Fantasy: If you could re-design HS2 ...

[NCT]

Cost increases weren't because the first phase was in the south either.

 

[Manutd1999]

My take on HS2 is that it was conceived as an all-or-nothing project, divorced and independent of the existing and comprehensive railway, really the GCR, revived and straightened.

It had no efficient break points where partial completion would work. It should have been a jig-saw project, completed piece by piece with early benefits from each element put in place.

This is not disparaging the ideal of a 400km/hr London - Scotland LGV, just acceptance of the political and economic limitations of the UK.

WAO

100% this.

So many of HS2s design decisions only appear to make sense if the full Y is built:
- Super high capacity through the core
-10+ platforms at Euston and 7 at Curzon St
- 400m trains
- Building everything new rather than upgrading existing lines
etc. etc.

At best it was naive, getting swept along in the "lets build the best railway ever" vibe without considering that requirements/scope/budget could change in the future. At worst, it was a deliberate ploy to make HS2 "too big to fail".

A modular scheme may have been technically worse but would have been many times more resilient to change.

 

[Austriantrain]

Come on, you are better than this.

I do not consider you a moron, far from it. Similarly I never thought or implied you were anti-British.

If you start telling me that Manchester is not Klagenfurt, then it does feel a bit like mansplaining (even though I am a man myself). Surely you can see that? (BTW, Manchester is not Vienna either - Greater Manchester and Greater Vienna might have a similar overall population, but the layout of the conurbations as well as the quality of "internal" transport available is so different as to render meaningful comparisons useless).

You made a specific charge that 'too much emphasis is put on frequency'. I responded to that point, and explained why I think your point was made on false premises. This conversation would be a lot easier if you simply engaged with the substance, rather than erecting straw men.

You mean straw men like the Swiss having a 1 tph base timetable, when it is 2 tph, achieved by combining two hourly routes? The problem in all of our discussions is that you are hell-bent on only one timetable model, namely the Dutch one, with a dense frequency of identical routes; and, in your iteration, with a metro network timetable structure at the expense of long-distance routes.
I do not agree with that - from there all our differences follow and I consider them irreconcilable, because whenever I write something, I get written down with no end in sight because it does not fit into your way of thinking. Unfortunately, timetabling principles are not like chemistry, or physics. There is no universal truth. The Dutch timetable model works very well for the Netherlands; the Swiss one works very well for Switzerland. Both have their merits (and presumably their drawbacks) and have evolved in quite different countries in different historical contexts. There is no reason why any of the two must automatically be the right one for the UK (or universally right), especially not for the whole of it. But whereas I respect your point of view and do not try to convert you - even agree with you where I believe you are right, you seem to think that you need to convert me. Which is why at a certain point I don't reply any more - why should I? You are not going to convert me; I *do* think things through and don't come up with them on a whim. I am also not trying to convert you - but I don't see a point in further discussing things when everything has been said at least twice either.

At the end of the day, West Midlands never voiced much disquiet about the Curzon Street proposal and Moor Street was a proposal of their own. Throughout the scheme development history the consistent hawkish body was Treasury. Why would doing something the West Midlands haven't asked for while pi$$ing off Treasury increase the chance of delivery? You still haven't answered this question.

Another of you straw men? Manchester has lost out because they insisted on an underground station, when the truth is that phase2b was cancelled because of cost explosions on phase 1?
I actually do not have to answer your question, because you didn't ask any. You are perfectly entitled to believe the West Midlands have got themselves a good deal. But that is an opinion, not an objective truth; I therefore do not have to refute it; and I also can't, because noone can refute opinions. Do I consider that you have a point? I actually do. It might well be that the West Midlands have accepted it all because they know from experience that there would never be a better deal available - in the sense that the better is the enemy of the good. And they might also be right. But it cannot be proved what the outcome would have been if they had insisted on something different (would HS2 never have been built then? Would the government have ridden roughshot over their objections? Would they have got a different deal).

BTW, the Midlands hub at Moor Street does not prove anything, since it came after the fact, namely the Curzon Street decision as a standalone HS2 station. It *is* a clever project considering the basis of it was already fixed.

