-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts?
- Thread starter tbtc
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
To take continental sized trains.
It doesn't need to be to continental gauge, but again (like the speed question) what do you gain by doing so at what cost?
The to you gain is being able to buy "off the peg" high speed trains with the option for a lot more capacity or at the very least a lot more comfort of there's more extra capacity.
What does it cost you? Not a lot more.
The big complaint about XC is that their trains didn't allow for extra capacity and you just need to look at the multiple threads there are about how terrible the Voyagers are (most of which boil down to them being too busy).
We could build HS2 on the cheap but then, how many people look to buy a car and think car a costs £10,000 but car b costs £12,000 and comes with air conditioning, cruise control, DAB radio, 0-60 in a few seconds faster at just under 10 seconds and slightly lower milage (I.e. should last longer) and think I don't "need" those things so I'll do without? I would suggest there there would be some, but then there would be a load of people who will think, well I'm getting something much better for not much more and so I'll opt for the more expensive one. That is kind of the decision that the government is making, it is worth paying the small amount more in percentage terms to get something that goes faster and has higher capacity than the basic version.
Of course the other thing is that by making it faster will mean that it is more attractive to people who would normally use an alternative mode of travel. That will mean that more people will use it and so spread the cost over more people.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
HS2 tunnels for the most part do actually need to be wide enough for continental trains. High speed trains running through tunnels create a pressure wave ahead of them which gets worse with a smaller diameter, or a larger train cross-section. HS2 trains will get up to 205km/h between Euston and Old Oak Common and at that speed, an approximate 7m tunnel diameter is required. Tunnel diameters increase accordingly with higher and higher speeds. The difference in cross-sectional area between domestic and continental train standards is not enough to make any noticeable difference in minimum tunnel cost and complexity, especially when there would be the same requirements for emergency and maintenance walkways.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,339
You can get away with narrower tunnels for a certain speed - but it requires things like Japanese style aerodynamic noses.
And/or specially shaped tunnel portals to avoid high pressure pulses (and sonic booms).
The 'Continental' size train is supposed to have a capacity up to 550 seats.
But the classic compatible train is supposed to have a capacity up to 550 seats.
So where's the extra capacity?
Are HS2 going to buy off the peg trains?
How much is "Not a lot more"?
If the difference in cross-sectional area between domestic and continental train standards is not much, there can't be much difference in capacity.
Different HS2 tunnels have different diameters. If "there's not much difference in cost" / "TBM tunnels are cheap and easy", why aren't all the tunnels built to the largest size?
Where would be the sense in accelerating up to 205 km/h inbetween station calls just 5 miles apart, or whatever it is?
This is why HS2 is so important. People will be able to get from their home (nowhere near a station, let alone a mainline station) to major railheads. Local journeys will be even less important than now -- nobody will take the train from nantwich to crewe when you could jump in a driverless taxi for the same price.
However driverless cars are not going to solve the problem of travelling 60 miles in half an hour, and that's where lines like HS2 will.
For city commuting, I wonder whether replacing short-distance railway lines with auto-driving coaches will catch on. Increase in capacity (600-1200 seats per minute), increase in flexibility (including non-stop services, demand led services etc), increase in frequency (1 coach every 5 seconds, a 15 station line could be served non-stop every couple of minutes), and increase in locations (use 2 tracks on the way into the city, but you could run services from pretty much every village, rather than just areas big enough to have a station)
HS2 and similar lines may well be the only rail left in the majority of the country in 50 years time, and I welcome that.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,187
Yes, this is referred to within the scheme as 'captive' rolling stock.
The cross-sectional area of a continental gauge train is greater, therefore the interior will be larger.
If there's any difference in tunnel diameter, I would assume it be because of linespeed at that point.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
Fundamentally, unequivocally incorrect. We're measuring capacity in terms of number of seats. If we were measuring capacity in terms of litres of interior volume, then sure, but we're not. The graph of capacity versus train width and train height is not a continuous smooth curve because there's a minimum height and width required for seating. The 10cm difference in width between a 23-26m and a 20m length carriage is enough to make 2+3 seating impossible. Leaving all other factors the same, the 3% increase in width between a 2.7m and a 2.8m wide carriage results in a 25% increase in capacity.
Because the cost/benefit curve tails off after this point, meaning that an increase in diameter has an additional cost that isn't matched by an increasing benefit. Reducing the diameter of the tunnels below this point would cost more than it saved, as would increasing it. No different to any other engineering concern where you try to find the optimal point.
Of course, some tunnels will see trains accelerating or decelerating through them. In that case, HS2 Ltd have picked the optimal tunnel diameter for the entire section. The Chiltern tunnel diameter will be less than 10m because trains will still be accelerating through it. Building the entire tunnel wide enough for speeds only reached for a short proportion of it is not worthwhile, and neither would be building it smaller for only a short section of lower speeds. Again, it's a matter of optimisation. We all should like optimisation, because optimisation is good. Do you like optimisation?
