Which Train Concept or Pre-Existing Should Run on Hs2

[AMR]

HS2 is the next major rail project to Be completed after Crossrail One which run Aventra Class 345's. So which train should be the new face of this Multi billion Dollar expansion.


My Answer:
On the back of a Railway Magazine I bought a years ago announcing the HS2, there was a siemens advert with a concept HS Train called the "Velaro Novo" I love the design due to how different it is to other concepts and Hitachi trains.

Its a train with a flat front nose and Aeroplane like Nose cone on it. It has Triangular Headlight pains but have slight curves on the sides, the doors are similar to Eurostar class 374's which are all singular and wide.
This Picture Was released with the 'Siemens Press Release' in June 2018. https://press.siemens.com/global/en...presents-its-new-high-speed-train-velaro-novo
Should it run HS2 or is another concept better or even a pre existing train. "

"Siemens presents its new high-speed train – the "Velaro Novo""​

 

[MarkyT]

The new Velaro is clearly an incremental development of the previous model of the same name as used by Eurostar, also bringing in styling cues from the recent DB ICE4 train, particularly the nose cone shape. They've made significant improvements to air smoothing of the underside in particular I believe, more fully enclosing the running gear within casings surrounding the bogies for example.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

Jet powered pacers

 

[Halifaxlad]

First thoughts were like Mr Jones above!

On a more serious note I have previously thought in relation to when NPHR is completed, still applicable here that the first train to run should be 'Rocket' obviously the NRM's replica and only for the inaugural journey. It could be a spectacular.

On a less serious note, perhaps we could have a 21st century cavalcade, it would be ideal to watch coming out of the new tunnel from under the Chilterns. HS2 is the most significant rail line to be constructed in recent times, it should be marked in some historic memorable way!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My preference would be Siemens, but whatever it is should be classic-compatible for maximum flexibility, so no double deckers etc. A variant of the 80x may be the easiest option as the basic bodyshell design already exists, it'd just need modifying for the higher speed.

 

[EastisECML]

Whichever company offers double deckers for the captive services, so on that basis probably a cross between the old Eurostar trains and the AGV from Alstom for classic compatible services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whichever company offers double deckers for the captive services, so on that basis probably a cross between the old Eurostar trains and the AGV from Alstom for classic compatible services.

I would go with one fleet. The only initial captive services are Euston-Brum, no sense in having a separate fleet for them. Therefore, all 200m classic compatibles.

 

[Purple Orange]

I’d like to see a uniform fleet of classic compatibles, but it depends on the eventual structure of NPR & HS2. If built in full, 12 of the 23 HS2 services each hour would have been captive. If only the western branch is built, this reduces to 8 services out of a total of 14 HS2 services.

If NPR is included and only the western branch to Manchester is built, we could see an additional 2 tph added to the total (assuming Manchester & Leeds to Birmngham are merged).

Therefore for the sake of consistency, a uniform fleet would be beneficial.

Perhaps someone can clear something up for me:

GNER ran some Eurostar’s (373) on the ECML, therefore those trains could be considered to be ‘classic compatible’. Are the new Eurostar trains (Siemens Velaros) also considered classic compatible in the same way as the original Eurostar fleet, or would we call them ‘captive’?

 

[Bletchleyite]

GNER ran some Eurostar’s (373) on the ECML, therefore those trains could be considered to be ‘classic compatible’. Are the new Eurostar trains (Siemens Velaros) also considered classic compatible in the same way as the original Eurostar fleet, or would we call them ‘captive’?

No, they'd be considered captive, they are too wide to run on UK classic lines. They are basically ICE3s with a few changes.

 

[Purple Orange]

No, they'd be considered captive, they are too wide to run on UK classic lines. They are basically ICE3s with a few changes.

That is a shame. Would love to see those pulling in to Piccadilly (perhaps they might!). Definitely my favourite train on the U.K. network.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I still don’t understand the obsession with 200m sets and splitting and joining.

Given the obvious fragilities of parts of the network (Preston to Glasgow being a prime example), doing the split and attach at Crewe sounds like a dreadful idea.

I can’t be the only one who thinks that our HS2 network should focus solely on the single busiest stations, with connections. A-la Germany, Austria.

The investment in stations then is explicitly on 400m trains, perhaps not with the frequency but with the facilities. Make the trains the absolute height of luxury on the grand scheme of things; multiple travel classes (possibly four classes if you think about it), and therefore load those 14 400m trains per hour up and yield manage onto them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can’t be the only one who thinks that our HS2 network should focus solely on the single busiest stations, with connections. A-la Germany, Austria.

