/hour over the Lichfield arm and has four
from/to Curzon Street. The former is the determining factor, with Curzon Street able to handle
four trains/hour on non-London routes, although no timetabling has yet been undertaken.
3.17.5
Finally there is the question of stopping the classic-compatible services at Birmingham
Interchange. This requires a deeper understanding of demand than was possible in the present
exercise, where the presumption had to be that none of these trains would stop [see ¶3.11.2-3].
If it is considered that some of the through trains should stop – at the cost of several minutes for
the dominant body of London passengers – then some quite difficult timing issues would need to
be resolved, both to secure worthwhile connectivity and because of the effect of selective stops
on other paths, including those of the four key Birmingham trains.
3.17.6
In line with the HS2 documents we have assumed that every train will stop at the
proposed Old Oak Common Interchange. This is more or less dictated by its wide range of
functions, and particularly the links with Heathrow Express and Crossrail, and by the impossibility
of achieving a smooth flow with as many as 16 trains/hour if some do not stop. The loss of
frequency and the potential confusion if some train s did not stop are also important.
3.17.7
30
3.18
Summary by station – Glasgow to Stafford
Glasgow Central will have three WCML departures in each hour, two to London via
HS2 or the classic route and one alternately to Manchester or Birmingham. The HS2 train runs
non-stop to Carlisle, both of the others stop at Motherwell, and the Manchester/Birmingham
calls at Carluke and Lockerbie. Edinburgh Waverley and Haymarket have two WCML
departures, one via HS2 to London and one alternately to Manchester or Birmingham. Carlisle is
served by four of these services, while the Edinburgh HS2 train does not call. Journeys times by
HS2 to London would be 3 hours 50 minutes for Glasgow and 3 minutes longer for Edinburgh.
The classic train would take 4 hours 29 minutes, similar to present timings for most trains but
with a more consistent set of stops. The Manchester / Birmingham arrangement would be less
frequent (one train/hour compared with about 1.5) following the transfer of some traffic to the
HS2 trains and associated connections, but more coherent and as fast as or faster than now.
3.18.1
Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster all have two long-distance trains/hour at roughly
20/40-minute intervals. One is the Glasgow <> London via WCML, the other the Manchester /
Birmingham. Both provide a wide array of connections. There will also be a Windermere <>
Manchester service: a possible path preceding the London train southbound (and behind
northbound) would ensure good connections between Windermere and Kendal and stations to
both south and north (they are currently erratic). If the Manchester service is not hourly the gaps
should be covered by a Windermere <> Oxenholme shuttle. Lancaster will have the Furness
line trains, again with fairly good connections in both directions.
3.18.2
Preston has five long-distance services an hour: the two Scottish HS2 trains (with a
25/35 minute interval), the WCML Glasgow and the associated Preston <> London, and the
combined train connecting Scotland with Manchester and Birmingham. This will require smart
working at certain times, and it may be hoped that regular use of platforms 5 and 6 (as well as 3
and 4) for these trains will lead to some improvement in their appearance and facilities. The
Preston <> London would probably be extended to serve Burnley + Blackburn and Blackpool
North in alternate hours (or both every hour by using coupled units), but good supplementary
connections, especially with the HS2 trains, will be essential. This applies too to what will be the
electrified line to Chorley, Bolton and Manchester, to the Liverpool routes and to Blackpool
South. The Glasgow WCML and Edinburgh HS2 services run close together just before the hour
southbound (and just after northbound) and should be the focus of the connectional scheme.
3.18.3
Wigan North Western and Warrington Bank Quay are served by the Scotland <>
Birmingham train and the Preston <> London at (imperfect) 15/45-minute intervals. In addition
Warrington has a direct HS2 service (in 83 minutes to Euston) and Wigan a brisk connection into
the same train. The London train will offer direct and accelerated links with Stafford, Rugby,
Milton Keynes and Watford Junction27, albeit at the cost of a 20-minute slower London journey
than now for occasions when the HS2 train is unsuitable.
3.18.4
Winsford and Hartford are rather neglected stations. Hartford is the busiest and
serves as a railhead for Northwich, Hartford itself and several other not-insignificant settlements –
3.18.5
27
The present Milton Keynes service is an egregious example of the consequences of poor sequencing and of
not applying the mirror-image rule. Southbound, the Glasgow > Birmingham immediately follows the Chester >
London through Crewe, thus imposing a 58-minute wait for Milton Keynes. Northbound the Chester also runs
first (as it should) and thereby offers a 22-minute interchange. This affects connectivity between every station from
Warrington northwards and Milton Keynes.
31
or rather could serve if it had a better timetable than it has had for some years (it has no service
to Warrington and beyond). Winsford could also serve a group of small towns somewhat better
than it now does. The typical arrangement in the current plan has one of the half-hourly Liverpool
<> Birmingham trains calling occasionally at Acton Bridge or otherwise at Winsford. This is not
sensible. Our proposals suggest a serious service for Hartford with hourly stops in both the
Scotland <> Birmingham and the Liverpool <> London trains. Hartford and Winsford should also
be served in some manner by the Liverpool <> Birmingham service, but this was not pursued at
this stage – it may depend on whether quadrupling of this section can be justified [see Table 12]
Crewe will continue to be a major hub and indeed may have an enhanced status. It will
be served every hour by the Glasgow WCML train, the Preston / Liverpool pair and the Scotland
<> Birmingham. One HS2 service will provide a fast link with Edinburgh and eastern Scotland and
that and the Chester (North Wales) train will offer 69 and 78-minute journeys to London, arriving
in and departing from London at 30-minute intervals (the current non-stop time is 95 minutes).
The Glasgow and both Liverpool HS2 trains will not stop, so fast traverses via the through lines
will continue. The half-hourly Liverpool <> Birmingham service and the hourly Trent Valley train
are also included in the plan. In addition there will be (at least) the hourly Manchester <>
Marches <> South Wales service, two locals on the Manchester line and two trains/hour on the
Stoke line, all of whose timings should ideally revolve around the long-distance calls. This may all
put some stress on the flat junctions north and south of the station, one relief to which might be
construction of platforms on the Manchester Independent Lines for the Welsh train.
3.18.6
In place of one fast London train/hour in 75-80 minutes and poor connectivity with the
larger intermediate points Stafford would gain one HS2 call with a journey-time to London of 61
minutes and two classic services, evenly-spaced and with three stops in 87 minutes. This is an
altogether superior offer.
3.18.7
3.19
Summary by station – Manchester and the Potteries
The three Manchester Piccadilly <> Stockport <> London Euston services are all
transferred to HS2. This opens the opportunity to run an hourly classic service that would greatly
improve connectivity with the key intermediate stations of Milton Keynes and Watford Junction
and by well-arranged connections with every station at the southern end of the WCML. This is
complemented by extending one of the Trent Valley regional trains northwards to Manchester. If
a good path can be found for the Manchester <> South Wales train that will add further
connectivity via Crewe.
3.19.1
Macclesfield is typical of many second-rank stations on the WCML that can be said to
have an adequate but hardly inspired offer at present: for example, in every hour, one fast London
OTT, one Birmingham and one Milton Keynes (with different companies providing additional
connections at Stoke). The recast facilitated by HS2 would retain the direct London train but with
extra stops, give a good connection into one of the HS2 trains (offering a journey-time of 93
minutes with one change in lieu of 106 minutes direct), continue the two Birmingham services on
the route but with both instead of one stopping, and add a Trent Valley service. Congleton and
Kidsgrove only have the hourly all-stations Manchester <> Stoke train now. This will be
replaced by the Trent Valley train, which connects well with an HS2 service, and Congleton will
also be served by one of the Birminghams.
3.19.2
Presently Stoke-on-Trent has two fast London trains (at uneven intervals) and two
Birmingham trains. The bunched timetabling of these trains between Manchester and Stoke leaves
a gap of 32 minutes southbound. It is proposed to run six (reasonably well spaced) Manchester
trains via the Potteries in place of the current four, thereby securing a highly convenient offer.
3.19.3
32
Two via HS2, at even intervals, will take over the main London flow while one WCML service will
continue in order the better to serve intermediate stations; the other addition is the second Trent
Valley service complementing the one running from Crewe.
3.20
Summary by station – West Midlands
Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International and Coventry will retain a
direct London service via WCML. It will be reduced from three to two trains/hour as the large
Birmingham flow transfers to HS2, but these stations will benefit from both trains calling at Milton
Keynes and Watford Junction. At present these are each served only once an hour and
particularly poorly at peak times. Onward connections from both will also improve. Journeytimes will be virtually unchanged, despite the extra stop, as a result of removing slack. The loss of
one train and a more strategic approach will allow the aspiration for a second cross-country path
via Coventry to be achieved.
3.20.1
Furthermore it will be possible to rationalise the four departures from New Street that
serve both regional and local functions into two distinct services, namely a half-hourly regional
train to London and, at appropriate times, a quarter-hourly local train, albeit with a layover at
International. Interposing the half-hourly Northampton regional between the inter-city trains will
bring frequency on this section to near-even quarter-hourly. At least one path an hour will be
available for extension of a service terminating at New Street from the north to International.
3.20.2
The faster London trains would naturally run through from places beyond Birmingham,
although this has not been specified here because of the number of factors to be considered.
Wolverhampton and Sandwell & Dudley should certainly retain their existing hourly service,
although half-hourly might be preferable. Walsall has been neglected and maybe should be
considered for a direct service, either via Aston and a reversal or via the Perry Barr and Soho
junctions; both routes include Tame Bridge Parkway.