As Bald Rick has explained, starting a scheme with poor value-for-money (as measured by Treasury criteria), either by starting from the north or adding bloat, would have needed Ministerial Direction, and it's highly unlikely that such Ministerial Direction would have been given by successive governments.

I have never criticized the HS2 planners for planning something that conforms to the political aims. They would have been very foolhardy to do this. I criticed the underlying premises.

Look, I find what you write very interesting, which is why I continue to read it and sometimes reply, when I disagree with it. I do find it funny though that while you seem to be a hundred percent certain that the Vienna Hbf through station was a gigantic mistake, you cannot accept me offering a rather tiny, and obviously perfectly subjective, criticism of the way the HS2 interfaces to the classic network have been planned.

 

[Flinn Reed]

In terms of the southern section of HS2:

- Build intermediate stations between London and Birmingham (roughly following the M1 then M6, instead of M40). Perhaps Luton Airport, Milton Keynes and Coventry, maybe also Watford Junction or Northampton. 4 tracks through each intermediate station, allowing faster services to pass through, similar to Eurostar on HS1.
- Better integration to the existing rail network. For example Birmingham Interchange and International should be one station, with HS2 serving underground platforms if there isn't enough land.
- Birmingham city centre to be a through station rather than a branch off the main HS2 route, with all services to Manchester etc stopping at Curzon Street, and some also serving Wolverhampton.
- No stop at Old Oak Common, but commit to projects increasing capacity for connections at Euston. Split the Northern Line, build Crossrail 2, integrate Euston Square into the main Euston tube station. And somehow improve access between Euston and St Pancras, for connections from HS2 to Thameslink.

However, HS2 also needs to be planned with the intention of eventually being part of a much larger high speed network, roughly mirroring the motorway network. In addition to the initial Y-shape of HS2 plus NPR, the core network should also include the M4/M5 corridors from Bristol/Cardiff to Birmingham and London (via Heathrow), and extending from Leeds/York to at least Newcastle. Could also consider some shorter high speed routes in the south east to relieve commuter services into London, for example the M3, M11 or M23 corridors.

 

[Shrop]

I really am confused; earlier on when I thought you said that Phase 1 should have been Birmingham - Manchester / Leeds, you said (I think) that Phase 1 should have been London - Manchester. Now you’re back to saying it should have been Birmingham - Manchester and Leeds. Is that right?

I don’t think I’ve ever said categorically that Phase 1 should have been Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds or London-Manchester, I’ve just considered alternatives to it being London-Birmingham, since the project has failed with this section as Phase 1.

Secondly, it would be good to see your thinking on how Birmingham - Manchester and Birmingham - Leeds could have been built for the original cost of Euston - Handsacre / Birmingham, and have been open by now, especially given HM Treasury annual spending limits, ehat the cost increases have been caused by, and the difficulties faced in the consents process.

I’ve just offered a scenario, in the name of the thrust of this thread, ie to consider whether doing things another way might have met with greater success.

My suggestion is that the costs of Phase 2a and 2b combined, are unlikely to have exceeded the cost of Phase 1. I cannot prove this, the only thing that is beyond all doubt is that Phases 2a and 2b have been abandoned, and I believe this is largely due to overspend on Phase 1 (or am I wrong on this point?).

I also think it’s possible that Phase 1 became so complex with its path through the Chilterns and all of the mitigation for that, that Phases 2a and 2b might have incurred less overspend. But again I cannot prove this.

Another possibility is that Phases 2a and 2b might not have met with the delays that have occurred with Phase 1, in which case there is a possibility that these sections could have been completed by now. I’m getting repetitive – I have already said this previously, and again I cannot prove it.

Thats harsh. The business case work demonstrated exactly that, namely that doing Phase 2 first without Phase 1 had a very poor BCR. Simply because the additional capacity provided into Manchester and Leeds was a) not as much as it would be with Phase 1 and b) worth less per path released (by a long way) than the paths into London.

It’s not about imagination, it’s simple economics. And it was all tested when HS2 was being developed. I accept that you won’t know the full detail of what was considered and how; very few people do other than those involved in developing it, writing the papers, and those that read them. But that is the same for any major project, I can assure you.

