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

[MatthewHutton]

If HS2 had only been phase 1 from the beginning it never would've been approved. Phase 2 was required to make the cost benefit ratio good enough for the treasury.

Phase 1 extended to north of Stafford plus a link through to the Tamworth Derby line and some classic electrification and you’re able to run something like 15 services an hour.

So at HS1 costs it would have a very respectable cost-benefit ratio.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2026 ==

A train five or more metres wide would be possible with a wider track gauge though.
Making the passenger space more rectangular would have definite efficiency benefits, and you could probably make the train much taller.

Let’s not do maglev. It’s crazy.

 

[HSTEd]

Phase 1 extended to north of Stafford plus a link through to the Tamworth Derby line and some classic electrification and you’re able to run something like 15 services an hour.

So at HS1 costs it would have a very respectable cost-benefit ratio.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2026 ==


Let’s not do maglev. It’s crazy.

I think you have responded to the wrong post - and in any case I've not proposed Maglev in this thread....

 

[MatthewHutton]

If freight is running at night, when are you maintaining it?

You also don’t want to put freight on a high speed line as it unnecessarily limits the max gradient.

I think you have responded to the wrong post - and in any case I've not proposed Maglev in this thread....

Sorry my bad.

 

[Zomboid]

I think you have responded to the wrong post - and in any case I've not proposed Maglev in this thread....

Though if your going to go for something incompatible with the classic network (broad gauge having been suggested) your might as well go all in and do maglev or some other alternative technology.

 

[HSTEd]

Though if your going to go for something incompatible with the classic network (broad gauge having been suggested) your might as well go all in and do maglev or some other alternative technology.

Yes, as I actually did propose using a linear synchronous motor from maglev R&D to get passenger-limited acceleration. Still using steel wheel and rail to support the train though.

Maglev has some advantages but it would result in an entirely different scheme to the point that I'm not sure it would only be a 'redesign'.

 

[BogiePicker]

Yes, as I actually did propose using a linear synchronous motor from maglev R&D to get passenger-limited acceleration. Still using steel wheel and rail to support the train though.

Maglev has some advantages but it would result in an entirely different scheme to the point that I'm not sure it would only be a 'redesign'.

What scale of advantage would this confer over a traditional OLE train? Would 'bi-mode' theoretically be possible or would it negate the point of kitting out the train to maglev spec.

 

[Zomboid]

Yes, as I actually did propose using a linear synchronous motor from maglev R&D to get passenger-limited acceleration. Still using steel wheel and rail to support the train though

Are they still doing that in Vancouver? Might have legs if the trains can use both systems as there's other compromises with very high speed OLE.

 

[HSTEd]

What scale of advantage would this confer over a traditional OLE train? Would 'bi-mode' theoretically be possible or would it negate the point of kitting out the train to maglev spec.

Well you could build dual mode units, but the weight would increase track wear etc when operating with the linear motor.

Assuming it's a powered stator linear motor, you would eliminate OLE wear entirely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2026 ==

Are they still doing that in Vancouver? Might have legs if the trains can use both systems as there's other compromises with very high speed OLE.

They are to some degree, but that motor does power the train rather than the track. So all the power pickup stuff is still present.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, as I actually did propose using a linear synchronous motor from maglev R&D to get passenger-limited acceleration.

You get that with steel on steel. Much more acceleration than a Class 350 already does and your passengers will be falling over.

 

[Shrop]

Though if your going to go for something incompatible with the classic network (broad gauge having been suggested) your might as well go all in and do maglev or some other alternative technology.

It's an interesting point though. When HS2 was first proposed, under the banner of Greengauge21 back in 2006 or so, much of its foundation for support was to serve Heathrow.
I asked the question at the Conference, about how providing a HS rail service to Heathrow would benefit an incompatible (indeed in competition for reaching Western Europe) mode, ie flying. My question was answered by saying that political support was necessary in order to avoid the need for a third runway.
Strangely, serving Heathrow was dropped by the time HS2 was formally announced in 2009. AND ... we're now talking about a third runway anyway, before HS2 will be open.
Ah well, those in power obviously knew better than me
Funny how compatibility matters when it suits, and not when it doesn't!

 

[BogiePicker]

You get that with steel on steel. Much more acceleration than a Class 350 already does and your passengers will be falling over.