3.20.3
Continuing operation of the services by Class 390 trains between New Street and Euston
would be appropriate, but they are clumsily large for the extensions. A better solution might be
the proposed 200 km/h EMU, which would enable both Wolverhampton and Walsall to be served
every hour. The possibility of rotation with Sutton Coldfield and Redditch could also be
considered. Further extension of the Wolverhampton train to run from Wrexham, Shrewsbury
or even mid-Wales is an attractive proposition but would depend on electrification or the ability
of the EMUs to work in diesel mode.
3.20.4
3.21
Summary by station – Trent Valley to London
Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth and Nuneaton will benefit from the doubling of
the Trent Valley service throughout the day. One service would continue to run via
Northampton but with a better path while the other would run fast between Rugby and London.
The former would run from Crewe and perhaps Chester, the latter from Manchester via Stokeon-Trent. Journey times would be greatly reduced, and connections both north and south would
be tighter and more extensive. Subject to suitable turn-back provisions there would in addition be
two or three extra trains in each peak, non-stop between Rugby and London and taking only 78
minutes from Lichfield (these would be dedicated services, not stops in long-distance expresses).
Connections at all three stations with east <> west routes were reviewed above [¶3.10.8-13].
3.21.1
33
Rugby will have a half-hourly interval service connecting it directly with principal stations
in the North West and with Milton Keynes, Watford Junction and London. The journey-time to
Euston will be 55 minutes (the Trent Valley peak extras will take only 48 minutes). Every halfhour a Birmingham <> Northampton <> London train will provide a fast link with Birmingham
(calling only at Coventry and International) and a regional service to Northampton, Bletchley and
Leighton Buzzard, with planned regular connections to every other intermediate station. The
doubled Trent Valley frequency will also enhance travel opportunities. The frequency of the
regional trains would be doubled in the peak between Coventry and London.
3.21.2
The thinly-populated countryside between Rugby and Northampton is served by the
station in the village of Long Buckby. About seven people join or leave for each call there. It
now has one through and one connecting service to London in each hour. The arrival-intervals
are 29 and 31 minutes, but departures from Euston are poorly spaced at intervals of 8 and 52. If
the station is to stay open it should be properly served, and we propose two calls per hour at
equal intervals in both directions by the Birmingham <> London regional service. Journey times
would be reduced to a standard 68 minutes compared with an average of 88 minutes now.
3.21.3
When the London & Birmingham Railway opened in 1838 it bypassed Northampton.
The loopline on which it now stands is too slow a deviation to justify any long-distance expresses
being routed that way. The most that can be done is to ensure the best possible links with
Birmingham and London, reasonable timetables for intermediate places on those routes and
decent connectivity with the Trent Valley and places further north. The current timetable offers
three trains/hour, with imperfect spacing and an average journey-time to London of 63 minutes.
3.21.4
It is proposed to run five trains/hour, but in order to provide connections the moststations trains will leave immediately after (and arrive just before) the regional; the effective
frequency for London journeys therefore remains at three. Two will be the regional service
between Birmingham and London, taking 58 minutes, and the third will link Northampton with the
Trent Valley stations and run non-stop hourly between Northampton and London in 48 minutes.
The other pair will call at all stations between Northampton and Hemel Hempstead, then Watford
Junction and Euston28. Well-ordered connections at Rugby will give Northampton half-hourly
connectivity with north-west England (except for Manchester29). In the peak the regional service
would run quarter-hourly.
3.21.5
One of Wolverton’s two trains/hour will take about as long as the present faster service
to London and the other will add about 13 minutes to the slower time, but unlike now they will
be evenly-spaced, effectively doubling the frequency. Frequency is increased to four trains/hour in
the peak by stopping the extra regionals here: they would overtake the standard-hour trains and
reach London in the same time as the fastest trains in the current peak.
3.21.6
Milton Keynes is one of the prime beneficiaries of the integrated timetable. As a large
and growing centre it is quite poorly served at present, with only three of the nine standard-hour
expresses calling (one of the three Manchesters, one of the three Birminghams and the Chester).
3.21.7
28
A large residential area of Northampton lies south of the River Nene and well away from the central station,
and a number of expanding places such as Roade, Blisworth and Towcester lie well to the north of the next station,
Wolverton. Many solutions to this gap are possible, one being to build a new station at Roade, with platforms only
on the Slow (Northampton) Lines, but the time-cost and pathing consequences would need careful consideration.
29
The present timetable offers an hourly OTT by changing at Milton Keynes in about 120 minutes. That would
continue, but taking 131 minutes because of a longer wait. An option via Stafford in 134 minutes is also offered but
northbound only. This would be replaced by a two-change OTT (in both directions of course): assuming a good
connection at Crewe with one of the Preston / Liverpool pair the journey-time would be about 120 minutes. The
time by road is 150 minutes. This provision for an important relation is acknowledged as a weakness in the plan.
34
This is an inadequate frequency for the more time-sensitive segments of the market, and the
connectivity the three trains offer is variable. It is proposed that all six of the WCML inter-city
trains will call, together with three regional trains. This will secure a high-convenience link with
London and excellent connectivity with everywhere in Scotland and North West England. Four of
the expresses will provide a regular quarter-hourly service to London in 35 minutes, with a call at
Watford. The other five trains will fill the gaps, thereby generating a true ‘turn-up-and-go’ offer.
In each hour the expresses comprise direct Glasgow, Preston, Manchester, Liverpool and
(two) Birmingham trains. The regionals give half-hourly fast links with Northampton and hourly
with the Trent Valley. These are complemented by the half-hourly Northampton <> London
trains and the (doubled) half-hourly direct link with Clapham Junction and beyond.
3.21.8
It is suggested that the proposed standard-hour pattern will be more coherent than the
present pattern since it offers more attractive frequencies and tighter connections. Moreover the
peak is provided for by overlaying extra trains. Both the Birmingham regional and the moststations services are doubled in frequency (but the latter not between Northampton and Milton
Keynes and not at exactly even intervals). In a southbound morning two-hour period there would
be 34 departures compared with 18 now30, and assuming that the new WCML pattern promotes a
growth in travel between northern places and Milton Keynes more seats will become available
there for London passengers. If London commuting expands as much as some estimates suggest it
may then an exclusive non-stop Milton Keynes <> London Euston service could run via the Fast
Lines once or twice an hour in the peak.
3.21.9
Bletchley and Leighton Buzzard would have a cycle of trains every half-hour, as is
appropriate for sizeable places at this distance from London. They would be a fast Watford and
London train, a complementary service for the intermediate stations and the direct link with
places south of the Thames via the Willesden Junction … Clapham Junction line. This frequency
and its pattern also secure good connectivity at Milton Keynes with all points north thereof. In
the peak additional fast London and intermediate services are overlaid on the standard pattern,
with slightly different calling points.
3.21.10
Since Cheddington sees only about 11 passengers/hour (one-eighth as many as Tring –
the area is sparsely populated) one can understand why it has just an hourly service for most of
the day, but the drawback is that that may well limit interest in using rail. A call every half-hour is
therefore proposed.
3.21.11
Tring currently has four trains/hour, a half-hourly all-stations to Euston, a semi-fast and
the Clapham. This would increase to six, with the latter two both having their frequency doubled.
However, as a result of optimising the outer-suburban scheme as a whole the slower London
trains arrive at Euston only just ahead of the next semi-fast. The regular half-hourly cycle would
cut the waiting time for a train to Hemel Hempstead or Watford Junction from a maximum of 22
minutes to a maximum of 14 minutes. Two extra Euston trains would run in each peak hour.
3.21.12
30
Thirteen of the departures are London Midland outer-suburban services and five are Virgin long-distance
trains. The latter all call early in the peak, but none takes up passengers between the 07:14 and the 09:19. This is
an unavoidable consequence of their heavy loading from further north and of limited track capacity for stops to be
made, but it is nonetheless profoundly unsatisfactory. With platform capacity at Euston released following HS2 the
trains that run Fast Line can all be formed of twelve cars (three units). There will be eight instead of five of these in
the two-hour morning peak. The number of eight-car trains will rise from eight to fourteen. This gives an
approximate (because we do not have current or future diagrams in detail) increase in the number of southbound
seats out of Milton Keynes between about 06:20 and 08:20 of three-quarters (circa 7700 to 13600). The inter-city
trains will be able to uplift about 1200 passengers across the period, compared with about 250 early-birds now.
35
Connectivity with almost anywhere north of Tring would be improved by virtue of the
structured connections between services: for example whereas there is now only an hourly link
with Birmingham, taking 100 minutes southbound and 89 northbound with a change at Milton
Keynes, this would become 77 minutes in both directions and half-hourly. The improved service
might in turn attract some travel from the Aylesbury area and justify better bus links between the
town and the on-the-edge and off-the-main-road station31.
3.21.13
Berkhamsted would have four London departures an hour, as now, but within the
overall scheme the faster one would be closer to the slower at Euston than at present. Extra
capacity would be provided in the peak period by the overlaid Milton Keynes trains. The station
would lose its present stop in the Clapham Junction train, but a doubled frequency by changing at
Hemel Hempstead would compensate in part.
3.21.14
The most important urban centre between Leighton Buzzard and Watford Junction is
Hemel Hempstead: this is reflected in the fact that it generates about 9% fewer season-ticket
journeys than Berkhamsted but 31% more journeys for purposes other than commuting. This led
to consideration of inserting a call there in the Birmingham regional schedule, but that would have
created operational difficulties and was rejected32. Instead, frequency will rise from five trains/hour
to six with the doubling of the Clapham Junction service and connectivity will become more
effective: for example, a journey between Coventry and Hemel Hempstead now takes 88 minutes
southbound and 74 minutes northbound once an hour, whereas in the revised timetable it would
take 68 minutes in both directions, twice-hourly33. An extra service in each peak half-hour would
fill the gap created by the proximity of each faster and slower pair at Euston.