From what I saw and heard from those people involved, it is my opinon, based on workign on similar projects (and HS2 early on) that a proposal to work north to south would have needed to had specific “direction” from Government (this is a term to describe proceeding with something for which there is no financial or societal case) at least a decade ago. And then continued similar “directions” through each change of Governemnt (including when the Conservatives were changing PMs frequently). The most likely upshot of this is that it would have been cancelled in full, as it is simply not credible that 3 or 4 successive governements would all reach the same conclusion on delivering a project - namely HS2 Phase 2 without Phase 1 - that makes UK society worse off.

Please note, I have only ever wanted to offer that since Phases 2a and 2b have been abandoned for the foreseeable future, then could we have done things another way that might have resulted in greater success for the whole scheme?

If I’m not mistaken, then you and others who have disputed my comments, have said and continue to say, that there was no other way that HS2 could have been developed, ie Phase 1 as it is, had to come first.

I’m not really disputing what you’re saying, despite my despairing of it. I recognise that the way the UK operates, ie having to justify projects via BCR, coupled with our political system, and our media involvement with all of it (often complete with bias and misunderstandings on the part of some of them), means things have to be done that way they are. That’s just the way the UK operates. I’m fully aware of this, I’m just saddened that the way we do things has led to the loss of Phases 2a and 2b.

I can only reiterate my wish that we might be open to considering other ways of doing things, which might have resulted in the success of a scheme which ran all the way to Manchester/Leeds (and beyond). But having seen all of the comments in this thread, I have to concede that we’re pretty unlikely to be doing things any differently in the future.

 

[NCT]

My suggestion is that the costs of Phase 2a and 2b combined, are unlikely to have exceeded the cost of Phase 1. I cannot prove this, the only thing that is beyond all doubt is that Phases 2a and 2b have been abandoned, and I believe this is largely due to overspend on Phase 1 (or am I wrong on this point?).

I also think it’s possible that Phase 1 became so complex with its path through the Chilterns and all of the mitigation for that, that Phases 2a and 2b might have incurred less overspend. But again I cannot prove this.

Another possibility is that Phases 2a and 2b might not have met with the delays that have occurred with Phase 1, in which case there is a possibility that these sections could have been completed by now. I’m getting repetitive – I have already said this previously, and again I cannot prove it.

Your whole argument rests on these three points.

The validity of each point in isolation, and logical link between the points, are all extremely tenuous at best.

When you start a thread on extremely shaky premises, don't be upset when those premises are challenged or dismissed.

I’m not really disputing what you’re saying, despite my despairing of it. I recognise that the way the UK operates, ie having to justify projects via BCR, coupled with our political system, and our media involvement with all of it (often complete with bias and misunderstandings on the part of some of them), means things have to be done that way they are. That’s just the way the UK operates. I’m fully aware of this, I’m just saddened that the way we do things has led to the loss of Phases 2a and 2b.

I can only reiterate my wish that we might be open to considering other ways of doing things, which might have resulted in the success of a scheme which ran all the way to Manchester/Leeds (and beyond). But having seen all of the comments in this thread, I have to concede that we’re pretty unlikely to be doing things any differently in the future.

EDIT:

This isn't about 'if you could re-design HS2' but 'if you could overhaul the British political system'. It's an entirely different topic and it's questionable whether this is a railway topic.

 

[Palmerston]

In terms of the southern section of HS2:

- Build intermediate stations between London and Birmingham (roughly following the M1 then M6, instead of M40). Perhaps Luton Airport, Milton Keynes and Coventry, maybe also Watford Junction or Northampton. 4 tracks through each intermediate station, allowing faster services to pass through, similar to Eurostar on HS1.
- Better integration to the existing rail network. For example Birmingham Interchange and International should be one station, with HS2 serving underground platforms if there isn't enough land.
- Birmingham city centre to be a through station rather than a branch off the main HS2 route, with all services to Manchester etc stopping at Curzon Street, and some also serving Wolverhampton.
- No stop at Old Oak Common, but commit to projects increasing capacity for connections at Euston. Split the Northern Line, build Crossrail 2, integrate Euston Square into the main Euston tube station. And somehow improve access between Euston and St Pancras, for connections from HS2 to Thameslink.

