Chris Gibb's HS2 proposal

[Nottingham59]

A handful of minutes, probably.

The alternative way to get tilt speeds on Crewe-Glasgow and HS2 speeds on Crewe-London, would be a reliably timetabled cross-platform change from one to the other at Crewe (or Warrington, or Wigan, or Preston, depending on where the platform capacity could be found.)

And if the Golborne link were ever reinstated, then the obvious place to do it would be Preston, connecting with Pendolinos running Manchester / Liverpool to Glasgow / Edinburgh.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The alternative way to get tilt speeds on Crewe-Glasgow and HS2 speeds on Crewe-London, would be a reliably timetabled cross-platform change from one to the other at Crewe (or Warrington, or Wigan, or Preston, depending on where the platform capacity could be found.)

And if the Golborne link were ever reinstated, then the obvious place to do it would be Preston, connecting with Pendolinos running Manchester / Liverpool to Glasgow / Edinburgh.

Not having a fast through service from London to Glasgow and vice versa would be the absolute demonstration of a dysfunctional railway. That, I'm afraid, is an unbelievably terrible idea.

 

[stevieinselby]

So is this proposal just a WCML upgrade, with the scope to improve and relieve ECML, MML and XCML abandoned? It feels like it would be a massive own goal if that's the case and would massively hinder future upgrades.
The genius of HS2 is that on one core route into London, it could cover all four of those mainlines, with Birmingham to Yorkshire & North East seeing some of the biggest benefits. But that only worked because it was seriously fast, which meant that it was quicker than existing ECML and MML services despite having a longer route.

If the line between London and Birmingham is only specced for 155mph then it's unlikely that it could be easily upgraded to higher speeds later, which means that it is unlikely that the full Y could ever be built, because there would be no demand for trains from London to Yorkshire & North East that were slower via Birmingham than on the existing mainlines. So any additional capacity or accelerated journey times on that axis could only be achieved through building a second high speed line into London, which would almost certainly be prohibitively expensive.

That would sabotage the future of long-distance rail in this country for generations.

 

[HSTEd]

Not having a fast through service from London to Glasgow and vice versa would be the absolute demonstration of a dysfunctional railway. That, I'm afraid, is an unbelievably terrible idea.

Well the Japanese model is to break services like this when high speed lines are constructed.
It would be a radical break with the previous concept of through services to everywhere, but I don't think it would be that damaging to the image of the railway.
The public can plainly see that things really aren't going well.

So is this proposal just a WCML upgrade, with the scope to improve and relieve ECML, MML and XCML abandoned? It feels like it would be a massive own goal if that's the case and would massively hinder future upgrades.
The genius of HS2 is that on one core route into London, it could cover all four of those mainlines, with Birmingham to Yorkshire & North East seeing some of the biggest benefits. But that only worked because it was seriously fast, which meant that it was quicker than existing ECML and MML services despite having a longer route.

I'm not convinced HS2's concept was ever truly workable.
It required pushing a load of technologies and operations to the absolute limit of what was achievable, and despite several attempts noone seems to have been able to come up with an actual workable design for Euston.

Sure, replacing all main lines with one sounds good, but the actual implementation has some serious limitations. For example limits on service cuts on the classic lines from the need to serve intermediate stations, and questions about economics of the slower services once the high paying long distance traffic vanishes.

I don't think they should have ever have attempted such an ambitious scheme, especially given the questionable phasing decisions that were made.
HS2's management also appears to have a unclear and constantly changing view of the line's role, which didn't seem to have helped matters.

If the line between London and Birmingham is only specced for 155mph then it's unlikely that it could be easily upgraded to higher speeds later, which means that it is unlikely that the full Y could ever be built, because there would be no demand for trains from London to Yorkshire & North East that were slower via Birmingham than on the existing mainlines. So any additional capacity or accelerated journey times on that axis could only be achieved through building a second high speed line into London, which would almost certainly be prohibitively expensive.

That would sabotage the future of long-distance rail in this country for generations.