What about all the way to 200mph+? There was a youtuber who got to try the maglev L0 and it was pulling pretty strongly beyond 200, iirc.

 

[MatthewHutton]

What about all the way to 200mph+? There was a youtuber who got to try the maglev L0 and it was pulling pretty strongly beyond 200, iirc.

Yeah but who cares about going that fast on a small island?

 

[Shrop]

Yeah but who cares about going that fast on a small island?

Er ... maybe you should question the Japanese about that ...

 

[MatthewHutton]

Er ... maybe you should question the Japanese about that ...

Japan is much bigger than the UK in terms of length. It’s 1000km from Tokyo to Fukuoka.

 

[HSTEd]

You get that with steel on steel. Much more acceleration than a Class 350 already does and your passengers will be falling over.

A Class 350 can't accelerate like that all the way to 360kph, it will run out of traction power.

And a train can't feasibly carry powerful enough traction equipment to do it, it'd ne way too heavy.

With a trackside linear synchronous motor, we can accelerate a train from zero to 360kph at 1.1-1.3m/s/s (ie. like a metro train).

EDIT:

Japanese tests with the Fastech 360Z test train showed that a 360km/h trainset can be stopped in an emergency by air and friction brakes in ~4000m, the braking performance in service using the synchronous motor would be similar.

That should be compared with ~9,300m for the HS2 reference train under service braking conditions.

That implies a significant reduction in the route's technical headway and an increase in capacity.

Plus the ludicrous acceleration of this train would shave a few minutes off journeys compared to the reference train, with an OOC to Birmingham Interchange journey of under 30 minutes, depending on the exact speed profile of the route.

 

[Shrop]

Japan is much bigger than the UK in terms of length. It’s 1000km from Tokyo to Fukuoka.

A bit less than Plymouth to Inverness, although that's not the point.
The point is, HS2 is now being built (incredibly slowly) just to serve a distance of little over 100 miles. Forget your Toyko to Fukuoka distance, London to Manchester/Leeds was always the MINIMUM useful distance to justify HSR.
The 400 miles to Glasgow/Edinburgh would justify HSR even more, but running HSR to Birmingham only is unforgiveable and has brought the UK rail capability into complete disrepute.
Talking about being a small island is a bit of a distraction too. 400 miles makes a worthwhile HSR project, even 200 miles does. 110 miles does not.

 

[WideRanger]

What about all the way to 200mph+? There was a youtuber who got to try the maglev L0 and it was pulling pretty strongly beyond 200, iirc.

I have been on the Japanese experimental Maglev - although it was almost 20 years ago. The acceleration and deceleration was such that it was required for all passengers to be confirmed seated before it could set off. It wasn't quite aircraft carrier or roller coaster levels of acceleration, but it was exhilarating. And I certainly wouldn't want to be standing.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's an interesting point though. When HS2 was first proposed, under the banner of Greengauge21 back in 2006 or so, much of its foundation for support was to serve Heathrow.

HS2 was not launched as Greengauge 21. The latter was a thought experiment led by Jim Steer. HS2 had a lot more wirk behind it before being ‘launched’. They were seperate projects.

The point is, HS2 is now being built (incredibly slowly) just to serve a distance of little over 100 miles.

As ever, HS2 will serve a lot more than 100 miles…

 

[MatthewHutton]

A bit less than Plymouth to Inverness, although that's not the point.

Plymouth to Inverness is more like doing Kagoshima to Kitami which is roughly 2750km.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2026 ==

Forget your Toyko to Fukuoka distance, London to Manchester/Leeds was always the MINIMUM useful distance to justify HSR.

It would definitely be useful if it was extended north of Stafford which isn’t much further.

 

[Shrop]

HS2 was not launched as Greengauge 21. The latter was a thought experiment led by Jim Steer. HS2 had a lot more wirk behind it before being ‘launched’. They were seperate projects.

Recollections may vary, as they say. When HS2 was launched, it bore striking resemblances to the Greengauge21 "thought experiment", but with Heathrow as a connection instead of being served directly.
Of course they can be presented, many years later, as having been separate projects, but how separate do you mean? Are you saying that when HS2 was announced, the work of Greengauge21 had no influence on it?