How much will all this cost?

 

[Shrop]

Your whole argument rests on these three points.

The validity of each point in isolation, and logical link between the points, are all extremely tenuous at best

When you start a thread on extremely shaky premises, don't be upset when those premises are challenged or dismissed.

I'm not really upset, just philosophical about the fact that other countries seem to achieve rail advances a lot better than we do.

EDIT:

This isn't about 'if you could re-design HS2' but 'if you could overhaul the British political system'. It's an entirely different topic and it's questionable whether this is a railway topic.

The British political system and our railway design philosophies appear to go hand in hand. While I do believe that our political system is pretty dire (and I'm sure I'm far from alone in thinking this), that wasn't what I was thinking about. But I think our railway design philosophies leave a lot to be desired too.

 

[Bevan Price]

Well if we really could go back to the beginning - given the size of GB, I would question whether the time savings obtainable using a high speed network are worth the horrendous building costs.
As the main object is supposedly to increase north-south route capacity, I would look for much cheaper options.

So, maybe start with increasing capacity at south end of WCML.
1. Reinstate parts of GCR London Extension as far as Rugby (freight only), with new connection from Wembley yard. (4 tracks or 2 extra tracks on new alignment as far as Aylesbury if possible ) Deviations around any obstructions on the old alignment.
2. New connection onto WCML somewhere in Rugby area.
3. New direct main line (125 mph), Rugby to Birmingham (4 tracks, for freight & passenger)
3. Increase Bushbury Jn (Wolverhampton) to Stafford to 4 tracks (to improve freight capacity)
5. If possible, increase parts or all of Stechford to Bushbury Jn to 4 tracks (also to increase freight
capacity)
6. New (freight) connection, 2 to 5, to avoid Birmingham city centre.

 

[Transilien]

Well if we really could go back to the beginning - given the size of GB, I would question whether the time savings obtainable using a high speed network are worth the horrendous building costs.
As the main object is supposedly to increase north-south route capacity, I would look for much cheaper options.

The UK is not too small for high speed rail. Belgium has a high speed rail network of 4 lines which are used for both domestic and international traffic. All of these lines are shorter than HS2 will ever be.

 

[The Planner]

Well if we really could go back to the beginning - given the size of GB, I would question whether the time savings obtainable using a high speed network are worth the horrendous building costs.
As the main object is supposedly to increase north-south route capacity, I would look for much cheaper options.

So, maybe start with increasing capacity at south end of WCML.
1. Reinstate parts of GCR London Extension as far as Rugby (freight only), with new connection from Wembley yard. (4 tracks or 2 extra tracks on new alignment as far as Aylesbury if possible ) Deviations around any obstructions on the old alignment.
2. New connection onto WCML somewhere in Rugby area.
3. New direct main line (125 mph), Rugby to Birmingham (4 tracks, for freight & passenger)
3. Increase Bushbury Jn (Wolverhampton) to Stafford to 4 tracks (to improve freight capacity)
5. If possible, increase parts or all of Stechford to Bushbury Jn to 4 tracks (also to increase freight
capacity)
6. New (freight) connection, 2 to 5, to avoid Birmingham city centre.

That doesn't create capacity on the fast lines on the WCML. Id love to see how you would 4 track Stechford Bushbury.

 

[mike57]

Going to add my thoughts:

• Not making a connection to HS1 has to be a huge mistake. An underground 4 platform Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras station, with trains terminating out at Ebbsfleet where there is a lot more room, land costs are lower and disruption would be less, calling at Stratford on the way
• Given the length of the route even if built in full I can see no reason why it was specced for 250mph/400kph, even the Chinese, with 1000 mile + high speed lines are sticking to around 220mph, and the French, with much longer distances bewteen major centres of population have stuck to 200mph
• 400m trains, which dont translate well into units which then carry on to the classic network.
• The route, I think the 'roughly following the M1/M6' would have made more sense, rather than trying to drive it through the Chilterns, it would also have allowed MML long distance services to benefit in the future.
• Back to speed, if the issue is WCML capacity then a 155mph capable 140mph service speed would be plently for the journey lengths involved, 390's are 140mph capable, 800's are as well I believe, future stock could push this up to 155mph.