3.21.15
Apsley and Kings Langley presently have a half-hourly London service off-peak, with
one extra train in each morning peak and two in each evening peak. This would remain the same
off-peak, but in the peak these stations would have four trains/hour throughout the 3-hour period,
at near-even intervals.
3.21.16
The plan is to stop all but one of the six inter-city expresses at Watford Junction. This
gives Watford the same much-enhanced connectivity with the North West as is achieved for
Milton Keynes (the exception is the Glasgow train, which has a good connection for Watford, but
for consistency this might stop too [see ¶3.1.5]). Together with the half-hourly regional trains this
also secures a high-frequency link with Euston, and because the proportion of journeys between
points north and Watford can be expected to increase relative to long-distance London journeys
there will be capacity spread across a number of trains for Watford <> London travel, so enabling
the operator to dispense with set-down/pick-up-only restrictions. Watford will also benefit from
the doubled Clapham frequency and from two extra Euston local trains in the peak.
3.21.17
This scheme takes Watford Junction from being rather neglected relative to its own
urban significance and its status as an interchange at the outer end of the suburban line (and with
the St Albans branch and many bus routes) to a more appropriate level of service: at present, with
a very limited inter-city service to the north, the value of these links is diminished. In turn that
might strengthen the case being pursued by Hertfordshire County Council for bringing the LUL
3.21.18
31
As the present author knows too well – his railway career began in the Goods Shed at Tring.
32
The regional is pathed to run Fast Line south of Ledburn Junction. Even with 200 km/h stock the stop would
consume valuable capacity for only modest gains. Running Slow Line would seriously decelerate the service for
travellers north of Hemel and might not be possible anyway (and running Fast Line only south of Watford would
call into question the value of the 200 km/h capability).
33
The National Rail website offers additional and faster OTTs via Watford Junction, but since these involve an
8% premium on the off-peak fare and in one direction an infeasible 5-minute reversal they were disregarded.
36
Metropolitan Line into Watford Junction via the closed Croxley branch (and closing the line into
Watford Metropolitan station). Using the curve just south of Rickmansworth it would also be
feasible to run an Aylesbury <> Watford Junction service to enhance connectivity for the
Aylesbury area and complement the envisaged East West Link with Milton Keynes.
It is provisionally proposed to retain the existing half-hourly frequency of the one-stop
Euston service at Bushey, but, unlike the present arrangement, it would not be supplemented in
the peak period because of pathing limitations arising from the doubling of the Clapham service. A
better solution might be to increase the frequency of the all-stations ‘DC’ service from 20 minutes
to 15 minutes in order that it can mesh with the half-hourly cycle at Harrow and thus, amongst
other things, provide better connectivity for all five local stations between Watford and Harrow,
including Bushey. This depends though on issues around the layout at Euston and the interaction
with LUL Bakerloo Line services that have not been studied in this exercise.
3.21.19
Both in the standard hour and in the peak Harrow & Wealdstone gains the second
Clapham service, the number of trains being otherwise similar to that now offered. If demand
were to grow substantially capacity exists on the Slow Line for at least two Watford <> Euston
shuttle paths in each hour (this would also help Bushey), subject to there being paths and platform
space at Euston. A key feature of the proposals is the enhancement of intermediate relations, and
Harrow would benefit along with most other centres: for example, in a standard hour Nuneaton
<> Harrow now has one southbound link (excluding a via-Euston option) taking 142 minutes and
two northbound in 89 or 107 minutes. This would become twice-hourly in 75 or 81 minutes
southbound and the same northbound.
3.21.20
At present Wembley Central is only served by the Clapham Junction train. In addition
to the doubling of its frequency it is suggested that a stop at Wembley be added to the schedule of
the Tring local in place of the connection at Harrow. This would be valuable for Wembley as a
suburban centre with a large population and for traffic to the Stadium.
3.21.21
4
TECHNICAL ISSUES
4.1
Introduction
The purpose of this section is to offer a commentary on various technical issues that we
have sought to address in the course of the project or which we are conscious have not been fully
examined. It is not intended to be exhaustive, and some ideas are only raised tentatively.
4.1.1
4.2
Winwick Junction
At Newton-le-Willows, between Wigan and Warrington, one of the Manchester …
Liverpool routes crosses the WCML. Two triangular layouts connect both directions of the
former with both directions of the latter. Although the crossing itself is grade-separated all six of
the other junctions are flat. Despite this, the number of turning movements, among which the
hourly Manchester <> Warrington <> Chester service is the most significant, is at present
manageable, but the planned electrification between Manchester and Liverpool will increase the
number of trains and their speed and introduce new timetabling issues. This will be exacerbated if,
as is likely, electrification opens up opportunities for new services.
4.2.1
37
One such has already been identified, namely routeing one of the Liverpool HS2 trains
this way in order to serve the St Helens area, whose sizeable population has been neglected in
respect of journeys to/from the south and whose economy needs regeneration. These trains
would join and leave the WCML at Winwick Junction, the southern vertex of the southern
triangle. Since the configuration means that this introduces multiple conflicts it cannot be assumed
that pathing will be easy. And in fact in our plan timings set by decisions elsewhere leave an
unresolved clash between the southbound Liverpool and northbound Edinburgh HS2 trains.
4.2.2
4.3
Cheadle Hulme
Cheadle Hulme is the junction 13.2 km south of Manchester Piccadilly between the route
to Stoke-on-Trent and the Trent Valley and the route to Wilmslow and Crewe. It is a classic flat
junction, although each route has its own pair of platforms so that stopping trains do not block
trains on the other route. The four-track section from Piccadilly through Stockport ends at
Adswood Road Junction, leaving a 1.27 km double track section (including a viaduct) before the
divergence at Cheadle Hulme.
4.3.1
It is clear from detailed observations there34 that this constraint, the conflicts at the
junction and possibly the installed signalling are causing difficulties in working the present timetable
smoothly. Our proposals for a fourth Manchester <> London train (this is an interim possibility in
any case) and possibly a second Macclesfield local would be likely to stress the junction further.
Although the detailed timings we have calculated do not themselves contain any conflicts the notcovered pathing of three Crewe trains (two locals and the Cardiff) could be difficult. So too could
any increase in freights from/to Trafford Park, whether via Crewe or, as has been suggested, via
the Potteries. This issue requires more attention.
4.3.2
4.4
Colwich Junction and the two-track section to the north
At Whitehouse Junction, 4.8 km south of Stafford, the two southbound tracks merge into
one. The paired-by-use configuration, with the Slow Lines on the west, means that trains on the
Up Slow have to cross the Down Fast. At Milford Junction, a further 1.9 km south, the single
northbound track divides into Down Fast and Slow Lines. Between there and Colwich Junction, a
section of 3.7 km, the WCML is a two-track railway. Colwich is the junction between the main
route and the direct line from Stoke-on-Trent avoiding Stafford; it is not grade-separated.
4.4.1
On a railway that otherwise has four tracks over the 112 km from the northern
approaches to Crewe to Attleborough South Junction (just south of Nuneaton) this short twotrack section and the flat junctions represent a significant constraint: put simply, the full potential
capacity of the WCML cannot be utilised so long as it exists. Because the section includes the
704m Shugborough Tunnel and runs through the grounds of the Grade 1 protected Shugborough
Estate the bottleneck cannot easily be removed. It therefore needs careful analysis.
4.4.2
In the proposed timetable three of the fourteen passenger services passing Colwich in
each direction are routed from/to the Stoke line to/from the Fast Lines. Each down train
diverging toward Stoke blocks southbound movements from Stafford and hence occupies an up
path. In addition a service from Stafford cannot be routed to the Up Slow simultaneously with a
4.4.3
34
By the Railway Performance Society – see footnote 11.
38
move from the Stoke line to the Up Fast (whereas north of Whitehouse Junction the Slow Lines
are paired on the west side, through the Trent Valley the tracks are paired by direction with the
Fast Lines being the inner two). The headway is 3 minutes, and the Timetable Planning Rules
require a 3-minute margin either side of a Stoke-bound train.
In view of these constraints it was decided to plan the timetable around parallel moves
through Colwich Junction [see ¶2.4.12]. This device avoids the loss of southbound paths by timing
each northbound path toward Stoke to coincide with a corresponding southbound path from
Stoke (which would in any case block a southbound Stafford path). The consequences spread
throughout the timetable: developing the idea of
nodal interchanges with tight connections had to be
abandoned, and all other timings are subservient to
Table 4
these crossing moves35. Nevertheless the approach
has the merit of illustrating what is possible while
Paths at Colwich Junction
accepting this dominant constraint. In turn that will
sharpen analysis of the benefits of removing it when
peak hour
route
HS2 presents increasing demands on the junctions.
4.4.4
2011
2026
Scotland and Preston
2.5
2+ 2 HS
Manchester via Crewe
1
1 HS
Liverpool
1.5
1 + 2 HS
Chester
1
1 HS
Trent Valley regional
1
2
7
5 + 6 HS
practical capacity for
passenger trains via
Stafford
<= 11
<= 11
spare
<= 4
0
Manchester via Stoke
2
1 + 2 HS
freight
?
3
total >
The nominal capacity is 20 trains/hour in
each direction. However because of the curve a
Stoke train requires an extra 30 seconds for the
section between Colwich Junction and Rugeley
North Junction, making the headway 3.5 minutes.
