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!
Future proofs it for what? I remember reading that SNCF doesn’t run trains over 320km/h because of power draw issues. There doesn’t seem to be any obvious reason why trains should go above 320-330, perhaps this is the realistic maximum that traditional trains can reach in service.
The older TGV may not be the most efficient trains in the world, the new TGV M are supposed to use 20% less power. Which is presumably part of why they are rated to 350km/h when the older ones are only 320.
320km/h is clearly not a maximum on running in service, given the Chinese have been doing 350 since 2017.
Various sources seem to suggest an average power consumption for the TGV of 20kWh/km at 320. The Chinese trains at 350 are said to be 21.4kWh/km. That doesn’t look insurmountable to provide extra power. Which for HS2 would only be required during service recovery, as timetabled services are 320/330 anyway.
The official estimate was that a 125mph railway would have been 9% cheaper., therefore an intermediate speed would have less of a saving.
On one of the other recent HS2 threads someone has produced a table comparing the times with 300kph running.
I can see that the construction costs will not be notably higher for a 360 or 400 kph alignment than if building it for 300 or 320.
The issue, I believe, will rather be the energy costs for operations? as far as I know this is why France has discarded any idea of going above 320 - same for Italy - (and 1 of a thousand reasons why I believe Spain’s idea of running at 350 between Madrid and Barcelona is complete bonkers).
Probably the higher speed will really only make a difference once there is a through HS line all the way to the Scottish Central belt. How much time difference are we talking there with 360 vs 320 maximum speed? Something like 15 to 20 minutes?
Might not be the case, but would building it at a slightly lower speed, say, 300km/h, potentially have been able to increase options for the route by being able to weave it round things a little more, perhaps reducing problems with NIMBYs/making it easier to sort out some of their concerns. Surely taken far enough, the difference of not needing the Chiltern tunnel, or at the very least not needing as much of it, as an example, could potentially have saved a fair chunk of money?
Might not be the case, but would building it at a slightly lower speed, say, 300km/h, potentially have been able to increase options for the route by being able to weave it round things a little more, perhaps reducing problems with NIMBYs/making it easier to sort out some of their concerns. Surely taken far enough, the difference of not needing the Chiltern tunnel, or at the very least not needing as much of it, as an example, could potentially have saved a fair chunk of money?
Regardless of speed the Chilterns would still have been in the way. To move the route to the east means you start bumping into several conurbations larger than Aylesbury, as well as lengthening the route to be traversed.
125mph was chosen as the comparison because that's a standard UK mainline. Once you've decided you're building a high speed line, why wouldn't you build to the same standard everyone else has been building to?
You're saying it's a small country, but knocking half an hour off the London to Manchester or Glasgow times isn't to be sniffed at. Especially for the latter, getting to 4 hour journey time might be enough to swing some travellers to use the train instead of the plane.
Finally, as @TheHam has shown in many postings, going faster can save money. If you can get more round-trips per day out of your rolling stock, you don't need to buy as many to provide your service. (Or need as many crew etc.)
Rolling stock requirements, existing (mix of 9 and 11 coach) 145 coaches to run 3tph between London and Manchester, with full HS2 (all 16 coach trains) that's 144 coaches to run 3tph.
Likewise the round trip time falls from 5 hours to 3, for each 100 hours of drivers time (assuming 30 minute brake at each end) that's currently 20 round trips, with HS2 that's 33 round trips.
Given that the typical TOC costs are about 1/3 staff costs, 1/3 lease costs and 1/3 other costs that's 1/3 which will reduce (staff) and 1/3 which is likely to be broadly the same (lease costs).
I get the feeling that part of the reason for the 360km/h top speed is national pride. The UK was the country that created the train, yet they haven’t been in the forefront of technology since the Second World War at least. Never underestimate how much a government wants to be a world leader in technology.
I get the feeling that part of the reason for the 360km/h top speed is national pride. The UK was the country that created the train, yet they haven’t been in the forefront of technology since the Second World War at least. Never underestimate how much a government wants to be a world leader in technology.
I don't think it was pride, more that specifying that speed was thought to be best international practice, so why wouldn't you? Unfortunately the argument wasn't properly backed up with solid analysis. In retrospect, they should have said "we'll go for at least 300km/h, with higher speeds considered to see if they offer more benefit than cost". Something similar happened on HS1. It was original specified for 270km/h but was than increased to 300km/h. However in that case it didn't really make any difference to the design, so it was all benefit (although limited). By contrast HS2's high speed pushing to 360km/h and beyond has required an array of esoteric issues to be brought into the design.