As ever, HS2 will serve a lot more than 100 miles…

Interpretation, nothing more.
HS2 might "serve a lot more than 100 miles", but only in that trains running longer distances might use it for the 100 miles (or thereabouts) closest to London in order to shave a few minutes off their overall journey times.
Consider journeys beyond the first 100 miles, eg. Birmingham to Manchester or Leeds (aka the former Phases 2a and 2b of HS2).
Please could you explain how much journey time will be saved along these sections, as a result of being served by HS2? After all, you've presented it as serving "a lot more than 100 miles" ...

 

[The Ham]

Interpretation, nothing more.
HS2 might "serve a lot more than 100 miles", but only in that trains running longer distances might use it for the 100 miles (or thereabouts) closest to London in order to shave a few minutes off their overall journey times.
Consider journeys beyond the first 100 miles, eg. Birmingham to Manchester or Leeds (aka the former Phases 2a and 2b of HS2).
Please could you explain how much journey time will be saved along these sections, as a result of being served by HS2? After all, you've presented it as serving "a lot more than 100 miles"

I'll give an example.

If the full HS2 project was built Southampton to Newcastle would have seen minimum journey time improvements of 60 minutes of time saving whilst changing trains twice using existing timetables (i.e. no direct services between Southampton and Old Oak Common), even though neither location was even close to any HS2 (closest section of rail proposed by HS2 was over 40 miles from either).

For Phase 1, the answer depends on where people are travelling to/from.

For a lot of people travelling it'll make their journey around 30 minutes faster, as they'll be travelling to/from London.

Obviously for those travelling between Penrith and Lockerbie, it'll be of limited benefit - although the numbers doing so would be insignificant compared to those doing the shorter trips.

Of course, that's all assuming train frequencies don't change. If by building HS2 there's scope for 2tph rather than 1tph the savings could be that the train gets you to where you want to much closer to the time you want.

Let's say you want to be in Glasgow at 9:00 for a meeting at 9:30. If the current train gets you there at 8:10 or 9:10 that's either a long weight from stores or being reliant on the train being on time.

If that then changes to be 8:10, 8:40 and 9:10; then you've gained 30 minutes at home and still able to be have a shorter wait upon arrival.

A lot of these other benefits aren't yet defined, as they are future projects (there's been examples of the sorts of things which could be done, but almost nothing confirmed).

 

[Shrop]

I'll give an example.

If the full HS2 project was built Southampton to Newcastle would have seen minimum journey time improvements of 60 minutes of time saving whilst changing trains twice using existing timetables (i.e. no direct services between Southampton and Old Oak Common), even though neither location was even close to any HS2 (closest section of rail proposed by HS2 was over 40 miles from either).

For Phase 1, the answer depends on where people are travelling to/from.

For a lot of people travelling it'll make their journey around 30 minutes faster, as they'll be travelling to/from London.

Obviously for those travelling between Penrith and Lockerbie, it'll be of limited benefit - although the numbers doing so would be insignificant compared to those doing the shorter trips.

Of course, that's all assuming train frequencies don't change. If by building HS2 there's scope for 2tph rather than 1tph the savings could be that the train gets you to where you want to much closer to the time you want.

Let's say you want to be in Glasgow at 9:00 for a meeting at 9:30. If the current train gets you there at 8:10 or 9:10 that's either a long weight from stores or being reliant on the train being on time.

If that then changes to be 8:10, 8:40 and 9:10; then you've gained 30 minutes at home and still able to be have a shorter wait upon arrival.

A lot of these other benefits aren't yet defined, as they are future projects (there's been examples of the sorts of things which could be done, but almost nothing confirmed).

Sorry, but how are those claims of yours worth the cost of £100bn?

 

[Bald Rick]

Are you saying that when HS2 was announced, the work of Greengauge21 had no influence on it?

No. I’m saying they were not the same project.

Interpretation, nothing more.
HS2 might "serve a lot more than 100 miles", but only in that trains running longer distances might use it for the 100 miles (or thereabouts) closest to London in order to shave a few minutes off their overall journey times.

nearer half an hour than a few minutes, but let’s not split hairs.