Er, the ICE3s are shorter trains (not 400m or anywhere near it, I forget how long they are) and do portion-work. And the Railjet sets are 7-car, often found doubled up as if they were EMUs.

You've also not to forget the political aspect. Having HS2 literally do London, Brum (Interchange+Curzon St) and Manchester (Airport+Piccadilly) and nowhere else, and everything else as connections, would be politically unpalatable - and I wouldn't support it either. Almost no existing UK stations have platforms long enough to take a 400m train.

The best use for a high-speed line is more like the Swiss do it (and the Germans to a fair extent) - a "bypass" to speed up existing services, not a self-contained thing in itself.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Er, the ICE3s are shorter trains (not 400m or anywhere near it, I forget how long they are) and do portion-work. And the Railjet sets are 7-car, often found doubled up as if they were EMUs.

You've also not to forget the political aspect. Having HS2 literally do London, Brum (Interchange+Curzon St) and Manchester (Airport+Piccadilly) and nowhere else, and everything else as connections, would be politically unpalatable - and I wouldn't support it either. Almost no existing UK stations have platforms long enough to take a 400m train.

The best use for a high-speed line is more like the Swiss do it (and the Germans to a fair extent) - a "bypass" to speed up existing services, not a self-contained thing in itself.

I don’t remember explicitly discussing IC3.

There is no suggestion at them being captive. I’m suggesting classic-compatible 400m units, used on all services out of London. Whether you have a fleet of 200m units demand-led on smaller flows (e.g. Manchester to Scotland) is to be seen.

As I say, if we consider no portion working, then services from London would stop at the likes of Crewe (heavy connectivity to/from North Wales, the surrounding area, legacy services from Warrington and such), and therefore have the 400m platforms at Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow / Edinburgh.

This provides even more impetus to make connections at Wigan (incl. Wallgate), Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, and of course Crewe; and there will be vast amounts of capacity for all that connecting traffic.

 

[quantinghome]

The best use for a high-speed line is more like the Swiss do it (and the Germans to a fair extent) - a "bypass" to speed up existing services, not a self-contained thing in itself.

More important than speeding up services is increasing capacity. That's the ultimate Swiss and German rationale, not just speeding up services; the same is true for HS2 and pretty much every other HS line in the world. If we had excess station capacity and uncongested routes within our urban areas then a relatively simple bypass of existing lines in rural areas would have been a viable option to increase capacity and speed up services. But our stations are at capacity and so or the urban lines feeding them. New station capacity + additional urban tracks + high speed bypass in rural areas = HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t remember explicitly discussing IC3.

You didn't, but I pointed it out because you said DB didn't do portion working, and I wanted to point out that the shorter ICE3s were ordered with the express intention of portion working.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2021 ==

As I say, if we consider no portion working, then services from London would stop at the likes of Crewe (heavy connectivity to/from North Wales, the surrounding area, legacy services from Warrington and such), and therefore have the 400m platforms at Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow / Edinburgh.

Is there space for 400m platforms at all of those without completely rebuilding them all?

Would be hard to rebuild Edinburgh Waverley given it being in a cutting.

Not serving Liverpool would be politically impossible (though I now hear there are talks of Liverpool City Council looking at a possible location for a new station). I don't think that leaves many other places on the West Coast side?

But why not go for the flexibility of 200m units? Eurostar suffers from the lack of such flexibility. You would want to double-staff 400m trains anyway - one guard and one trolley or buffet wouldn't be enough. It's not like having two 2-car 195s with a trolley and guard in each which is wasteful - it's much more like a doubled-up pair of 9-car Pendolinos. And if they're reservation only, as seems likely, you won't want to walk through units to find a seat.

 

[RichJF]

I'd like to see either Siemens or Alstom, given they already run trainsets on HS1 & are proven & engineers are now accustomed to their technology.

I wonder if the competition will a run-off between a 'Velaro Novo UK' & an 'Avelia Horizon UK'?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Carlisle, Preston, Crewe and Leeds will be 400m capable.

As I say, this is all going to come down to connections. The legacy network would be better served by a few very long trains coming down each hour, and then the connecting trains (and of course local capacity needs).