Quite, but in Spain and France (and even much of Germany) their lower population density meant they didn't have to do that so much, and they could make the lines straighter more easily.
Population density (people per Km2)
England = 443 (it's even higher if one excludes north of York and Preston or west of Bristol where HS2 was never going to be built anyway)
Japan = 343
Germany = 242
France = 122
Spain = 97
This is a very skewed presentation of population density. You've named England rather than the UK, so why not name Honshu (the main island of Japan) rather than the whole of Japan? It would be a much fairer comparison, and then you'd have a slightly higher figure for Honshu than England.
But to make it more of a comparison, Honshu is a lot more mountainous than the UK, and dramatically even more so if you're just comparing it with England (since Scotland and Wales are both a lot more mountainous than England). In other words, putting England at the top of this table is very biased against the capability of the Japanese, who have shown their rail capabilities to be far in excess of the UK's for many decades. And don't even get me started on their punctuality compared to ours!
Another thing ... you said earlier in this thread that France is a "huge" country, but in rail terms is a common misconception. Top to bottom of France is no longer than top to bottom of the UK, it's just that France is similar in width, whereas the UK is much narrower.
But when it comes to where HSR might go, then if the UK had kept up with the French or the Japanese with our rail development decades ago, the distances of where they could/should run are very comparable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The older TGV may not be the most efficient trains in the world, the new TGV M are supposed to use 20% less power. Which is presumably part of why they are rated to 350km/h when the older ones are only 320.
320km/h is clearly not a maximum on running in service, given the Chinese have been doing 350 since 2017.
Various sources seem to suggest an average power consumption for the TGV of 20kWh/km at 320. The Chinese trains at 350 are said to be 21.4kWh/km. That doesn’t look insurmountable to provide extra power. Which for HS2 would only be required during service recovery, as timetabled services are 320/330 anyway.
You said 350kph since 2017, but wasn't that after a few years of reduction to 300kph after the HSR crash in 2011? I thought the design speed of the Beijing-Shanghai route was 350kph from the start, when it opened in 2011, not long before the crash. Maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong? I also thought the HSR crash was at relatively low speed, nothing like 350kph.
Whilst mentioning the Beijing to Shanghai route, I believe it was constructed in only marginally over 3 years. Compare that for a length of over 800 miles, to the time taken to construct HS2 at about one eighth of that length. I know I do have a dig at the relative UK capabilities on this forum, but we do seem to have a lot of people who spend a great deal of time pointing out why we can't do things, rather than pushing to find ways why we can.
Probably the higher speed will really only make a difference once there is a through HS line all the way to the Scottish Central belt. How much time difference are we talking there with 360 vs 320 maximum speed? Something like 15 to 20 minutes?
360 v 320 saves 1.25sec per km. Assuming an extension of HS2 to within a few km of Glasgow and/or Edinburgh, and allowing for some sections lower than 320/360, plus a service making 3 intermediate stops at OOC, Birmingham Int and let’s say “Newton le Willows TGV” then you’re looking at around 500km at top speed. So 360 would save 10 mins over 320.
You said 350kph since 2017, but wasn't that after a few years of reduction to 300kph after the HSR crash in 2011? I thought the design speed of the Beijing-Shanghai route was 350kph from the start, when it opened in 2011, not long before the crash. Maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong? I also thought the HSR crash was at relatively low speed, nothing like 350kph.
Beijing - Shanghai was built for 380kph. After 2011 it was restricted to 300 kph but in 2017, after rectification work, the restrictions were lifted to 350 kph.
I've travelled on this line many times and the on board displays frequently show speeds around 350.
360 v 320 saves 1.25sec per km. Assuming an extension of HS2 to within a few km of Glasgow and/or Edinburgh, and allowing for some sections lower than 320/360, plus a service making 3 intermediate stops at OOC, Birmingham Int and let’s say “Newton le Willows TGV” then you’re looking at around 500km at top speed. So 360 would save 10 mins over 320.
Non stop from Newton-le-Willows TGV to Glasgow/Edinburgh makes perfect sense given the relatively 'small' size of any one conurbation between (approximately) M62 to M8 west of the Pennines.
Non stop from Newton-le-Willows TGV to Glasgow/Edinburgh makes perfect sense given the relatively 'small' size of any one conurbation between (approximately) M62 to M8 west of the Pennines.
