Should some HS2 trains be 250m long?

[Halifaxlad]

I understand the Euston HS2 station is designed with 450m platforms. So either you would need an enormous redesign to accommodate 250+250 if that’s even possible (fitting the points in between platform end and the tunnels), or you’d give up on being able to run the shorter trains in multiple.

That might not be a bad thing!

You could ask the same question about 400m sets. And it's hypothetical now, as HS2 have chosen to standardise on 400m.

At the main stations, I could envisage a moving walkway like you get at airports, if necessary. At the level of the over-bridges, rather than at platform level. Elsewhere, the trains will have split into 250m units before serving most stations on the classic network.

Is it really ?

Platforms are being built to cater for 400m long trains.

All trains are supposed to be 200m.

For 250m you would just need to abandon this idea of splitting and joining services and increase train lengths by 50m!

If we were to go down this path I wouldn't do it just for just another 2 carriages!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we were to go down this path I wouldn't do it just for just another 2 carriages!

Guess you don't use the WCML much? 11 car vs 9 car Pendolino makes a MASSIVE difference.

200/400m only makes sense if we are splitting and joining. If trains will run singly, a length of 250m approx makes most sense.

 

[Nottingham59]

200/400m only makes sense if we are splitting and joining. If trains will run singly, a length of 250m approx makes most sense.

Of course. But they've baked splitting and joining into the design of the infrastructure, except for the captive trainsets.

For the provincial trainsets, either they don't use the full capacity of the Euston and OOC platform, or they don't use the full capacity of the platforms at the provincial destinations. Either way you look at it, it is a criminal waste given how much HS2 is costing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course. But they've baked splitting and joining into the design of the infrastructure, except for the captive trainsets.

For the provincial trainsets, either they don't use the full capacity of the Euston and OOC platform, or they don't use the full capacity of the platforms at the provincial destinations. Either way you look at it, it is a criminal waste given how much HS2 is costing.

It's a criminal waste not making the most of it and building all of it, yes.

However, if you're going to run 1tph to Scotland, making it 65m shorter than the present train is not going to work. Sure, it has fewer stops and there's a separate semifast Lancaster, but don't forget the sparks effect and what happened to XC.

 

[Nottingham59]

However, if you're going to run 1tph to Scotland, making it 65m shorter than the present train is not going to work.

But isn't the plan is to run a 400m train to Scotland, splitting it at Carlise to make 2 x 200m trains? Which is a great uplift on the present capacity

 

[Bletchleyite]

But isn't the plan is to run a 400m train to Scotland, splitting it at Carlise to make 2 x 200m trains? Which is a great uplift on the present capacity

With Golborne it is 2tph at 400m, so 400m per hour to each. That's an upgrade.

Without Golborne, it's just 1tph 200m to Glasgow plus the semifast Lancaster which won't provide enough extra capacity because Avanti services are often very busy all the way up.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Guess you don't use the WCML much? 11 car vs 9 car Pendolino makes a MASSIVE difference.

200/400m only makes sense if we are splitting and joining. If trains will run singly, a length of 250m approx makes most sense.

I'm not saying 2 cars doesn't make a massive difference just that I don't believe scrapping 400m long trains in favor of adding a further 2 cars onto a 200m long train is worth it!

Of course. But they've baked splitting and joining into the design of the infrastructure, except for the captive trainsets.

For the provincial trainsets, either they don't use the full capacity of the Euston and OOC platform, or they don't use the full capacity of the platforms at the provincial destinations. Either way you look at it, it is a criminal waste given how much HS2 is costing.

It's a criminal waste not making the most of it and building all of it, yes.

Insisting upon building HS2 to cater for 400m long running is doubt one of the reasons why it became expensive and why the Eastern leg was cut!

The Eastern leg required billions to be spent on a brand new station in Leeds for 400m long captive sets. Rather than using the existing station. We are now suffering the consequence of this decision in this desperate bid to drive down costs!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not saying 2 cars doesn't make a massive difference just that I don't believe scrapping 400m long trains in favor of adding a further 2 cars onto a 200m long train is worth it!

Scrapping Golborne has scrapped 400m trains to Scotland.

There can be two fleets, 200m for Brum and Manchester and 250/275m for Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

Scrapping Golborne has scrapped 400m trains to Scotland.

There can be two fleets, 200m for Brum and Manchester and 250/275m for Scotland.

Train lengths into Glasgow Central are pretty much stuck at 275m, but aren't train lengths into Edinburgh essentially unbounded?

 

[Nottingham59]

Scrapping Golborne has scrapped 400m trains to Scotland.

Is there anywhere a planned service diagram without Golborne? Maybe they will have to extend platforms at Preston and Carlisle etc. to accommodate 400m trains.

There can be two fleets, 200m for Brum and Manchester and 250/275m for Scotland.

Maybe they will have to do that (for the first few decades at least). Trains scheduled as single units from London could be extended to 250/275m. But as traffic grows, London leg loadings will come under the most pressure, and they will have to restrict London services to 400m consists, and that will reduce capacity in the provinces.