With some rebuilding, Wigan North Western could certainly have two through 400m platforms, flanked by slow platforms. Lancaster I am certain could have a 400m island put through it, with two slow platforms. Oxenholme and Penrith would only have legacy services anyway (e.g. a 200m Manchester to Scotland, and one Pendolino), so Carlisle will be getting two 400m platforms as well.

Carstairs does not need a 400m platform if you eliminate portion working; nor Motherwell or Haymarket. That leaves Waverley and Glasgow Central. You could "upcycle" the abandoned supports for the old bit of bridge at Central and have two dedicated High Speed / long-distance platforms there. Edinburgh, the only solution I can see would be to demolish 8/9, and make it a single platform with curvature or what have you. It's not a nice idea, perhaps, but it would get an hourly 400m service from Waverley to London; and then the 200m Manchester can drop in to another platform. Glasgow will probably only warrant a 200m Birmingham via Preston anyway; if the connections are good (and connections at Crewe Hub).

As for Liverpool, well you'd have to blob South Parkway and Runcorn but they would surely only warrant an hourly 400m path, although a two-platform station at Central using the old Wapping Tunnels seems very plausible. It's also on the "correct side" of the layout, so if being used for an hourly London it can also be used for an hourly Pendolino. The combined frequency and fare differential will satisfy two markets. As people from Huyton <> St Helens area could go via Manchester or Wigan to get fast trains, and as folk from Runcorn etc could go to Crewe hub, I don't think that's an unfair proposition.

Central also has the benefit of opening up the entirety of Wirral, as well as places such as the Southport branches, to HS2 quickly. That, and of course potentially Wrexham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With some rebuilding, Wigan North Western could certainly have two through 400m platforms, flanked by slow platforms. Lancaster I am certain could have a 400m island put through it, with two slow platforms.

Lancaster is listed, which could pose an issue. I suppose you could do it with ASDO at a push, maybe? Again with reservations only, you could only allow reservations to/from Lancaster in the coaches that would be on the platform.

Regarding Liverpool Central, I don't think the site is long (edited) enough without a lot of demolition. I'm intrigued where the new station is to be proposed to go. If well outside the city centre, that would be very negative.

I guess they don't know yet, it's only just being talked about.

New 'world class' station for Liverpool's 21st century trains

Vision to create major new hub that will link to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

But either way, 400m single units don't offer any flexibility at all, are harder to accommodate in depots and will result in a lot of fresh air being carried at quiet times. They were necessary for Eurostar due to the emergency escape plan. They aren't necessary on HS2, and so 200m units, running in pairs where appropriate, just make so much more sense. The two reasons not to have doubled up units with no gangway - passengers walking through to find a seat, and doubling up crews - don't really apply to this case, the former because of likely compulsory reservations, and the latter because you want doubled-up crews in a train that long anyway. Even Eurostar has two buffet cars in each set!

A side benefit of 200m units is possible cascades onto secondary mainlines if replaced with captive units when HS2 is extended further.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The Siemens or Alstom offering.

 

[Energy]

Well the offerings are:
Talgo Avril UK - Unlikely, Talgo are completely new to the UK and it is a bit unusual, XR and Thameslink have shown that the government wants fairly standard units.
CAF Oasis - Unlikely, a product which doesn't have anything particularly unique about it and CAF aren't known for reliability, they do get bonus points for having a UK factory but it would need work done to it to build the trains as it isn't big enough.
Alstom - Already have experience with the WCML, have being doing a lot of work in the UK in regards to signalling and maintenance just not a lot of rolling stock, looks to be a pretty good product but loses points due to no UK factory, which although I don't mind too much myself it will make it a difficult choice politically.
Siemens - Have a good proven product, very reliable, likely to win points in the DfT as the 700s have been more reliable than the 345s. They are going to have a plant in Goole (UK) soon as well.
Bombardier/Hitachi - Incredibly similar product already running in Italy and two factories in the UK.

Personally, I think the Alstom offering looks the nicest, B/H's also looks quite nice although the headlights need work, Siemens' looks pretty good and will be very reliable so I think they would be the best choice.

What is actually chosen is probably between B/H and Siemens. We are stuck in the situation now that whoever wins somebody will be annoyed as the factory in their part of the UK will be losing work.

 

[Domh245]

Alstom - Already have experience with the WCML, have being doing a lot of work in the UK in regards to signalling and maintenance just not a lot of rolling stock, looks to be a pretty good product but loses points due to no UK factory, which although I don't mind too much myself it will make it a difficult choice politically.