Preston? But that might be dealt with in a combination of London - HS2 - Preston (with more stops than the Scottish services) and Manchester - Preston - HS2 - Scotland services.
Here are a couple of examples off the top of my head:
At higher speeds you need to start looking at dynamic track-ground interaction - i.e. the mechanical waves in the ground forming a 'mach cone' ahead of the train. HS2 found this was particularly problematic for certain soil types which had low mechanical wave speeds. I don't know what solution was eventually decided but the talk was of having to excavate and replace several metres of ground under the formation.
Transitions from plain track alignment into structures becomes a problem. Say you have a deep cutting in clay, going into a tunnel. The ground in the cutting will heave upwards and this will continue for a long duration. But the tunnel won't move nearly as much. To maintain vertical track alignment you need to ensure the differential movement is limited. In normal circumstances you would use ballast to iron out the difference, tamping back into alignment. You can't do that with slab track so you need a permanent fix which usually comprises some sort of piled raft with progressively shorter piles going away from the tunnel. There would be a similar issue at the interface of high embankments with bridges/viaducts.
These are ground-related (betraying my specialism), doubtless there are more from other disciplines.
Preston? But that might be dealt with in a combination of London - HS2 - Preston (with more stops than the Scottish services) and Manchester - Preston - HS2 - Scotland services.
"Note - I'm assuming an improved national enthusiasm for rail travel, with both politicians and the public recognising its benefits over car travel."
Also as I've said previously, far, far more people use cars than trains. If there was a significant transfer from road to rail for passenger travel, then a high quality rail route from London to Scotland would be justified.
Typically 60-65 each way on weekdays. Average of around 125 per flight.
Reasonable to assume that if there was a high speed line all the way and 2-3 tph doing it in (say) 2h30, 70-80% would shift to rail. There would always remain air passengers for connections at Heathrow and for those who want to get to/from specific origin/destinations where the airport is easier, eg Brighton (Gatwick), Canary Wharf (City) etc. As a comparison, there are in the region of 12 flights a day each way between Paris and Marseille, despite an excellent TGV service, and there’s a much lower population in the Marseille metropolitan area than in the Scotland central belt.
Non stop from Newton-le-Willows TGV to Glasgow/Edinburgh makes perfect sense given the relatively 'small' size of any one conurbation between (approximately) M62 to M8 west of the Pennines.
I agree. I was just challenging my learned colleague who has previously expressed doubt that passenger loadings on long distances without stops would be all that high.
Well, I shall quote a post from a learned member on another thread:
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Typically 60-65 each way on weekdays. Average of around 125 per flight.
Reasonable to assume that if there was a high speed line all the way and 2-3 tph doing it in (say) 2h30, 70-80% would shift to rail. There would always remain air passengers for connections at Heathrow and for those who want to get to/from specific origin/destinations where the airport is easier, eg Brighton (Gatwick), Canary Wharf (City) etc. As a comparison, there are in the region of 12 flights a day each way between Paris and Marseille, despite an excellent TGV service, and there’s a much lower population in the Marseille metropolitan area than in the Scotland central belt.
32 flights lots of passengers would be 4,000 passengers.
Assuming they account for 25% of all seats on a given service that would require 16 HS2 full length trains, so an hourly 1/2 length service run hourly from Glasgow and Edinburgh would likely facilitate a halving of air passenger numbers.
Whilst I agree that there's going to be some retention of flying due to a London airport being more convenient than Old Oak Common or Euston, there's also the potential for some extra shift in air passengers from airports like Southampton.
I've not done the maths for Scotland, however Southampton to Newcastle (when the full eastern arm was being built) was going to see a reduction in journey times of at least an hour and been more frequent.
On current journey times from Southampton to Paddington and the circa 3:40 from Euston to Edinburgh/Glasgow under HS2 journey times of 5:20 to 6:00 are likely. Whilst that's a lot slower than the ideal 4 hours (probably closer to 3 hours due to the cost proximity of Southampton to the airport) there are also fairly limited numbers of flights.
Between Southampton and Glasgow there appears to be one flight each way, so unless you want to leave for Scotland around lunch time and leave for Southampton before 9am your options are limited.