Similarly, even if a 120-km/h freight rolls off the Up
Slow at Whitehouse immediately a fast passenger
train has passed, its slower speed and slower
clearing onto the Up Slow at Colwich increases the
headway to an (optimistic) 3.6 minutes. Three
Manchester expresses and three freights in an hour
will consume 10.5 + 10.8 minutes of capacity, leaving
38.7 minutes for non-conflicting moves from/to the
Stafford direction.
4.4.5
That could in theory just accommodate
thirteen paths, but platforming at Crewe and
junction conflicts at Stafford (even after the works at
Note: in 2011 the xx.33 peak path from Euston
Norton Bridge) may prevent smooth presentation at
runs to Preston at 16:33 and Liverpool at 17:33.
three-minute intervals, while it is wise to insert at
least one gap in each hourly cycle for recovery from
disruption. This suggests [Table 4] that the workable capacity is eleven Stafford passenger paths at
most, plus the three Manchesters and three freights, or seventeen in total. At present seven of
the twelve are used in the peak. In our proposals eleven paths will be used, which may begin to
raise performance concerns, and they would become significant if the twelfth path were allocated,
especially if it is needed for a fourth freight36.
4.4.6
35
The southbound HS2 trains from Manchester pass at xx:15 and xx:45, so that the corresponding northbound
trains pass at xx:45 and xx:15 (on the sum-to-60 mirror-image rule). The classic Manchester trains are timed at
Colwich at xx:30 in both directions.
36
In our proposals the Up Liverpool is timed to pass at xx:48.5, the Crewe Trent Valley at xx:51.3 and the
Glasgow at xx:00.0. That is the only remaining gap and it could take two passenger trains only by relaxing margins
and hazarding performance, or one freight.
39
However the planned timetable demonstrates that with careful pathing Colwich could
probably accommodate all the likely passenger demands. The required frequency of classic
services is fairly well-defined and the number of High Speed services on this section of the WCML
is largely determined by the total number of HS2 paths and their distribution between routes.
With the parallel moves there appears to be capacity for 14 passenger trains/hour in each
direction, six classic and eight HS2.
4.4.7
It is improbable that significantly more than this number would be required when HS2
opens and thus improbable that any project to relieve the junction could be justified merely by the
extra passenger capacity created, especially given limitations elsewhere on the WCML. Brief
peaks in demand can be covered by such measures as transferring freight to less busy moments
and of course by taking every possible step to maximise the number of passengers per train-path.
Conceivably it may be possible to use sophisticated control methods [see ¶2.5.7] to shorten the
time between conflicting moves and thereby ease the anomaly that the bottleneck causes
underutilisation of the copious capacity on either side.
4.4.8
If this analysis is valid the question would then be whether a combination of other
benefits would justify a scheme and so afford an increment of passenger capacity, should that be
needed. There are four possible benefits.
4.4.9
First, in the longer term the desired frequency of passenger services will grow. This
would be particularly on the major provincial relations. For example, two (not particularly fast)
trains/hour between Manchester and Birmingham may not be adequate, and the obvious response
is to run fast services via Colwich, Lichfield North Junction and Birmingham Curzon Street, using
paths taken by the Birmingham HS2 trains south of Water Orton South Junction. That cannot be
done without some enhancement at Colwich (to do it properly may also require capacity projects
through the Potteries).
4.4.10
Second, space for freight would be severely restricted by superimposing the HS2 trains.
At most three paths/hour would be available, with rigidly determined times that might force
insertion of (lengthy) layovers to make them compatible with paths elsewhere. This contrasts
with at least twice as many freight paths south of Colwich (the Slow Lines have only two
passenger trains/hour) and even more north of Stafford (probably three south of Norton Bridge
and none north thereof). Any scheme would have patent benefits for freight. Furthermore, if the
Bletchley … Oxford line is reopened [see §4.9] at least some freights to Southampton would be
diverted that way to avoid congestion at Coventry and other points in the West Midlands, and
extra capacity at Colwich would be essential (these trains now only use WCML north of Stafford).
4.4.11
Third, it is not certain, even with generally enhanced standards of operation, that the
proposed timetable is sufficiently robust: it would undeniably push the layout to its limits. If that
were deemed to be the case some relief of the constraint would become critical, since without it
the capacity of HS2 could not be properly exploited.
4.4.12
Finally comes the question of what will be lost if a timetable built around parallel working
is the only option (as Table 4 makes clear it is). Without that device it would be possible to
completely recast the proposals in such a way as to achieve timings at key nodes much closer to
the ideal for a fully-integrated timetable. In turn that would reduce connectional times, with clear
benefits for interchanging passengers and possibly also more efficient use of rolling stock and train
crews. This alternative strategy could be tested using the same methodology as that used in the
current exercise and the two outcomes compared in benefit/cost terms37.
4.4.13
37
This approach would be very much in keeping with the Swiss philosophy, and it might be helpful to draw on
Swiss expertise.
40
A number of solutions are available, and it may be useful to outline them here, although
their evaluation would depend not only on the balance between the various potential benefits but
also on many factors outside the scope of the present exercise.
4.4.14
It was assumed for this project that the new grade-separated junction at Norton Bridge,
on which consultation began recently, will have been completed by about 2016. The existing
layout requires trains in both directions between the Stoke line and the Slow Lines on the west
side to cross the Fast Lines and trains from the Down Fast toward Stoke to cross the Up Fast.
The new flyover connecting the Stoke line and the Slow Lines will remove these conflicts. In
particular trains between Stoke-on-Trent and the West Midlands will be able to run through the
Stafford area entirely independently of movements between Crewe and the Trent Valley, as
demonstrated in the graph for the section. The speed restriction will be raised from 145 to 160
km/h, and it might be hoped that the so-called Slow Lines between Norton Bridge and Stafford will
be upgraded to rather more than their present 120 km/h.
4.4.15
At Colwich grade-separation for down Manchester trains would eliminate the loss of up
paths, but it would not deal with the two-track constriction or the speed restriction of 137 km/h
(85 miles/hour) through the reverse curve at Queensville on the London side of Stafford.
4.4.16
The question then becomes whether a more ambitious project would yield
disproportionally greater benefits. Network Rail has investigated and not found a business case
for a complete bypass to the north of Stafford, with shorter and longer variants. Apart from the
cost a problem with this is that either the Stafford … Colwich route would have to be retained
for Trent Valley trains stopping at Stafford or a greenfield station would have to be built on the
new alignment, with the attendant drawbacks of out-of-town sites and the loss of connectivity
arising from separation of the Birmingham and London functions.
4.4.17
An alternative proposal is to build a new two-track railway from a point north of Rugeley,
under the northern edge of Cannock Chase and south of the existing alignment and detached
south-eastern suburbs of Stafford, to join the Birmingham line in a gentle curve on the southern
approach to Stafford station. Some grade-separation would be needed to reconcile the pairing-byspeed configuration north of Stafford with the pairing-by-direction in the Trent Valley, but in all
other respects this scheme appears more straightforward and more operationally desirable than
the northern bypass.
4.4.18
4.5
Nuneaton North Chord
When upgrading of the Felixstowe … Nuneaton line is complete freights from the Haven
Ports will no longer run via North London, thereby freeing capacity south of Nuneaton.
Southbound trains on the WCML Slow Line turning east already have a conflict-free connection to
the line toward Leicester, but east > north trains have to cross three tracks of the WCML on the
flat to join the Down Slow. This represents a major impediment to its capacity, and a new singletrack curve has been authorised to connect the Leicester … Water Orton section and the WCML
north of Nuneaton. The curve will run into the Down Slow on the west of the layout and remove
the conflicts on the WCML (there remains a potential – but manageable – conflict with eastbound
services from Birmingham toward Leicester). The scheme has been approved for European Union
funding, and work will begin shortly.
4.5.1
A small number of daytime southbound freights to Southampton cross from the Up Slow
in order to reach the Coventry line. This blocks all four tracks of the WCML for several minutes,
and it is one of the arguments in favour of reopening the east … west route from Bletchley via the
Flyover to Oxford. In the proposed scheme there are windows where the manoeuvre could be
made, but the issue has not been addressed in detail because of the possible re-routeing and
doubts about the number of available freight paths through Colwich Junction.
4.5.2
41
4.6
Attleborough South Junction … Brinklow Junction
This section of 11.7 km between Nuneaton and Rugby has only three tracks – Fast and
Slow Lines southbound but a single northbound line. However, although in theory this is a
constraint, in practice the proposed spacing of the inter-city trains and of the two regional trains
serving Trent Valley stations leaves capacity for more freight paths than are likely to be required
or that can be accommodated north of Colwich Junction or south of Northampton. We estimate
that nine or even ten paths every hour could be established on the Slow Lines through the Trent
Valley (and between Crewe and Stafford), given reliable presentation at the key junctions and brisk
running, of which four northbound would be lost by this constraint, but the sections north and
south can only take three until such time as major capacity enhancements are completed. Two of
these paths would not be available in peak periods in the direction of the main flow.
4.6.1
4.7
Slow Lines between Hanslope Junction and London Euston
The day-long service on the Slow Lines comprises the Birmingham Regionals north of
Ledburn Junction, the Northampton <> Euston semi-fasts, the Tring locals and the Milton Keynes
<> Clapham Junction trains. Each component runs half-hourly, the two half-hours are identical
and the pattern would be maintained throughout the day. In the peak periods a second West
Midland service (from / to Coventry), also running Fast Line south of Ledburn, and a most-stations
local from Milton Keynes are overlaid on the standard hour.