I believe there is a plan that Widnes will do a fair bit of work if Alstom win the HS2 contract. Not to mention of course that they will have a fully functional factory in due course, although it's already committed to a different HS2 tender (which they must divest)

 

[Energy]

I believe there is a plan that Widnes will do a fair bit of work if Alstom win the HS2 contract. Not to mention of course that they will have a fully functional factory in due course, although it's already committed to a different HS2 tender (which they must divest)

Forgotten about the merger although I'm not sure how much it affects HS2, I would imagine that they would build them at Derby if they won the contract though.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Alstom - Already have experience with the WCML... but loses points due to no UK factory

I'm guessing the Technology Center in Widnes is scotch mist just for refurbishing Pendolinos & 175s.

 

[Energy]

I'm guessing the Technology Center in Widnes is scotch mist just for refurbishing Pendolinos & 175s.

Widnes will still need work before it can make trains itself while Derby, Newton Aycliffe and Goole will already be able to make trains.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Widnes will still need work before it can make trains itself while Derby, Newton Aycliffe and Goole will already be able to make trains.

That could allow it to be custom built for the building & maintaining of a high speed fleet. So what seems like a disadvantage from the outside can actually be advantageous. Of course modifying Derby will probably be cheaper, but Widnes gives them a clean slate.

 

[Purple Orange]

Do people expect there to be any major difference between the HS2 classics and the NPR trains? Both need to be running up to the same line speed on HS2 track.

If so, and if only a short section of the eastern branch is built to the East Midlands, then I could not see a case for more than one variation of high speed trains on the network. If classic & captive was procured, we would certainly have a small micro fleet in among the rest:

1. Captive sets for:
   • 3 tph London to Birmingham
   • 3 tph London to Manchester
2. Classic Compatible for:
   • 2 tph London to Liverpool
   • 2 tph London to Glasgow & Edinburgh
   • 1 tph London to Macclesfield (probably Manchester)
   • 2 tph London to Nottingham
   • 2 tph London to Sheffield via Derby
   • 2 tph Birmingham to Leeds via Manchester
   • 2 tph Birmingham to Newcastle via Manchester & Leeds
   • 1 tph Birmingham to Glasgow & Edinburgh

In this scenario, it makes sense for there to be one uniform fleet for all 54 trains. These paths also make use of 15 of the planned 17 services in to Euston, all 9 serviced in to Curzon Street and 11 of the 15 paths in to Piccadilly HS2.

Note:

• I don’t think there will be a line via Warrington built to Liverpool.
• London to Leeds, York & Newcastle will remain on the ECML with 801s.
• Birmingham to Derby & Sheffield will be served by XC services from the south west & South coast to York via New Street.
• If HS2 is to be mandatory seat reservation, would this only apply to London bound services, or Birmingham one’s too?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do people expect there to be any major difference between the HS2 classics and the NPR trains? Both need to be running up to the same line speed on HS2 track.

That's another reason to get 200m trains. One fleet for the whole thing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2021 ==

• If HS2 is to be mandatory seat reservation, would this only apply to London bound services, or Birmingham one’s too?

Nobody knows yet but I'd expect all of it.

It might be better described as "allocated seating" as I think a lot of people still have the impression that it means rocking up at a booking office the day before you go, not quickly grabbing a ticket from a TVM or on your phone as you head to the station, selecting your seat as well.

 

[43096]

You didn't, but I pointed it out because you said DB didn't do portion working, and I wanted to point out that the shorter ICE3s were ordered with the express intention of portion working.

ICE3 sets are 8-car, so just over 200m, funnily enough.

DB do portion work ICEs and have done since the ICE2 build: particularly the east-west Berlin-Hannover-Ruhr services which split/join at Hamm to go different routes beyond there.

Likewise ÖBB regularly split/join RailJet sets.

 

[tetudo boy]

My choice is Alstom AGV. They seem adaptable for both Captive and Classic-compatible services. 11 or 10 car sets would do, with coupling for 400m services.

 

[XAM2175]

The new Velaro is clearly an incremental development of the previous model of the same name as used by Eurostar, also bringing in styling cues from the recent DB ICE4 train, particularly the nose cone shape. They've made significant improvements to air smoothing of the underside in particular I believe, more fully enclosing the running gear within casings surrounding the bogies for example.

Yes, aerodynamic improvements are the most-visible changes but they've also managed to drop a bit of weight from the bodyshells and bogies, amongst other things. They've had a prototype trailer running in DB's ICE-S test set for a while now.