Whilst there's three flights to Edinburgh a day, they are fairly pricey. As an example booking flights in June for Thursday up Friday back are £188 (plus costs to from the airport) return l, whilst booking a train up today and back tomorrow there are options for trains for a little less than £220 (splitting the tickets at London is £61+£5+ As such giving air travel a slight advantage the price is broadly similar.
However try booking flights today/tomorrow (so making the comparison with the train tickets more alike) and the flights jump to £325 (first class rail travel today/Friday is £391 using LNER, so includes use of lounges, food & drink in the train and a much more spacious seat - even standard class on most trains are more generous than a lot of airline seats, even some of the more premium options).
Booking trains for the same Thursday/Friday in just and there's options for rail travel at the same price as the airline. As such you'd likely see a small shift to rail (especially given that some of those passengers flying to Edinburgh could be wishing to go to Glasgow due to the poor service provision, for example I knew someone who on a morning flight [at the time it was morning and evening flights] to Glasgow did sure inspections and flew home, they would now likely have to fit at least one way to Edinburgh if not both ways due to hiring a car).
If there's more HS lines (and/or faster speeds allowed on modified existing tracks) that market share would likely shift to rail further and could see some flights cut, which would make rail more attractive.
With lower (125, 140, even 150 mph speeds on the new line there wouldn't be enough of a time change to shift that dial.
As I said, for Newcastle (train journey time of 4 hours vs the current 5 hours) the shift could be more significant, especially as (both booking for a week out) first class rail travel is only £10 more than the flights, especially given there's only two flights a day, so the train may give you a better arrival/departure time.
For example:
Flying from Southampton times are 6:50 (arrive 8:00) or 14:25 (arrive 15:35).
Getting the train from Southampton, there's currently a 9:15 service from Southampton Central which gets you Paddington at 10:42, so even allowing for a 4:30 (allowing for a little over 39 minutes change time at Old Common) total train time (this arrives arrives Newcastle 13:45) you can leave your start point in or near Southampton at a much more leisurely time of day and still arrive at Newcastle before the later flight has even left Southampton.
The thing with Southampton is that if the passenger is starting from somewhere else (say Winchester or Basingstoke) then the train would be even better (train departure time from Winchester is 9:33 whilst Basingstoke is 9:49 for the same arrival time) and the time to get up is noticeable earlier (of you were to be doing it regularly you'd still be looking at leaving your house before 6am to fly).
Now obviously if you wanted to have a full day in Newcastle to go by train would be an early start, however with the option of a 5:15 train (arrive Newcastle 9:45) it's not quite as good as flying, but probably good enough for most people if the flights were cancelled or changed their times.
However, as it's an early morning train when the network isn't as busy as it is the rest of the day, if there was enough of a market for early train travel from Southampton to places in the North (as it would allow connections to any HS2 service, so you wouldn't be reliant on only travel to Newcastle) you could run (say) a 05:10 service direct to Paddington (arrives Paddington 06:44, and could be ready to leave to head out to Paignton at 07:02 - currently a 5 coach class 80x which is entering service from Old Oak Common)
Renfe has launched the tender process for the acquisition of up to 40 state-of-the-art high-speed trains, representing the largest rolling stock purchase of this type in the company's history. This measure responds to the need to meet the projected growth in demand for the coming years, the expansion of the rail network, and the commitment to strengthening Renfe as a leading public operator in Europe.
The tender includes the acquisition of 30 of these trains for a total of €1.362 billion, with an option to increase the order by 10 additional units. If the purchase of these 10 additional units is carried out, the total investment would reach €1.777 billion.
The new trains will be able to operate at a speed of 350 km/h once the rail infrastructure is ready to allow for the increased commercial speed, which will optimize travel times and position Renfe at the forefront of international rail transport technology.
The new tender is primarily aimed at renewing trains that have accumulated the most years of service. This action is part of Renfe's strategy to equip itself with a more modern, efficient high-speed fleet adapted to current mobility needs.
I agree. I was just challenging my learned colleague who has previously expressed doubt that passenger loadings on long distances without stops would be all that high.
for most routes in this country that’s right, but for a very few routes where there is proven demand using other fast modes, there is scope for rail to gain significant traffic on long distance fast journeys. in this country there are two such routes: London - Glasgow and London - Edinburgh. Fortunately the 2nd and 3rd largest centres of population and economic activity are on the way.
for most routes in this country that’s right, but for a very few routes where there is proven demand using other fast modes, there is scope for rail to gain significant traffic on long distance fast journeys. in this country there are two such routes: London - Glasgow and London - Edinburgh. Fortunately the 2nd and 3rd largest centres of population and economic activity are on the way.