 

[Topological]

I look forward to the first post HS2 timetable when the southern WCML capacity is actually used to transform places along the current WCML. Then people will realise that it is not all about the longer distance WCML trains.

At the moment everything "alternative" without a new line does not want to remove the Avanti trains from the WCML south. Anything with a new line wants a longer route to the UKs biggest cities, failing to recognise that the HS2 planners did think about such things.

The most farcical alternatives remove the major interchange for Heathrow and the South West to replace it with stations in places like Luton, Leicester or Coventry.

 

[quantinghome]

Going to add my thoughts:

• Not making a connection to HS1 has to be a huge mistake. An underground 4 platform Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras station, with trains terminating out at Ebbsfleet where there is a lot more room, land costs are lower and disruption would be less, calling at Stratford on the way

No, linking to HS1 was never viable. The types and levels of service are fundamentally contradictory. How would security and border control work? How would you fit all those additional trains down HS1 between London and Ebbsfleet? You would have to build so much new underground infrastructure in central London that any savings you imagine at Ebbsfleet would pale in comparison.

• Given the length of the route even if built in full I can see no reason why it was specced for 250mph/400kph, even the Chinese, with 1000 mile + high speed lines are sticking to around 220mph, and the French, with much longer distances bewteen major centres of population have stuck to 200mph

Agreed.

• 400m trains, which dont translate well into units which then carry on to the classic network.

Why constrain capacity? And doesn't this contradict your first point given the length of Eurostars?

• The route, I think the 'roughly following the M1/M6' would have made more sense, rather than trying to drive it through the Chilterns, it would also have allowed MML long distance services to benefit in the future.

Swings and roundabouts. Yes, you'd avoid the Chilterns but the M1/M6 corridor is quite built up so you'd have a heck of a job threading the route through. And you'd remove the connection at Old Oak Common which is extremely useful in lots of different ways.

• Back to speed, if the issue is WCML capacity then a 155mph capable 140mph service speed would be plently for the journey lengths involved, 390's are 140mph capable, 800's are as well I believe, future stock could push this up to 155mph.

This really would be an unnecessary limitation. Reducing the design speed from 250mph to around 180-200mph would give significant cost savings as it brings the engineering into the 'normal' realm rather than have to address the esoteric design problems HS2 has lumbered itself with. Any further reduction in speed would be losing benefits for little gain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not making a connection to HS1 has to be a huge mistake. An underground 4 platform Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras station, with trains terminating out at Ebbsfleet where there is a lot more room, land costs are lower and disruption would be less, calling at Stratford on the way

Nah. There's not the demand for 10/11tph onto HS1 domestics nor would there be the paths for that (and due to security/customs/immigration sending them to northern France isn't going to work either), and boarding a long distance train at a terminus is just way more civilised than ramming on during a short stop. Can you imagine a version of the Euston scrum where all the London custom (that's most of the custom) is trying to cram on at once and find luggage space, reserved seats etc? Yes, it works on Thameslink, but commuter units designed with wide doors at thirds and narrow seats for fast passenger flow are not the same thing as InterCity units. There's a reason Thameslink is just regional/commuter services and they didn't put the whole of the MML onto it, and that reason isn't purely a lack of wires.

Part of the punctuality issue with Castlefield is/was the huge numbers getting on and off end doored units. Reading might be as close as it sort of gets, but a lot of that custom is commuters who don't care where they sit and don't have big luggage.

Yes, OOC...but I'm not convinced using that once it becomes a through station is going to be much fun.