But I’m glad you agree that HS2 will serve a distance of a lot more than 100 miles. Saying otherwise is like suggesting the Elizabeth line serves only Paddington to Stratford and Abbey Wood.

 

[WAO]

But I’m glad you agree that HS2 will serve a distance of a lot more than 100 miles. Saying otherwise is like suggesting the Elizabeth line serves only Paddington to Stratford and Abbey Wood.

Mentioning the wider hinterland that the EL serves also brings to mind that HS2 will form an EL "branch" at OOC. I imagine that most B'ham bound travellers from Euston travel there by tube etc and would find the EL very much more attractive and for many, more convenient. It would need the higher EL frequency (18/hr proposed?) West of Paddington (in my experience terminators there are nearly empty but westbound services rammed).

I wonder whether arriving at B'ham Curzon Street will be as convenient for onward journeys - has the terminal there really put the customer first? I think that immediate connectivity here will be the arbiter of (hopefully) this first stage's resounding success, quite apart from destinations further North.

WAO

 

[zwk500]

I wonder whether arriving at B'ham Curzon Street will be as convenient for onward journeys - has the terminal there really put the customer first? I think that immediate connectivity here will be the arbiter of (hopefully) this first stage's resounding success, quite apart from destinations further North.

Well it will have a tram stop underneath it, its right alongside Moor Street and opposite New Street so onwards connections are certainly there.

 

[Krokodil]

HS2 might "serve a lot more than 100 miles", but only in that trains running longer distances might use it for the 100 miles (or thereabouts) closest to London in order to shave a few minutes off their overall journey times.

I suggest that next time that your significant other calls you for dinner you should say that you'll be "a few minutes". It doesn't sound very much, after all. Then show up 27 minutes later. Their reaction will teach you (if you didn't know already) how dishonest it is to claim that HS2 is just to "save a few minutes" to London.

I'm sure that posters have pointed out many times before that capacity is the number one priority. The southern WCML is the busiest mixed-traffic railway in Europe.

It would need the higher EL frequency (18/hr proposed?) West of Paddington (in my experience terminators there are nearly empty but westbound services rammed).

When OOC opens the Paddington terminators will become OOC terminators.

 

[WAO]

The "6 minute" walk from New Street ignores the vastness of both stations and the connection time, as well as the back streets inner city walk perhaps in the evening, with luggage or an expensive laptop. If you have to go via New Street then a direct semi fast to Euston might still be attractive.

If customers were more important than bats (or architects' display books) in the HS2 project,then the three B'ham stations would have been treated more as a unit, airport style, and perhaps a travelator devised.

We really need an AI version of Sir Herbert Walker for these schemes.

WAO

 

[Tetchytyke]

When it turned out it wasn't, every HS2-related planning decision should have been called in, especially if the council was behaving unreasonably or obstructively.

The councils were not behaving unreasonably or obstructively in enacting the democratic will of the people living in those areas.

There is no failure with the planning system, which should not- indeed, must not- be allowed to trample over democracy.

The failure, as with everything else in HS2, has been a failure of HS2 project management in actually meaningfully engaging with the people affected right at the very beginning. There will always be a small number of people who are intractably opposed to everything but, actually, most people are reasonable and will, if you try and meet them halfway, come to a mutually beneficial compromise.

As I said on the other thread, instead of doing that HS2 have just tried to stiff everyone. Weirdly enough, people who’ve just been shafted by the compulsory purchase process will try and make your life hard in exchange.

As for costs, HS2 have spent seven years fighting the landlord of the Bree Louise pub. Seven! The lawyers must be laughing. Imagine if they’d just paid up instead?

 

[Krokodil]

The councils were not behaving unreasonably or obstructively in enacting the democratic will of the people living in those areas.

Clearly they were if the inspector overruled them

 

[MatthewHutton]

Clearly they were if the inspector overruled them

Yeah but also the councils can only get away with it because it’s politically unviable for Labour/the Greens/the Lib Dem’s/Reform/the independents to back HS2 to even the smallest degree in those council areas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2026 ==

The "6 minute" walk from New Street ignores the vastness of both stations and the connection time,

The official connection time will be the better part of half an hour unless they change the connection rules.

Even with my preferred rules of MAX(station 1, station 2)+walking time it’d be 17 minutes assuming you need 10 minutes at new street/curzon street.