I'd be interested to know what you think of my subsequent comment from the post that you quoted, ie. that a new route after HS2 could provide "high quality end to end services, but also between intermediate places too".
As you may recall, I said this in the context that this new route should be London to Edinburgh and Glasgow via Leeds. However, in recognition that this route wouldn’t have enough end to end traffic to justify having perhaps only one or two stops, it should also carry intermediate traffic, with stops being something like Luton Airport, Leicester, East Midlands, Sheffield, Leeds, Teesside and Tyneside.
Services from Birmingham and Manchester would feed into this route, at East Midlands and Leeds.
This was also in the context that the UK was quick to tap into HS1 to provide London-Kent services, in order to add value to the cost of its construction, ie. we should find a way to maximise the value here too.
Apologies if I missed any responses you might have already made to this suggestion of a new route.
And what a terrible decision that is. Vastly higher energy costs for no discernible improvement in the competitive position of rail, since it is already dominant. Just Spanish pride (and I love the Spanish BTW, but sometimes don’t understand them..).
And what a terrible decision that is. Vastly higher energy costs for no discernible improvement in the competitive position of rail, since it is already dominant. Just Spanish pride (and I love the Spanish BTW, but sometimes don’t understand them..).
Just because a vehicle can run at the higher speed doesn't mean that it must, or even be used in infrastructure which permits it to (how many cars can go faster than 90mph in the UK, yet the maximum speed limit is 70mph - OK there was that one time I saw a motorway matrix sign saying 80mph but that was a glitch).
If the purchase costs are broadly the same (given these are too replace existing older trains) then it provides options in the future if the infrastructure does allow it, however for now it doesn't and it's unlikely that will be coming any time soon
Just because a vehicle can run at the higher speed doesn't mean that it must, or even be used in infrastructure which permits it to (how many cars can go faster than 90mph in the UK, yet the maximum speed limit is 70mph - OK there was that one time I saw a motorway matrix sign saying 80mph but that was a glitch).
If the purchase costs are broadly the same (given these are too replace existing older trains) then it provides options in the future if the infrastructure does allow it, however for now it doesn't and it's unlikely that will be coming any time soon
However, only when the infrastructure allows, so:
a) not everywhere
b) only if those improvements are made
Whilst they are likely to do so, the impact on energy use is still likely to be less profound than is often highlighted, if it is then the higher speeds are likely to be used for timetable recovery rather than most services.
Of course, given that Spain has some of the lowest energy prices in the EU (a reversal from 10 years ago, achieved by investing in renewables) those extra costs are likely to be less pronounced than if it was elsewhere.
However, only when the infrastructure allows, so:
a) not everywhere
b) only if those improvements are made
Whilst they are likely to do so, the impact on energy use is still likely to be less profound than is often highlighted, if it is then the higher speeds are likely to be used for timetable recovery rather than most services.
Of course, given that Spain has some of the lowest energy prices in the EU (a reversal from 10 years ago, achieved by investing in renewables) those extra costs are likely to be less pronounced than if it was elsewhere.
Well, a cynic might see that they should better use the money they would invest in upgrading the infrastructure for 350 kph for maintenance and safety measures… the Upkeeping of Spain’s gigantic HSL network is going to be financially difficult as it is, no point in adding more, entirely unnecessary costs.
This is a very skewed presentation of population density. You've named England rather than the UK, so why not name Honshu (the main island of Japan) rather than the whole of Japan? It would be a much fairer comparison, and then you'd have a slightly higher figure for Honshu than England.
But to make it more of a comparison, Honshu is a lot more mountainous than the UK, and dramatically even more so if you're just comparing it with England (since Scotland and Wales are both a lot more mountainous than England). In other words, putting England at the top of this table is very biased against the capability of the Japanese, who have shown their rail capabilities to be far in excess of the UK's for many decades. And don't even get me started on their punctuality compared to ours!
Another thing ... you said earlier in this thread that France is a "huge" country, but in rail terms is a common misconception. Top to bottom of France is no longer than top to bottom of the UK, it's just that France is similar in width, whereas the UK is much narrower.
I specifically chose England because HS2 was never planned to go to Scotland.
As regards the length of the UK I don't think north of Edinburgh or possibly Aberdeen (and certainly not north of Inverness) is particularly relevant for the purposes of high speed inter city travel planning..
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