 

[Austriantrain]

Nah. There's not the demand for 10/11tph onto HS1 domestics nor would there be the paths for that (and due to security/customs/immigration sending them to northern France isn't going to work either), and boarding a long distance train at a terminus is just way more civilised than ramming on during a short stop. Can you imagine a version of the Euston scrum where all the London custom (that's most of the custom) is trying to cram on at once and find luggage space, reserved seats etc? Yes, it works on Thameslink,

It works in many places on the continent. Obviously, station stop length need to be accordingly.

I obviously agree though that the border and security theatre has made a HS1-HS2-link completely unworkable, especially considering the originally planned train frequency on phase 1.

 

[mike57]

How would security and border control work?

To be fair I wasn't suggesting through services to France and beyond. The border control issues are insurmountable

And you'd remove the connection at Old Oak Common

Which I think might be a good thing in the longer term, I am not sure that two high speed stations that close together is a good idea.

 

[Trainbike46]

To be fair I wasn't suggesting through services to France and beyond. The border control issues are insurmountable

So you'd built the, likely way more costly, underground station in london to offer through services to Kent only?

Which I think might be a good thing in the longer term, I am not sure that two high speed stations that close together is a good idea.

One of the major reasons for building a 6-platform OOC as well as Euston is spread the load of the expected passenger numbers over a wider range of onward connections, rather than dumping them all at the same location, overloading onward travel options.

You are proposing to replace both the 6-platform OOC and Euston with a single, 4-platform through station, dumping out everyone at the same place, and expecting it to work?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It works in many places on the continent. Obviously, station stop length need to be accordingly.

Does anywhere "on the Continent" have such large mono centric demands aside from Paris, which has termini like London? Berlin Hbf maybe but a lot of trains terminate there.

I obviously agree though that the border and security theatre has made a HS1-HS2-link completely unworkable, especially considering the originally planned train frequency on phase 1.

Even without any of that and the UK in Schengen you're going to struggle to find sensible destinations for 11 trains per hour. The problem with the UK structurally is that London is in the bottom right hand corner with no major domestic intercity destinations to its east and south. Cross London regional services work well (e.g. Thameslink and the Liz) but intercity really wouldn't.

You could build a terminus in a field somewhere and sell off half the land at Euston, saving money. But that would be a pure financial thing - degrading the customer experience to save money. It might be justified but we shoudn't pretend it would be in any way advantageous other than to reduce the subsidy a bit.

Fundamentally London is not Birmingham. If London was where Birmingham is it would work (noting that boarding through intercity services at New St is hardly a nice experience, and the passenger numbers are way below those at London), but it's not.

 

[Austriantrain]

Does anywhere "on the Continent" have such large mono centric demands aside from Paris, which has termini like London? Berlin Hbf maybe but a lot of trains terminate there.

Good point. It does not make it impossible, but you would probably need a 10-minute stop, using a lot of platform capacity.

Even without any of that and the UK in Schengen you're going to struggle to find sensible destinations for 11 trains per hour. The problem with the UK structurally is that London is in the bottom right hand corner with no major domestic intercity destinations to its east and south. Cross London regional services work well (e.g. Thameslink and the Liz) but intercity really wouldn't.

You could build a terminus in a field somewhere and sell off half the land at Euston, saving money. But that would be a pure financial thing - degrading the customer experience to save money. It might be justified but we shoudn't pretend it would be in any way advantageous other than to reduce the subsidy a bit.

I don't believe it would make sense either. The HS2-HS1-connection was always pie-in-the-sky with 17 (originally planned) hourly paths to cover domestic demand alone; any trains for the continent would be additional, which would have meant four-tracking phase 1.

And I completely agree, a through station for London would be absurd, there is no point to it.

France has got around the "Paris station" problem by building the LGV interconnection, on the basis that the Paris terminators would not have capacity for cross-Paris-passengers anyway (at least in the peaks) and there is enough demand to fill "Paris avoiders" without any Paris-bound passengers. But no French LGV has 17 tph.

 

[quantinghome]

To be fair I wasn't suggesting through services to France and beyond. The border control issues are insurmountable

Then what's the point of through running from HS2 to HS1?

Which I think might be a good thing in the longer term, I am not sure that two high speed stations that close together is a good idea.