What would be the sense in not accelerating up to 205 km/h? The tunnel is the minimum worth building for that stretch, and it so happens that the trains will be able to get up to that speed in them, so why not let them run at this speed? What would you prefer that they be limited to? 160km/h? Would you be able to produce a technical report outlining why this reduction in speed would be worthwhile for this stretch? If so, I'm sure that HS2 Ltd would be delighted to see it.
Last edited:
Neither you nor I have any clue about 50 years hence, but I have a sneaking suspicion that HS2 will be just an idea, never implemented, in 50 years time, an idea stopped at the last minute with not one screw, not one drill, not one ceremonial ribbon used in action.
As for the wider thread, I have to say it is one of the most interesting takes on the HS2 issue I have seen for a while. Needless to say, I am anti-HS2, always have been, always will be, will never budge from that position.
But why? I like trains, riding on them, using them, relying on them, enjoying working out travel plans with them, and I wish that more railway stations were built in regional contexts to help connect people with the wider network. I support re-opening lines such as Colne-Skipton. I want to see investment in railways rather than roads, and cringe at the idea of "guided busways".
So what stops me from liking HS2? I think it's the three main columns on which the project is based: the cost, the benefits, the future proofing. In other words, I don't support any of the columns on which the project is based.
Benefits: used to be about speed. Then about capacity. Then about the north. Now nobody knows what the benefits are. I've heard the counter-arguments a hundred times and they hardly stack up. "Oh it's the politicians finding different takes on the scheme, don't listen to them." Okay, to whom do I listen? I don't believe that HS2 isn't about getting commuters attracted to carving off 20 minutes from a morning commute. I don't believe that HS2 isn't about dealing with minor capacity problems in specific parts of one sub-region of England.
HS2 is not just a white elephant. We, as a nation, are being led into an entire enclosure of white elephants, a zoo of them. The cost (billions), the market (London to Birmingham), the lack of stations connecting anyone to anywhere: none of it convinces me.
And what do I have to show for £40bn spent on another line going into London Euston? A Pacer chugging across the East Lancs.
I just cannot subscribe to a project sold as the greatest railway investment since the Victorians when it benefits only Londoners, it's selling points have been refuted, and the cost is eye-watering at a time of austerity and budget cuts.
I wonder if the everyday railway enthusiast feels that this project is somehow alien, somehow disconnected. It's not a train from Place A to B, it's a "scheme". It's not the next service to local destinations, it's a "project". It's not something to be experienced in real time, it's somehow nebulous and distant. All I can think of is the glossy magazines with hard spines, the PowerPoint presentations, the YouTube videos: all for the businessman, the Establishment, the London types: all directed to a scheme for "them", not "us", for the "London elite", the "London commuter", not the family in Wigan, not the estate agent in Newcastle, not the football fan in Wrexham, and indeed, not the RailUKForums poster in Torquay. This is a scheme for "London", for aliens, for an Establishment.
And that's why I think, in 50 years time, there would not have been an HS2 at all. Because as the 2020 general election comes into focus, 2020 vision will appear in the minds of all politicians who realise that it's far better to deliver promises on the doorsteps than visions of the future.
Alternatively, in time for the general election there could be figures showing rail growth since the lady of the concept of HS2 in 2009 of about 50% (about half that of what the business model for HS2 had for the opening of phase 2 in the 2030's).
As such the political pressure to build it could be more not less. As by then the class 800's will be running and if on many services it is still just as hard to find a seat as it is now those on the ECML will be looking for what can be done to improve capacity there.
The problem is that if rail passenger growth out performs the model (2.5% growth per year) then there's a risk that we need HS2 sooner. Yes there a risk that growth under performs, but as the average since 2009 is shot 4.5% per year (Eden allowing for a small drop in one year) then under performance is unlikely and of it does happen it would likely only be by a small margin.
Too late for that, enabling works have already started.
Phase 1 has recently received Royal Assent, a lot of the contracts have already been signed (and would be very costly to get out of) and construction will begin later this year. The major political parties support it, as do the majority of MPs. There's no political appetite to stop it at the last minute, in fact it's too late anyway, never mind 2020.
What is your baseless sneaking suspicion based on? Optimism
Exactly!
Last edited:
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,187
oh dear oh dear.quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,891
This seems to be a strange position to hold. I can see you disagree with the arguments put forward in favour of HS2. I happen to agree with them and favour HS2. However, the arguments are all based on what we think is going to happen in the future. We can all make our best guess about whether or not HS2 will or won't be a success, but ultimately the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
If, once HS2 is built, virtually nobody uses it, then I would have to change my mind in the face of the facts. At present I think that scenario is highly unlikely, but if it happened I would have to admit that I was wrong. However, if it turns into a roaring success, the trains are full and there is massive modal shift to rail, not just to London but to all the other major cities HS2 serves, and if we see consequent major improvements to commuter and regional services using the freed up capacity on the existing network, then surely you would have to reassess your position? Just to clarify, it's clear that you believe this scenario will not happen, but if it did, if the facts changed, would you not change your mind?