4.7.1
A peak frequency of ten trains/hour north of Ledburn Junction and of eight between Tring
and Wembley Central does not seem like intensive use, but, as the graph illustrates, it is an
unavoidable consequence of the varied and inter-related calling patterns of the respective services.
The scheme is broadly similar to that now operated, but the reduction in the number of inter-city
services using the Fast Lines will facilitate a cleaner differentiation between Fast and Slow Line
services and a simplified pattern on the latter. In addition the through service to/from Clapham
Junction (? East Croydon) can be doubled in frequency.
4.7.2
Moreover the off-peak pattern of six trains/hour provides capacity for one 120-km/h
freight to use the Slow Lines in each half-hourly cycle, with a clear run between Northampton and
Wembley Yard. With the transfer of Haven Ports traffic to the Nuneaton line [see §4.5] this
should be adequate in the immediate future, but demand for paths to and from the Daventry
International Rail Freight Terminal [DIRFT] is expected to grow even faster than the intermodal
business generally. If that happens, or in the long run, finding a further path in each half-hour will
be difficult: a possibility in the proposed plan would be to fit one in by slightly widening the margin
between the Northampton train and the Tring starter, but this might have knock-on effects and
would certainly require firm operating discipline. Long freight loops somewhere between Leighton
Buzzard and Ledburn Junction might be a necessary concomitant.
4.7.3
4.8
Hanslope Junction
This is the junction between the Slow Lines that form the Northampton Loop and the
Fast Lines of the direct route between Rugby and Milton Keynes via Kilsby Tunnel and Weedon.
It is of vital importance in the event of disruption and when planned diversions are taking place,
but only one regular switch is planned in each hour. One of the two Trent Valley trains is routed
via Northampton and because it runs non-stop between there and Euston it needs to be pathed
4.8.1
42
Fast Line from Hanslope. This creates a potential conflict southbound with northbound
Northampton trains on the Slow Line and northbound with southbound Weedon trains. In the
proposed plan the paths are clear, and the constraint is unlikely to be serious if, when firm timings
are agreed, the number of trains is broadly as outlined here.
4.9
Milton Keynes … Bletchley
By the time HS2 opens the east-west route through Bletchley is expected to have a
developed passenger service, although its configuration remains to be settled. The most
important element will be the link with Oxford, supplemented by another with Aylesbury. To be
effective in serving the dominant urban centre in the area, which will also become a major
interchange with frequent trains from/to the north, some at least of the east <> west trains must
run from/to Milton Keynes – a shuttle between there and the proposed platforms on the flyover
at Bletchley would be much less convenient. The consortium championing the project envisages
as its preferred scheme three services in each hourly cycle: Milton Keynes <> Oxford, Milton
Keynes <> Aylesbury and Bedford <> Oxford38.
4.9.1
There is capacity on the Slow Lines to accommodate the first two, and they are duly
included in the graphs leaving Milton Keynes at xx:18.5 and xx:48.5 (Oxford passengers would
have a second service by changing at Bletchley between WCML trains and the Bedford train). This
takes into account the requirement for the northbound service to cross the Up Slow at Denbigh
Hall South Junction to reach the Down Slow. Independence from this constraint could only be
achieved by building a fifth line between Milton Keynes and Denbigh Hall. Turnrounds at Milton
Keynes would be 7 minutes, which ought to be adequate, but the ability of the station layout to
handle these trains as well as the Clapham Junction trains (which happen to have a long layover)
has not been investigated.
4.9.2
Two other paths are identified on the graph (at xx.05.4 and xx:35.4 from Milton Keynes).
The latter would be in contention with the third freight in each hour, which is difficult to path
south of Milton Keynes and thus logically forms the proposed Crewe > Bletchley Flyover >
Oxford > Southampton routeing39. This matters because scope for additional east <> west paths
would be limited in the event of it attracting more business than expected. For example, if the
route is eventually extended eastward it may be important to include a Cambridge <> Milton
Keynes service, even though that would mean a reversal on the flyover. It would certainly have to
be accepted that the east <> west paths would be wholly determined by the overall WCML
construct, with the consequence that running the Aylesbury train as a through service to/from
London Marylebone affects the Chiltern timetable while running the Oxford to/from Reading (as
the consortium envisage) may not mesh easily with the Great Western timetable.
4.9.3
38
See: www.eastwestrail.org.uk/reports/documents/EWRGRIP4BusinessCaseNonTechnicalSummaryJuly2010.pdf.
39
A further southbound freight path might be feasible if there were no northbound equivalent (routeing
southbound trains via the Bletchley Flyover avoids them crossing the layout at Nuneaton to reach the Coventry
route, whereas northbound trains from Coventry are on the correct side for gaining the Down Slow).
43
4.10
Ledburn Junction
In the proposed timetable this is the principal location at which trains switch between the
Fast and Slow Lines. It is situated between Leighton Buzzard and Cheddington. No planned use is
made of the crossovers at Bletchley or at Bourne End Junction (between Berkhamsted and Hemel
Hempstead). The trains switching are the half-hourly Birmingham <> London Regionals via
Northampton and the similar service that effectively creates a 15-minute frequency in the up
morning and down evening peaks. The former, having called at Leighton Buzzard on the Slow run
Fast Line between Ledburn and Euston, with a stop at Watford Junction; the latter omit the
Watford stop.
4.10.1
Conflicts potentially occur when up trains cross the Down Slow and when down trains
cross the Up Fast. On the draft timings serendipity (we confess) has delivered clean paths in the
standard hour and parallel working (up and down crossing movements coinciding) in the peak
period. This would not necessarily be so
easy when definitive timings come to be
established, especially if significant pathing
Table 5
allowances or any that might compromise
Morning peak hour at Watford Junction
the mirror-image are to be avoided, but it
does suggest that problems are unlikely to
Up Fast
Up Slow
be insuperable. What might be found,
xx:
xx:
however, is that the present layout
inhibits use of the so-far unallocated
GLGW > LNDN
00.4
capacity on the Fast Line, and in that
CVTY > LNDN peak extra
05.7
event consideration may need to be given
NPTN > LNDN
08.1 – 09.1
to the case for building a grade-separated
BRMM > LNDN
08.5 – 09.9
junction here.
4.10.2
Class 4 freight [not in peak]
LCFD > LNDN peak extra
11.9
16.9
MNKS > LNDN peak extra
15.5 – 16.5
MNKS > CLPMJ
19.1 – 20.1
BRMM > LNDN regional
19.7 – 20.5
PSTN > LNDN
23.5 – 24.9
CREW > NPTN > LNDN
27.7
TRNG > LNDN
MNCR > LNDN
CVTY > LNDN peak extra
28.3 – 29.3
31.5 – 32.9
35.7
NPTN > LNDN
BRMM > LNDN
38.1 – 39.1
38.5 – 39.9
Class 4 freight [not in peak]
41.9
MNCR > TV > LNDN
44.3
LCFD > LNDN peak extra
47.1
MNKS > LNDN peak extra
45.5 – 46.5
MNKS > CLPMJ
49.1 – 50.1
BRMM > LNDN regional
49.7 – 50.5
LVPL > LNDN
53.5 – 54.9
TRNG > LNDN
58.3 – 59.3
4.11
Tring
As planned the suburban service
that starts and terminates here would
have a turnround of 15.8 minutes. In
refining the timetable it would be
desirable to shorten that a little, but
availability of the turn-back platform
means that a longish layover is not an
issue.
4.11.1
4.12
Watford Junction
Ten trains/hour are scheduled to
run Fast Line at Watford Junction, of
which seven stop. Four additional trains
run in a peak hour, none of them stopping
[Table 5]. This is a very different
operation from that required by the
current timetable and includes some close
sequences. They are within the capability
of the installed signalling but would need
testing for robustness. Improved
operational rigour ought to make the
4.12.1
44
scheme feasible, but some tweaking may be necessary (notably the sequence from xx:44.3 to
xx:54.9). The Up Slow is less intensively used in terms of the number of trains and platform
occupation, but this reflects differential speeds, as shown in the train-graphs.
4.13
Willesden Junction
It has been suggested that reinstating the Slow Line platforms here would enhance
connectivity, given the frequent services now offered by the London Overground network on the
North and West London lines. In demand terms this would need investigation to balance the
benefits for interchanging passengers against the disbenefits of a slightly slower journey for Euston
passengers on the trains selected to call. If both the Northampton <> London outer-suburbans
and the Tring <> London locals called the frequency would be four/hour, with fairly even spacing.
Anything less would neither be attractive nor likely to justify the construction cost. Pathing would
not appear to present any difficulty (although there could be a need for an extra set).
4.13.1
4.14
London Euston
Platforming and the working of the throat have not been checked in detail, but significant
problems are unlikely with a timetable that is not materially different at the terminus itself from
that now operated. As Table 6 shows, the number of departures during the evening peak would
remain the same at fourteen, but there would be three fewer during off-peak hours. With the
additional advantage of all trains running at 200 km/h this reduction is used to greatly increase the
number of calls at Watford Junction, and it is accepted that the peak arrangement, with as many
trains as now, therefore needs both detail adjustments and performance testing.
4.14.1
It is assumed that the rebuilding of the existing station envisaged by HS2 Ltd will retain
the flexible track layout between Camden Junction and the terminus and that the high-speed
platforms will be designed to match the maximum expected frequency on HS2. If the Watford
DC service continues to run into Euston paths are available for the short section shared with the
Slow Lines, probably with sufficient capacity to allow for four rather than three trains/hour.