The connectivity provided by Old Oak Common far outweighs the few minutes extra journey to Euston. It transforms overall journey times from the North to Heathrow, West London and the Thames Valley. And being on Crossrail it's probably quicker to East London too.

 

[AlexSJW]

As been highlighted, as far as I can see HS2 terminating at Euston is a complete waste of money, OOC gives far superior connectivity for around London. The tunnel from OOC should bypass Euston running directly into HS1 so other cities other than mega city London have Continental access. Others may argue that the Channel tunnel does not have the capacity to accommodate more trains. Having the HS2 to HS1 link will highlight the need for a second tunnel to be built, hopefully accelerating the construction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As been highlighted, as far as I can see HS2 terminating at Euston is a complete waste of money, OOC gives far superior connectivity for around London. The tunnel from OOC should bypass Euston running directly into HS1 so other cities other than mega city London have Continental access. Others may argue that the Channel tunnel does not have the capacity to accommodate more trains. Having the HS2 to HS1 link will highlight the need for a second tunnel to be built, hopefully accelerating the construction.

Absolutely 100% not. You assume all onward travel is by Tube/Liz, and it's not. Euston is essential for those who prefer walking, bus, cycle or taxi, or simply walking to St Pancras or Kings Cross for an onward train service.

OOC is necessary and will be popular, but it must not be the long term terminus.

High speed train services terminating in the suburbs is not something serious countries do (aside from China, but China is structurally very different from the UK, and to be honest I'd still say there was some level of lack of seriousness given that much of the onward travel is by car, and Chinese cities are awful for stinking, polluting road traffic).

The issue isn't just lack of capacity, it's lack of demand. There's simply no demand for 11 trains per hour onto HS1. The demand (peaks aside) is for about four - two HS1 domestics and two Eurostars. You might manage to push both to three, but there isn't a sensible onward journey for every present Avanti service. People are going to London, not northern France, and Brexit has made that even more pronounced.

 

[Trainbike46]

Absolutely 100% not. You assume all onward travel is by Tube/Liz, and it's not. Euston is essential for those who prefer walking, bus, cycle or taxi, or simply walking to St Pancras or Kings Cross for an onward train service.

OOC is necessary and will be popular, but it must not be the long term terminus.

High speed train services terminating in the suburbs is not something serious countries do.

All agreed up to here

The issue isn't just lack of capacity, it's lack of demand. There's simply no demand for 11 trains per hour onto HS1. The demand (peaks aside) is for about four - two HS1 domestics and two Eurostars. You might manage to push both to three, but there isn't a sensible onward journey for every present Avanti service. People are going to London, not northern France, and Brexit has made that even more pronounced.

But this is clearly wrong.

The off-peak service pattern for HS1 is 4tph today (1 each to Faversham, Ramsgate via Faversham, Ramsgate via Dover Priory, Margate via Canterbury west). This is essentially 2tph via Gravesend and 2tph via Ashford. Did you forget about the trains that leave the high speed line at Gravesend?

Eurostar by themselves could likely fill 2 tph just to Paris. There is at least 1 tph for Brussels-Amsterdam/Frankfurt, and the Paris demand could likely fill a third train, especially if serious competitors started running Paris services. Here 4tph is a reasonable long-term aim, I would say.

However, you are right there is no real way to connect these services to the 11tph (or even 17tph) HS2 services in a sensible manner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The off-peak service pattern for HS1 is 4tph today (1 each to Faversham, Ramsgate via Faversham, Ramsgate via Dover Priory, Margate via Canterbury west). This is essentially 2tph via Gravesend and 2tph via Ashford. Did you forget about the trains that leave the high speed line at Gravesend?

Yes, I was just thinking of the "full length" ones to be fair.

Eurostar by themselves could likely fill 2 tph just to Paris. There is at least 1 tph for Brussels-Amsterdam/Frankfurt, and the Paris demand could likely fill a third train, especially if serious competitors started running Paris services. Here 4tph is a reasonable long-term aim, I would say.

However, you are right there is no real way to connect these services to the 11tph (or even 17tph) HS2 services in a sensible manner.