 

[HSTEd]

Maybe they will have to do that (for the first few decades at least). Trains scheduled as single units from London could be extended to 250/275m. But as traffic grows, London leg loadings will come under the most pressure, and they will have to restrict London services to 400m consists, and that will reduce capacity in the provinces.

This assumes, ofcourse, that high-speed units are only available in a minimum of 200m length.

We now have high-speed class trains as short as 100m long in Spain and elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there anywhere a planned service diagram without Golborne? Maybe they will have to extend platforms at Preston and Carlisle etc. to accommodate 400m trains.

This is it (also pre-2B):

Image (on Modern Railways' site, but from the official docs) shows indicative non-Golborne pre-Phase 2B HS2 WCML service: 3 Brum (400m), 3 Manc, 2 Liverpool (one of which has a Lancaster portion, one Macclesfield, one Glasgow. Only the three Birmingham services are 400m.

 

[The Planner]

Maybe they will have to extend platforms at Preston and Carlisle etc. to accommodate 400m trains.

No maybe about it, Crewe P5, Preston and Carlisle all need to be extended.

 

[Nottingham59]

This is it (also pre-2B):

Image (on Modern Railways' site, but from the official docs) shows indicative non-Golborne pre-Phase 2B HS2 WCML service: 3 Brum (400m), 3 Manc, 2 Liverpool (one of which has a Lancaster portion, one Macclesfield, one Glasgow. Only the three Birmingham services are 400m.

On that pattern, they could run the Scottish service as 2x200m, splitting at Carlisle. Would need platform lengthening at Preston too.

 

[Halifaxlad]

There can be two fleets, 200m for Brum and Manchester and 250/275m for Scotland.

275 would be much better.

On that pattern, they could run the Scottish service as 2x200m, splitting at Carlisle. Would need platform lengthening at Preston too.

How would that benefit Scotland ?

Rather than trying to combine both Edinburgh and Glasgow services surely it would be better to significantly increase capacity to Glasgow by running 275m long trains ?

That is almost a third!

 

[Brubulus]

130 works very well for national rail, as you could have 130M, 260M and 390M units. While 200 is more efficent for HS2 capacity, and 130 is a bit short so possibly running 260M and 130M units is the best solution even though it does limit flexibility compared to 200M units.

 

[Nottingham59]

How would that benefit Scotland ?

I would have thought 200m to Glasgow and 200m to Edinburgh was better for Scotland than 275m to Glasgow only?

 

[Halifaxlad]

I would have thought 200m to Glasgow and 200m to Edinburgh was better for Scotland than 275m to Glasgow only?

Ain't 200m roughly the same length as existing services to Edinburgh that run every half an hour or so ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ain't 200m roughly the same length as existing services to Edinburgh that run every half an hour or so ?

No. A 10 car 80x is 260m, a 9 car about 234, an 11 car Pendolino 265. The original 8 car Pendolinos were 194m, which is close, but were way too short. A 9 car would be 218, close-ish but that extra vehicle made a huge difference. The Greater Anglia Stadlers are 236.6m according to Wiki.

OK, Pendolinos are a bit space inefficient, and so 8.80x is slightly bigger than 9.390 in capacity terms, but we're potentially splitting hairs a bit, and HS2 400km/h units are likely to have a long pointy nose.

I think from that you can take that a standard UK intercity train is *about* 250m long, and 200m is likely to be too short for most purposes unless you considerably increase the frequency (and bear in mind that if you do that significantly that'll also bring growth).

 

[Trainbike46]

With Golborne it is 2tph at 400m, so 400m per hour to each. That's an upgrade.

Without Golborne, it's just 1tph 200m to Glasgow plus the semifast Lancaster which won't provide enough extra capacity because Avanti services are often very busy all the way up.

why would they run fewer services to Glasgow if golborne isn't there?

For Edinburgh, services would run via ECML instead, but that wouldn't apply to Glasgow

 

[Bletchleyite]

why would they run fewer services to Glasgow if golborne isn't there?

WCML paths. Golborne creates the extra path by having HS2 join the WCML further north.

 

[Trainbike46]

WCML paths. Golborne creates the extra path by having HS2 join the WCML further north.

Sounds like another reason to reinstate golborne (or if they really want to, another route north) ASAP then

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds like another reason to reinstate golborne (or if they really want to, another route north) ASAP then

It's yet another thing that points to "build it or don't, but don't subject it to death by a thousand cuts".

 

[Benjwri]

Trains are not a significant cost in the project, and we should use whatever is operationally best now.

And yet are still costing £2 billion... Just last year the West of England had to scrounge £15.5 million from the DfT for an entirely new line, and across the country services and fleets are being scrapped to scrape back. In fact across the country fleets are failing, and we're being told that new trains won't even be tendered till the end of the decade. Yet with HS2 hey lets throw another £2 billion at it, they can get new trains in 10 years, while the rest of the country is still using their, by that time, 40-50 year old stock!