4.14.2
The possibility has been raised in the WCML RUS of building a connection between the
WCML Slow Lines and the Crossrail route where the two are in close proximity near Willesden
Junction and Old Oak Common. This would link the WCML outer-suburban services with some
of the Crossrail services that are presently planned to terminate at Paddington in the west,
thereby greatly enhancing their convenience and connectivity across London and greatly reducing
the volume of interchange at Euston which otherwise, with the arrival of HS2, may stress both the
London Underground facilities and the bus network. The scheme would be unlikely to release any
capacity on the WCML other than through easing the working of Euston itself, and there is one
possible issue regarding rolling stock: the Crossrail trains could readily work the proposed
Northampton and Tring services (four/hour off-peak and six in the peak), but it is not clear
whether they could work the Regional trains, which need to be capable of 200 km/h40.
4.14.3
40
One other cautionary note needs making. If the link were introduced then timetabling of WCML would
become interwoven with timetabling of the Great Eastern and Great Western Main Lines and of the South Eastern
division of the Southern, in just the same way that Thameslink connects the East Coast and the Central division of
the Southern and hence connects what happens at Aberdeen and Brighton. It is inconceivable that good timetables
could be devised on these routes by operating companies acting in their own local interests. National strategies
and nationally-coordinated planning would be essential. It is not obvious that this is yet appreciated.
45
Table 6
Fast Line departure sequence from London Euston, current and proposed
2010/11 timetable
dep destination
proposed 2026 timetable
notes
dep
destination
notes
EMU; non-stop to MNKS
00
Manchester
02.8
Manchester (TV)
03
Birmingham
05.8
Birmingham
07
Liverpool
10
Chester
stops at MNKS
10.0
Coventry
13
Northampton
160 km/h
12.8
Manchester
17
[blocked]
17.8
Crewe (TV)
20
Manchester
stops at MNKS
20.8
Preston
23
Wolverhampton
stops at WTFDJ
25.2
Birmingham via NPTN
EMU
27
[blocked]
29.8
Lichfield
peak; non-stop to RGBY
30
Glasgow
33
LNCR / PSTN / LVPL some gaps
37
--
35.8
Birmingham
40
Manchester
40.0
Coventry
EMU; peak
43
Birmingham
stops at MNKS
46
Crewe (TV)
160 km/h
46.7
Glasgow
non-stop to MNKS
50
[blocked]
50.8
Liverpool
53
--
55.2
Birmingham via NPTN
EMU
57
Glasgow
59.8
Lichfield
peak, non-stop to RGBY
00
Manchester
peak
only xx:23 and xx:46 stop at WTFDJ
4.15
EMU; peak; n-s to LBZD
EMU; non-stop to NPTN
all trains stop at WTFDJ unless otherwise indicated
Interchanges and optimised timings at nodes
The decision to build the timetable around crossing moves at Colwich Junction has been
explained above [¶2.4.12, ¶3.1.7, ¶4.4.4]. This section summarises the consequences, first in
respect of interchange opportunities at each station and then by analysing an example of seeking
optimal interchange efficiency in various scenarios.
4.15.1
Table 7 shows for each station between Glasgow Central and Watford Junction inclusive
the WCML services that it is proposed will call and the hypothetical times of connecting services
(with, of course, an assumption of rigorous mirror-image timing). From this the interchange
margin is calculated. The times of the connecting services have not been checked in terms of
paths or platform capacity and are only intended to give a broad picture based on assumptions
about appropriate frequencies. Some problems would certainly arise in detailed planning and
careful appraisal would be needed in each case, especially if some feedback to the WCML plan
4.15.2
46
were indicated. It also has to be stressed that these results presuppose integrated planning of the
timetable at the network level: they would only allow sub-network interests to fix timings outwith
the plan if the case for doing so is exceedingly strong.
That said, however, some interesting features emerge. Although the interchanges listed
are of widely-varying importance and are not strictly comparable it is encouraging that about half
involve a wait-time of 10 minutes or less. Some connections happen to have come out well:
4.15.3
 with buses at Lockerbie;
 between the Cumbrian Coast Line and the Glasgow <> London HS2 train;
 for north and south movements at Oxenholme to/from the Sedbergh <> Kendal buses
and the Windermere branch (although the implied turnround at Windermere is tight);
 at Preston between Scotland and London services, including HS2 trains, and the East
Lancashire and Blackpool North lines (a good fit with the Leeds <> Blackpool service
could probably be made);
 at Warrington Bank Quay between Scotland and the Chester service;
 between Scotland and Stoke-on-Trent at Crewe;
 at all three Trent Valley stations with the east <> west routes;
 with half- or quarter-hourly buses at Rugby and the principal stations toward London –
with some exceptions; and
 with the St Albans branch and the Metropolitan extension to Watford Junction.
Note again that these results do not take into account the turnrounds of a connecting
service where the station is one of its termini: for example, whereas 16 minutes might be
perfectly acceptable for a bus at Lockerbie, 50 minutes might well not be for Newcastle
upon Tyne or Cumbrian Coast trains at Carlisle. This is a function of the fact that the times
of calls at Lockerbie fall close to the hour while those at Carlisle do not.
Some particularly poor interchanges are highlighted in red in the Table. Two explanations
can be noted. At Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster it is assumed that the connecting
services run hourly, and if trains are not timed close to xx:00 or xx:30 waits will tend to be
lengthy. The problems at Preston, Crewe and Leighton Buzzard arise from trying to fit half-hourly
connecting services around a plethora of trains, where inevitably some links lose out.
4.15.4
Overall, though, it could be argued that this is not a bad result, and it is likely that the
general quality of planned connections will improve by virtue of a firm commitment to mirrorimage timetabling and standard-hour working on WCML itself, on the secondary lines and
branches and, one hopes, on bus routes with significant potential for interconnecting with rail. It
would be better still if printed and electronic presentation of information took linked services and
interchange seriously (they often fail to do so now) and if real-time management paid more
attention to making sure that passengers are properly helped through the interchange process.
4.15.5
We turn now to an example of how interchange efficiency – as measured by wait times –
can be improved by focussing on the departure time and running times of key trains. Table 8 is a
snapshot of a spreadsheet. The chosen train is the proposed Glasgow Central > London Euston
service via WCML (the data needs only to be appraised for one direction), since this has a number
of important interchanges with other services. The first three numeric columns list the SRTs and
dwells for three cases, namely the closest equivalent train in the 2010/11 timetable, the schedule
proposed in this study and a timetable focussed on accelerations. Any one of these sets of times
can be transferred to the ‘selected timings’ column, from which the next column calculates the
4.15.6
47
cumulative times and expresses them in minutes-past form for each call, with the start from
Glasgow (the yellow cell) being variable from xx:00.0 to xx:59.9.
Table 7
48
The ‘deviation from ideal’ column then calculates the difference between each departure
time and whichever of xx:01 or xx:31 it is closest to. These are the values (matched with arrivals
at xx:59 and xx:29) which afford the best chance of minimising both waiting time and the dwells or
turnrounds of connecting services. The exercise could have used only symmetry around the hour,
but because many associated services run half-hourly it was felt appropriate to allow for two
4.15.7
49
symmetry options41. These deviations are next weighted by a value representing very roughly the
relative importance of the nine locations and then totalled (in the blue cell). The last four columns
contain the weighted total scores for sample departure times from Glasgow for each of the three
cases42. Finally these are displayed in graphic form.
Table 8
41
This means that the results for minutes 30.0 to 59.9 replicate those for 00.0 to 29.9.
42
As well as manually varying the Glasgow departure a planner can use the Excel Solver tool in the spreadsheet
to find the time that minimises the deviation (although for unidentified reasons it does not always work).
50
It can be seen that for the 2010/11 timetable (the blue line) the deviation fluctuates
relatively little as the departure time is changed. It is unfortunate that the departure times that
are least efficient, as measured by the weighted length of waits for connections, are xx:10 and
xx:40, the latter of which is the prevailing standard-hour time from Glasgow. In the post-HS2
scheme (the crimson line) the score fluctuates more43
but does show some times that would increase
efficiency: optimal departures at xx:05.3 (or 35.3)
Table 9
reduce the score to 278.5 compared with a best of
Accelerated Glasgow >
335.0 for the current timetable. However the
London schedule
departure time that resulted from the Colwich
decisions is xx:44.7, not the least efficient but only
marginally superior to 2010/11.
deviation
4.15.8
depart
arrive
schedule
GLGWC
d
06:01.0
MTWL
a
06:14.4
d
06:15.8
a
06:59.0
d
07:01.0
a
07:11.9
d
07:13.3
a
07:32.2
d
07:33.6
a
07:44.3
d
07:45.7
a
07:59.0
d
08:01.0
a
08:28.5
d
08:31.5
station
CRLL
PNRH
OXNM
LNCR
PSTN
CREW
from
ideal
0.0
14.8
0.0
12.3
2.6
14.7
0.0
0.5
The final column is distinct from the other
two. Here the intermediate running times have been
reduced specifically to optimise connections at the key
nodes. The train would leave Glasgow at xx:01 [Table
9], and its calls at Carlisle, Preston, Crewe and Milton
Keynes would all be at the xx:00 or xx:30 symmetrymoments. By chance the call at Oxenholme is also
near-optimal (and could be made optimal by
concentrating the acceleration north thereof) and that
at Motherwell would work efficiently relative to local
services running every 15 minutes. Penrith and
Lancaster would involve long layovers for hourly
connecting services (for example, arrive Lancaster
07:38, depart 08:22). Despite that, the total weighted
deviation is dramatically reduced to less than half that in
the 2026 proposal – but note that this depends on
retaining the xx:01 (or :31) departure, for otherwise the
penalty rises to very high values (as shown by the shape
and range of the green line).