Yeah, it's simply a non starter because of Brexit. Given the demands, the idea of having to arrive at Manchester to go to London half an hour before departure and show ID and faff with security would be far worse than having to change trains at London in the unlikely event of going to France/Belgium/Germany. And while we may be likely to get closer to Europe over time as the US becomes increasingly irrelevant, I think the idea of the UK joining Schengen (and thus de-facto opening to unlimited immigration) is absolute fantasy - it would be such a vote-loser than it would be impossible.

Thus even if we do consider that we could work out what to connect two Liverpools, a Scotland, a Lancaster, three Manchesters and three Birminghams to (or whatever it'll be) across London (plus a load of delay cross-pollination), it's just not worth it given the travel demands that actually exist. And on short-haul, it's not unlikely that in the next 50 years we may end up in a position that electric aviation and the greening of the grid means that short haul air travel is no longer environmentally disadvantageous, and once we're there why shouldn't people just fly from Manchester to Paris? Once we're there, and I'm sure we will be at some point, those going via London would be deliberately choosing slow travel, in which case a stop-off in London to stretch your legs and have lunch on the way actually becomes an advantage.

 

[quantinghome]

As been highlighted, as far as I can see HS2 terminating at Euston is a complete waste of money, OOC gives far superior connectivity for around London. The tunnel from OOC should bypass Euston running directly into HS1 so other cities other than mega city London have Continental access. Others may argue that the Channel tunnel does not have the capacity to accommodate more trains. Having the HS2 to HS1 link will highlight the need for a second tunnel to be built, hopefully accelerating the construction.

No, it gives better connection for some parts of London, but by no means all.

There is no capacity on HS2 to run services to European destinations. Security and border control mean they have to be run separate to domestic services. The only way it could happen is if in the very long term a second HS line is built from London to the North. Then HS2 and the new line have some spare slots and you could run services around a London equivalent of the Paris interconnection.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no capacity on HS2 to run services to European destinations. Security and border control mean they have to be run separate to domestic services. The only way it could happen is if in the very long term a second HS line is built from London to the North. Then HS2 and the new line have some spare slots and you could run services around a London equivalent of the Paris interconnection.

Given that Regional Eurostar never happened, I'm unconvinced taking half an hour to an hour off London-Manchester would significantly change this. Plus as I note electric short haul aviation removes the principle of aviation being undesirable on environmental grounds, and I think we're very likely to see that in the next 50 years or so.

 

[Sorcerer]

High speed train services terminating in the suburbs is not something serious countries do (aside from China, but China is structurally very different from the UK, and to be honest I'd still say there was some level of lack of seriousness given that much of the onward travel is by car, and Chinese cities are awful for stinking, polluting road traffic).

As I understand it Chinese cities are also expected to expand around these suburban railway stations even if their high-speed rail was more for political reasons than pragmatic ones.

Others may argue that the Channel tunnel does not have the capacity to accommodate more trains. Having the HS2 to HS1 link will highlight the need for a second tunnel to be built, hopefully accelerating the construction.

The Channel Tunnel has plenty of spare capacity, and HS1 and HS2 can quite easily accommodate international services. The issue is primarily related to border security, and while you could theoretically have included plans for it in the new station constructions it would've increased costs for a railway that was primarily intended as a capacity relief line over an international connection.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I understand it Chinese cities are also expected to expand around these suburban railway stations even if their high-speed rail was more for political reasons than pragmatic ones.

And London will certainly expand around OOC, making it a worthwhile station. But it isn't the City, nor the West End, nor whatever, and it won't be. It'll be another place worth going to (like maybe Canary Wharf or Wembley's surrounds) but not the be-all and end-all, and not everyone wants to go onward by Tube/Liz.

 

[quantinghome]

Given that Regional Eurostar never happened, I'm unconvinced taking half an hour to an hour off London-Manchester would significantly change this. Plus as I note electric short haul aviation removes the principle of aviation being undesirable on environmental grounds, and I think we're very likely to see that in the next 50 years or so.

I wasn't thinking of demand, just what would have to happen for it to work.

Is there really a viable technological development path to short haul electric flight? What energy density would be needed?