A good question. It's a very big "if" and very hypothetical. If all the variables fall exactly into line, as you describe, I could see me acknowledging that the project has worked while still being suspicious about it overall. I'm not trying to be stubborn, as such, it's hard to answer "if everything works out fine, will you admit you were wrong", as I'm sure you understand!
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,910
Reaction time you will save, but rubber on wet tarmac sets the physical stopping distance, unless you are suggesting that rear ending will become acceptable.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Reaction time can be greater than actual stopping distance.
But there isn't the need for the same separation because if the front car has to stop, the middle and rear cars will also know to stop. The risk is only greater if the front car suffered a sudden catastrophic mechanical failure (or hit an obstruction) and stopped dead.
This arguement will go round and round in circles for a lot longer. My own fear is that we will end up with phase 1, with a lot of the promised environmental mitigation dropped to save money, and then the rest will be cut.
HS2 may or may not be the best way to deal with the capacity issues, but a lot of the presentation has come over as a politicians' vanity project.
HS2 may or may not be the best way to deal with the capacity issues, but a lot of the presentation has come over as a politicians' vanity project.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That won't happen, as people won't give up using the WCML any time soon, and it will basically just be another pair of (super-)fast lines for the WCML.
Think of it being as more like the SBB Neubaustrecken, not the French "completely new line" model. You don't choose to use HS2, if you take the train from London to Manchester (or whatever) the train will simply be routed onto it. Only in the context of London-Birmingham will it be in any way like the French model, and that's only really a coincidence to the project.
They probably made an error selling it based on journey time cuts, it should have been sold on what it will enable on the WCML.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not sure why one should fear that. Phase 1 is the key part of the project and the one that will provide the most overall benefit by taking InterCity trains off the overcrowded south WCML. This will improve punctuality, reliability and capacity for everyone - those things are not sexy, but they are what is needed.
To Manchester from Brum is a nice to have and will primarily provide a journey time upgrade, particularly on Brum-Manc itself which is grindingly slow for a service connecting Britain's second and third cities (which way round they go is rather a matter of opinion). Beyond Manchester I barely see any case for it.
Last edited:
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,910
And that has to be allowed for. Imagine how much rail capacity we could generate if we were allowed to run trains on that basis, but then again railways have to be safe.
I once attended a road traffic accident (yes they were called accidents in those days) where a large ingot fell off a lorry.
The ingot stopped dead but the following car didn't.
That kind of accident is rare though. The fact is that inter-vehicle communication will allow reduced separation. Even a small reduction can make a massive difference to capacity.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I must admit I do think the railway could save money, be a *little* less safe and still be acceptable (I won't mention it here directly, but a key method of achieving this is being debated hotly on other threads). I don't fear travelling on PKP (say) despite their record being a bit less good than here. If that then went on fare reductions and capacity, lives would be saved overall as more would switch from the relatively dangerous option of car travel.
Yes, that's the exception. But if one life is claimed from that, but 20 lives are saved by the removal of human error, there's still an overall gain. But people seem to want 100% safety, which can never be (economically) achieved.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,187
This is getting off-topic here, but I don't believe it at all acceptable to say that the level of safety and security can be reduced simply for the sake of cost-cutting. Human lives should not be measured in currency, and even if "100% safety" is not achievable, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be taking every measure in our power to eliminate all potential risks. Britain's railway network is statistically one of the safest in the world, after all.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
New thread spawned to discuss this:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2913179#post2913179
I don't think that is the suggestion. We need to recognise that safety has a cost and not be afraid to ask the question if a particular measure is justified on the cost:benefit basis.
It may well be that it made sense when it was introduced, but changes to working practice or technology means that the risk it was put in place to mitigate has been largely eliminated.
As an example, Rule 55 made sense when it was introduced and likely saved lots of lives, but it was made largely obsolete by the introduction of SPTs and in-cab radios.
I doubt if the wording of the Act allows that. The Act wouldn't have got through without guarantees. The possibility of dropping phase 2 is another matter.
Last edited:
Nail. On. Head.
People will use HS2 on the grounds that it is where the Euston to Manchester (or wherever) fast trains will be in future, considerably accelerated from today and diverted off the current WCML (they are not in themselves 'additional' services, merely transplants of existing services).
The 'traditional' WCML Long Distance service will be much reduced (some maintained to provide the intermediate links).
More regional and commuter services introduced on the WCML using the capacity now available.
- Status