4.15.9
Whether the necessary time-savings could be
made
is
a
matter for conjecture here – they amount to
MNKS
a
09:29.3
about 20 minutes (17%) between Motherwell and
d
09:30.7
0.3
Preston and about 8 minutes (8%) between Preston and
LNDNEU
a
10:01.0
Milton Keynes. So too is whether the benefits in terms
of shorter waits, revenue from journeys attracted by
faster and better-planned times and possible improvements in utilisation of resources would justify
the cost of whatever infrastructure works would yield the time-savings. But the point is to
illustrate a mode of thinking in which coordinated timetabling at major nodes is paramount – and
influences enhancement priorities. It is the model used by SBB since the early 1990s and now
being perpetuated into further phases.
4.15.10
This exercise used a simple Excel spreadsheet. It would be possible (at the expense of
painstaking hard-wiring of data and equations) to construct more elaborate spreadsheets involving
further trains and (necessarily) the various dependencies between them, as was done tentatively
for the preliminary analysis in this exercise [¶2.4.11]. Whether that would be worthwhile would
4.15.11
43
They may not be strictly comparable because the last two stations are different.
51
depend on whether Government and the rail industry choose to perceive timetable-planning in
this manner and perhaps on whether sufficient data is available to generate meaningful weights for
the deviations – though this could be left to judgment. In theory the ideas could be extended to
sophisticated modelling of the national network with mathematical optimisation techniques.
4.16
Rolling-stock diagrams and turnrounds
It was not part of the remit to assess the fleet requirements for the proposed timetable,
and in any case that task is a long way off and subject to many matters that will need to be
resolved. On the other hand a criticism sometimes made of the integrated approach to
timetabling, and particularly of systematic adherence to the mirror-image rule, is that utilisation of
rolling stock is subservient to the design of paths and may therefore be inefficient compared with
plans designed around intensive use of trains44. On the other hand that may lead to unattractive
features in timetables that discourage journeys and lose potential revenue.
4.16.1
In order to illustrate the issues Table 10 sets out the implications of the proposed
timetable for stock diagrams by highlighting how turnrounds might work. It contains a number of
uncertainties but does give a useful overview. It is clear that approximately six in ten turnrounds
at other than London Euston would be acceptable in terms of time for train-servicing and
reasonable performance margins45, and another two in ten could probably work or are acceptably
longer than the minimum (which of course even stock-based timetabling cannot always achieve).
At Euston all the turnrounds would be acceptable provided that the number of types of train is
firmly limited to enable interworking between routes, that that is not inhibited to any great degree
by varying operational requirements and that it is not complicated by dividing up services between
different operating companies with self-contained fleets.
4.16.2
This would seem to vindicate the argument that the difference between the two
approaches may not be substantial, but it would be valuable if a proper study of the costs and
benefits of the two practices could be undertaken.
4.16.3
44
Priority pathing and tight diagramming for a dominant block of services can impose sub-optimal paths and
poor diagrams on secondary services. London Midland’s Crewe <> Stoke <> Northampton <> London service
shows every trait of having been pathed as an afterthought: the sets and crews stand idle at Crewe for 55 minutes.
45
Virgin and Network Rail have agreed turnrounds for long-distance trains of only 30 minutes, some 10-15
minutes or so less than traditional allowances, and remarkably short turnrounds in response to late running have
been observed, albeit perhaps at some cost in the presentation of the train: for example 8½ minutes at Euston
from incoming Manchester to outgoing (heavily-loaded) Birmingham and about the same at Manchester Piccadilly.
52
Table 10
Overview of stock-diagrams and turnrounds
category
of train
turnround
station
arrive
depart
**
Edinburgh <> Manchester
IC
EDNBWV
19.3
40.7
//
Edinburgh <> London
HS
00.4
59.6
xx
Glasgow <> Manchester
IC
02.4
57.6
xx
Glasgow <> London
IC
15.3
44.7
//
Glasgow <> London
HS
24.1
35.9
xx
Preston <> London
IC
PSTN
47.8
12.2
//
if <> BKPL then // (+1 set)
Manchester <> Birmingham
IC
MNCRPY
54.2
05.8
xx
if interworked with ££ then //
Manchester <> Birmingham
RGNL
30.9
29.1
xx
Manchester <> TV <> London
RGNL
46.9
13.1
//
Manchester <> London
IC
22.3
37.7
x
Manchester <> Stoke <> London
HS
04.8
25.2
//
34.8
55.2
//
44.0
16.0
//
01.3
28.7
//
?RGNL
31.3
58.7
//
Liverpool <> London
IC
10.7
49.3
/
Liverpool <> Warrington <> London
HS
46.7
13.3
//
Liverpool <> Runcorn <> London
HS
05.4
54.6
xx
32.0
28.0
xx
56.0
04.0
xx
55.9
04.1
xx
$
$
service
Manchester <> Wilmslow <> London
HS
Liverpool <> Birmingham
IC
GLGWC
LVPLLS
££
Crewe <> London
RGNL
Crewe <> London
HS
Glasgow <> Birmingham
IC
Manchester <> Birmingham
IC
25.9
34.1
xx
Manchester <> Birmingham
RGNL
59.1
00.9
xx
IC
20.2
39.8
//
? RGNL
50.2
09.8
//
LCL
23.4
36.6
//
) if not running
53.4
06.6
//
) north of BRMMNS
00.5
29.5
//
$
30.5
59.5
//
$
27.5
02.5
/
$
57.5
32.5
/
$
04.7
25.3
//
19.7
40.3
//
34.7
55.3
//
49.7
10.3
//
43.5
16.5
/
) if not running
13.5
46.5
/
) north of BRMMNS
Liverpool <> Birmingham
Birmingham <> Coventry
Birmingham <> Coventry (<> Oxford)
Birmingham <> London
Birmingham <> London
Birmingham <> London
IC
IC
HS
RGNL
CREW
notes
BRMMNS
if <> CHTR then // (+ 0 set)
53
Birmingham <> Coventry
LCL
17.0
43.0
x
) but may run every 15 min.,
47.0
13.0
x
) in which case //
18.2
41.8
//
48.2
11.8
//
14.4
45.6
/
44.4
15.6
/
22.1
37.9
//
52.1
07.9
//
09.2
50.8
/
LVPL / LVPL
13.3
46.7
/
GLGW / GLGW
47.2
12.8
//
MNCR / MNCR
IC /
04.8
25.2
//
BRMM / BRMM
RGNL
24.2
35.8
xx
BRMM / BRMM
34.8
55.2
//
BRMM / BRMM
39.2
02.8
//
PSTN / MNCR
42.2
05.8
//
CREW / BRMM
54.2
17.8
//
BRMM / CREW
57.2
20.8
//
MNCR / PSTN
03.0
27.0
//
LVPL (W) / LVPL ®
06.8
34.5
//
MNCR (S) / GLGW
10.5
38.2
//
DRBY / CREW
18.0
42.0
//
DRBY / DRBY
21.8
49.5
//
CREW / DRBY
25.5
53.2
//
GLGW / MNCR (S)
33.0
57.0
//
LVPL ® / LVPL (W)
36.8
04.5
//
MNCR (S) / MNCR (W)
40.5
08.2
//
DRBY / EDNB
48.0
12.0
//
DRBY / DRBY
51.8
19.5
//
EDNB / DRBY
55.5
23.2
//
MNCR (W) / MNCR (S)
HS Birmingham services
14..3
30.7
//
diagrammed for captive sets
29.3
45.7
//
44.3
00.7
//
59.3
15.7
//
22
34.7
//
TRNG / NPTN
25.3
37.7
//
NPTN / TRNG
52.3
04.7
//
TRNG / NPTN
55.3
07.7
//
NPTN / TRNG
Northampton <> London
LCL
Milton Keynes <> Clapham Junction
Tring <> London
LCL
LCL
IC trains worked by Class 390 sets
IC or RGNL trains worked by ‘IEP’
sets
all HS services diagrammed
IC
HS
CVTY
NPTN
MNKS
TRNG
LNDNEU
LNDNHS
for classic-compatible sets
suburban trains
LCL
LNDNEU
** key
//
ideal turnround
/
unnecessarily long
x
too short but ? workable
xx
too short or much too long
$ but not normally terminating
54
4.17
Freight
The West Coast Main Line carries a substantial proportion of the freight that is moved by
rail. The business is expected to grow, and a potential benefit of HS2 will be the capacity freed up
for additional freight paths. Appropriate provision must be made within the proposed timetable.
4.17.1
An estimate of the number of established paths in the current timetable is given in Table
11. On most sections freight trains run less than once an hour on average through the day, and
even the busiest section carries fewer than two. However Network Rail, on the basis of the
freight industry’s forecasts, expects this to increase substantially, notably with continuing
expansion of deep-sea container traffic and a dramatic increase in rail’s market-share of domestic
traffic in the form of intermodal boxes. The consequences are expressed in the two right-hand
columns of the timetable. We note that Network Rail has relied on evidence produced by
interested parties that is critically dependent on assumptions about the nature and scale of social
and economic trends46 – and that if this growth triggers the need for major expansions of capacity
it will not necessarily be economic for the public sector to fund them for trains that are only
required to cover their marginal costs.
4.17.2
Nevertheless it was expedient, given the possible call for up to three freights/hour on
certain sections, to identify what could be achieved without major works, once the large
passenger flows have been transferred to HS2. We assume that the practice of identifying one or
more freight paths in each standard hour (practised in Switzerland and a keystone of the recast
French national timetable due to be introduced in December 2011) will have been adopted in
Britain and that freight operators will accept the discipline this imposes when they bid for paths.