This is exactly my problem with HS2. The entire country's rail system is declining, we're being told money needs to be saved in every possible place, while HS2 is burning money like it's nothing. For the money which is being spent on HS2 we could have achieved huge improvements to the entire country's rail network, which benefit everyone, but instead we're spending it on a vanity project that will only affect a small proportion of the population.

Obviously the money is already spent, and we're at a stage where what can be cut without making loss has been, but this attitude of 'oh it's just another £1 billion' needs to end, because it's also another £1 billion that's been taken from another area of the UK that needs it far more.

 

[HSTEd]

And yet are still costing £2 billion... Just last year the West of England had to scrounge £15.5 million from the DfT for an entirely new line, and across the country services and fleets are being scrapped to scrape back. In fact across the country fleets are failing, and we're being told that new trains won't even be tendered till the end of the decade. Yet with HS2 hey lets throw another £2 billion at it, they can get new trains in 10 years, while the rest of the country is still using their, by that time, 40-50 year old stock!

This is exactly my problem with HS2. The entire country's rail system is declining, we're being told money needs to be saved in every possible place, while HS2 is burning money like it's nothing. For the money which is being spent on HS2 we could have achieved huge improvements to the entire country's rail network, which benefit everyone, but instead we're spending it on a vanity project that will only affect a small proportion of the population

I very much doubt we could have. The last two major upgrade programmes on the railway (WCRM and GWRM) failed catastrophically.
Both blew their budgets by huge margins and both failed to achieve anything close to what they were supposed to to.

By the time they pulled the plug the WCRM projected cost to complete the programme had risen to £14.5bn in 2002 money! At least £25bn today (and construction inflation has beaten regular inflation so that is an underestimate)

And both caused years of massive disruption to operations of the classic railway.

Upgrades have been shown to be largely impractical. The latest attempts at electrification and the TP upgrade programme continue to demonstrate this.

As to new rolling stock, it will be a hell of a lot longer than ten years before 250m trains become a major issue. Given that by then the railway will have just reached Manchester and the Eastern leg certainly won't exist in any meaningful sense.

There is also always cascade options for them , especially as the vestigial IEP fleet will be worn out by then.
They could run the vestigial fast service on the southern ECML or MML as an example.

 

[Benjwri]

I very much doubt we could have. The last two major upgrade programmes on the railway (WCRM and GWRM) failed catastrophically.
Both blew their budgets by huge margins and both failed to achieve anything close to what they were supposed to to.

For the total cost of HS2?? GWML Electrification cost £2.8 billion, HS2 Phase 1 alone is costing £40 billion, and is already £1.2 billion over that budget, and we haven't even really started work on a station. Not to mention a new train fleet would be a significant upgrade for the majority of the country.

And both caused years of massive disruption to operations of the classic railway.

Building Old Oak Common is going to cause massive disruption to the classic railway for the GWML, likely more disruption at some points than the modernisation of the GWML, and the vast majority won't even benefit from it.

Upgrades have been shown to be largely impractical. The latest attempts at electrification and the TP upgrade programme continue to demonstrate this.

So what is your suggestion? We just continue to let the rest of the country decay, and in 20 years we just have HS2 and HS1, which themselves will be decaying by that point? What I'm suggesting is spending that money on maintaining the rest of the country, and upgrades that are needed to keep services up to spec.

There is also always cascade options for them , especially as the vestigial IEP fleet will be worn out by then.

250m trains will be impractical for any other route though, unless we're planning on carting empty air around, and then you have to split fleets for places that can't handle 250m.

There are plenty of views on where should get new trains, but I think this is the first time I've heard the suggestion of the same line getting 2 new fleets in the space of time most won't even see a new train, or one built in the last 20 years for some.

 

[Bletchleyite]

250m trains will be impractical for any other route though, unless we're planning on carting empty air around, and then you have to split fleets for places that can't handle 250m.

250m is roughly the normal length of a UK InterCity train. Plenty of places for that.

 

[Benjwri]

Both blew their budgets by huge margins and both failed to achieve anything close to what they were supposed to to.

And just to pick up on this again, you're suggesting HS2 hasn't already overblown its budget? The official figures are low because the government has held back on actually setting one, but given it is already projected to cost more than double its original cost when it was first envisaged, and a leg of it has had to be cut because of its cost, it is no more of a failure than the GWRM was already, and it isn't even nearly finished, in fact half of that cost is going on parts we haven't even broken ground on, nor are the immediate plans to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2023 ==

250m is roughly the normal length of a UK InterCity train. Plenty of places for that.

I agree plenty of places, but would likely cause service reduction if used in places where IETs currently run, since there would be no more 5 cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree plenty of places, but would likely cause service reduction if used in places where IETs currently run, since there would be no more 5 cars.

With a few exceptions (e.g. the Cotswold line and the Cornish locals), the 5 car IETs operated by GWR and LNER are a nuisance, not a benefit.

 

[Benjwri]

With a few exceptions (e.g. the Cotswold line and the Cornish locals), the 5 car IETs operated by GWR and LNER are a nuisance, not a benefit

I'm well aware that they are a nuisance in many cases, although whether for the greater good is another discussion, but the mentioned exceptions are still important, and have allowed for improved service in many parts.