4.17.3
The analysis has been carried out with data for Class 4 trains running at 120 km/h, with
the assumption that they will have the appropriate power to run at that speed wherever it is
permitted (schedules appear at present to be somewhat slack). If Class 6 trains limited to 97 km/h
are still required the number of paths may be reduced or transits will be lengthened by the need
to loop trains for overtaking. We have also not made provision for mail services operated by 160
km/h Class 325 units or the occasional outings of Network Rail’s Measurement Train on the
grounds that these can mostly use inter-peak paths otherwise allocated to the extra peak services.
4.17.4
Between Crewe Basford Hall Junction and Denbigh Hall South Junction three reasonably
satisfactory paths have been identified: little time is added for pathing margins and brief stands at
Northampton are probably required for inspection purposes anyway. As noted earlier [§4.9] only
two paths are feasible south of Denbigh Hall if the outer-suburban service pattern is to be
developed effectively, but this may chime with the opening of the route to/from Oxford via the
Bletchley Flyover. This capacity should suffice, even taking into account a closed period of a few
hours during each directional peak. Running times are 164 minutes from Basford Hall Junction to
passing Wembley Central (an average speed of 88 km/h or 55 miles/h). While this appears to be
equal to the best timings now offered and greatly superior to the norm both it and the number of
paths would be invalidated if the high operating standard it assumes proved difficult to achieve.
4.17.5
46
It is acknowledged that NR is exploring innovative forecasting methods based on scenarios that take into
account a wide range of significant global and social trends, but it is not clear from applications such as the WCML
RUS work how central a role this is taking and whether other analyses are entirely consistent with its implications.
55
Table 11
Daytime freight paths in 2011 and forecast demand
location
2011
2011
southbound
northbound
trains/hour
in each
direction if
demand
doubles
trains/hour
in each
direction –
2030
forecast
class 4
class 6
class 4
class 6
Law Junction
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.4
2
2
Abington
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
2
2
Carlisle
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.5
3
2
Carnforth
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
2
2
Warrington Bank Quay
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
2
2–3
Acton Bridge
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
2
3
Stafford
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
3
3–2
Tamworth
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.1
2
2
Nuneaton
0.7
0.1
0.8
0.1
2
2–3
Rugby
1.0
0.1
1.2
0.1
3
3
Watford Junction
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.2
3
3
Sources
The 2011 data was taken from the records at www.freightmaster.net, a subscription service whose assistance is
gratefully acknowledged. This summarises official information from Working Timetables and adds material from
observations. It is believed to give a reliable picture of actual movements. The per-hour figures were derived
by counting all trains booked to pass each point between 06:00 and 20:00, Monday to Friday, weighting by the
number of days the train runs and dividing by 14 (hours). ‘If required’ (‘Q’) paths were assumed to be used on
half the booked occasions.
The column re-expressing the 2011 data on a simple assumption of a twofold increase was guided by a number
of forecasts published by Network Rail. It presents of course only a broad-brush picture because, as well as
great uncertainty about total volumes, several strategic re-routeing plans are being developed.
The final column was taken from the map in the WCML RUS [p.80 (see footnote 2)]. The original data is
expressed in terms of paths/day. We have translated this into approximate paths/daytime hour, assuming that
half the paths will be required in the 14 hours between 06:00 and 20:00, the period when they are most in
contention with the demand for passenger paths. This is the more helpful figure when considering how to plan
capacity on congested sections. Where two figures are shown it represents a change in the expected frequency
of services either side of that junction.
Notes
The following movements are omitted: the Class 1 mail trains using Class 325 EMUs between Shieldmuir
(Glasgow) or Warrington and Willesden (currently several times a day), the activities of the Network Rail
Measurement Train and temporary paths for moving new rolling stock.
The exceptional number of paths at Carlisle is explained by movements through the station from and two
routes other than the WCML; a scheme exists for a revised layout to ease the problems caused.
56
North of Crewe the circumstances are more difficult. Unlike the southern section most
of the route is only double-track. Loops are poorly located, are not designed for brisk entry and
exit and are mostly too short for the economical length of trains (the more boxes per train the
fewer paths are needed). And of course there are two major summits – Beattock and Shap – to
be surmounted by Anglo-Scottish freights, with the complication that in the fragmented state of
the railway the capacity-efficient solution of electric haulage cannot be imposed on freight
operators whose private interests may not align with those of the whole railway.
4.17.6
In these circumstances, and with even less data about achievable SRTs, we have not been
able to path any Class 4 freights with confidence north of Crewe. The passenger paths are
derived from the market specifications, appropriate spacing of trains and the importance of
connections. That does not leave wide-open windows for freight paths, and we doubt whether it
should. Nonetheless we believe that during the day two paths/hour could be established, albeit
with longer stands in loops than are desirable and as a result poorer transit times than with the
better schedules today.
4.17.7
The clear message is that this necessitates a holistic approach in which (on a clean sheet
and with reliable data) the passenger and freight requirements are analysed in detailed timetables
for a range of possible configurations of well-designed loops and goods lines. Anything less risks
mistakes in ad hoc solutions and serious inadequacies when rising demand and extra services,
including the HS2 trains, put real pressure on the network.
4.17.8
4.18
Improving the Infrastructure
Reference has been made in various contexts to possible enhancements of the WCML
infrastructure. Table 12 lists these and others, not as a definitive programme but to indicate what
may be needed to ensure that capacity is available for additional services and to make possible
acceleration of trains on the classic network, both to match what HS2 will deliver and to enable
the railway to move to fully-integrated timetabling.
4.18.1
57
Table 12
Examples of desirable incremental improvements to infrastructure
section or location
project
Glasgow Central … Crewe
raise lower speed restriction toward or to same as higher restriction at
numerous locations where differential restrictions now apply
Shieldmuir … Carluke
raise speed restrictions, including 60 miles/h restriction at Garriongill
Junction
Carluke
develop as an interchange with provision for (un)coupling train-sets
Carlisle station area
raise 20 miles/h restriction for trains not stopping
Penrith
raise 75 miles/h restriction
south of Lancaster station
raise 75 miles/h restriction
Preston station
improve platforms 5+6 and 3+4 to enhance interchange between trains
Wigan
raise 80 miles/h restriction
Winwick Junction
consider grade-separation
Weaver Junction … Winsford South
Junction
quadruple to give continuous 4-track layout to south of Stafford (if not
feasible reduce headway from 4 minutes to 3
(a loop has recently been added at Hartford)
Winsford South Junction … Crewe
raise Slow Line speed from 75 to 125 miles/h
Crewe station
improve platforms 1+5 and 6+11 to enhance interchanging between
trains; consider new platforms (and raise speeds) on the Manchester
Independent Lines for the Manchester <> South Wales service
Macclesfield area
raise restrictions, especially the 45 and 60 miles/h limits northbound
Norton Bridge … Stafford
upgrade Slow Lines from 120 km/h to at least 177 km/h
Stafford No. 4 box
remove the 25/30 miles/h restriction
Stafford … Rugeley North Junction
find a 4-track solution with fewer conflicts
Wolverhampton … Birmingham
(Coseley … Soho South Junction)
raise the low linespeed (60 / 65 / 75 miles/hour)
Birmingham … Coventry (Grand
Junction … Canley)
raise the 100 / 110 miles/h linespeed
Atherstone
remove the short section restricted to 100 miles/h in a long 125 miles/h
stretch – and consider relocating the station further south to be more
central to the town
Hanslope Junction to London Euston reduce headway on Slow Lines from 4 minutes to 3
Ledburn Junction
review the need for grade-separation as a function of various timetable
scenarios
58
Appendix A :
the fundamentals of an integrated regular-interval timetable
An integrated timetable depends on the application of six fundamental principles.
 The most important nodes of the network for interchange must be identified.
 All services should have the same symmetry, ie. timings in the two directions should be
a mirror-image of each other balanced around the ‘zero minute’.
 Services should arrive at the principal nodes just before the hour (and half-hour), in a
sequence from the least to the most significant, and depart in the reverse sequence.
 Timetables should be consistent throughout the day and every day.
 Investment should be directed at bringing key nodes into the xx.00 and xx.30 scheme
through inter-node running times of about 28 or 58 minutes and 60 / 30 / 15 / 7½
minute intervals. Note that running times should be no faster than this if the aim is
maximal connectivity.
 Perfection cannot be achieved in a real network. The task of timetablers and
engineers is to devise (and improve on) the best compromise, often in the face of
multiple constraints.
These principles are illustrated in the two figures.
Figure 1 : the ideal pattern at a key node
Figure 2 : the consequences of disregarding the mirror-image principle
principal service
02
58
56
35
04
27
36
41
43
38
secondary
service
04
56
54
58
06
local
service,
or bus
25
02
Interchange times for
every combination are
brief and standardised.
The extended dwells of
the secondary and local
services are justified by
connectivity benefits.
33
NB :
NB :
58 + 02 = 60
27 + 35 = 62
33 + 29 = 62
38 + 41 = 79
36 + 43 = 79
56 + 04 = 60
54 + 06 = 60
29
Because services are on
different ‘symmetries’
(62,79) the ‘south’ to
‘east’ connection is a
perfect 8 minutes
whereas ‘east’ to ‘south’
is 51 minutes. Similarly,
59 ‘west’ to ‘north’, 16
‘north’ to ‘west’.
Adherence to ‘zerominute’ symmetry creates
high-connectivity
networks.
59