The line is going to be specced for 360kph, its already half built!
Given the runaway budget increases on HS2, continuing with the HS2 concept is going to be prohibitively expensive!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So is this proposal just a WCML upgrade, with the scope to improve and relieve ECML, MML and XCML abandoned? It feels like it would be a massive own goal if that's the case and would massively hinder future upgrades.
The genius of HS2 is that on one core route into London, it could cover all four of those mainlines, with Birmingham to Yorkshire & North East seeing some of the biggest benefits. But that only worked because it was seriously fast, which meant that it was quicker than existing ECML and MML services despite having a longer route.

If the line between London and Birmingham is only specced for 155mph then it's unlikely that it could be easily upgraded to higher speeds later, which means that it is unlikely that the full Y could ever be built, because there would be no demand for trains from London to Yorkshire & North East that were slower via Birmingham than on the existing mainlines. So any additional capacity or accelerated journey times on that axis could only be achieved through building a second high speed line into London, which would almost certainly be prohibitively expensive.

That would sabotage the future of long-distance rail in this country for generations.

I think you're misunderstanding.

What it is is a proposal for a service pattern using HS2 Phase 1 as it is being built only, on the grounds that that is the only part likely to be built, and certainly is the only part that will be in operation for at least another 10-20 years even if 2A etc was signed off tomorrow. Obviously if 2A and 2B were built, the plan would change accordingly.

Nothing in that service pattern in any way prejudices any future decision to build 2A, 2B or anything else. Nor does it change the fact that Phase 1 is being built for 300-400km/h operation - it simply wouldn't be run that fast in daily use, just like "Javelin" units run at 140mph on HS1.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2024 ==

Well the Japanese model is to break services like this when high speed lines are constructed.

It might be that people trust connections in Japan. This however is the UK, or if you prefer a wider look at things Europe, and in no European country bar those saddled with Iberian or Russian gauge is that a policy - why? Because having no direct London to Glasgow services would be an absolute gift for easyJet and the complete opposite of what we are trying to achieve!

It's an utterly ridiculous idea.

 

[Nottingham59]

Not having a fast through service from London to Glasgow and vice versa would be the absolute demonstration of a dysfunctional railway. That, I'm afraid, is an unbelievably terrible idea.

Running 155mph stock on a 225mph line is also a dysfunctional railway. By all means have through services as well. For instance, you could let the Glasgow to Crewe pendolino continue to Euston down the WCML to serve Milton Keynes. (Just like Glasgow Avantis serve Birmingham today). Or you could allow HS2 trains to continue north to Glasgow, calling at more stations, flighted immediately after the Pendolino leaves.

It's 160 miles from Crewe to Euston. Assuming 2a gets built, this takes 62 minutes by super-Pendolino at 155mph (plus acceleration time). 360kph on HS2 stock takes 43 mins plus acceleration. So that's 19 minutes faster using HS2 stock south of Crewe. And it's at least 10 minutes faster by Pendolino north of Crewe.

Even allowing 9 minutes for a robust interchange at Crewe, it's still faster by changing.

EDIT: I've just noticed that Gibbs is proposing to run the HS2 stock at 300kph, to make it all fit. That's bonkers.

 

[HSTEd]

EDIT: I've just noticed that Gibbs is proposing to run the HS2 stock at 300kph, to make it all fit. That's bonkers.

HS2 is planning to operate HS2 stock at 320kph and only use 360kph when "recovering the timetable".

Virtually everyone who has tried 360kph commercial service has given up, the wear and tear costs are just too large.

 

[JonathanH]

Could the HS2 stock just be cancelled and Pendolinos used instead (at 155mph on HS2) to save some money? That would remove the issue with pathing.

 

[HSTEd]

Could the HS2 stock just be cancelled and Pendolinos used instead (at 155mph on HS2) to save some money? That would remove the issue with pathing.

Well cancelling the HS2 stock will finish off Derby for sure and probably kill Newton Aycliffe, with the associated blowback.

It's not even clear the Class 390s can actually be made to operate reliably at 155mph.
Lots of these conversion projects have failed miserably throughout the history of the railway.

 

[Sorcerer]

Could the HS2 stock just be cancelled and Pendolinos used instead (at 155mph on HS2) to save some money? That would remove the issue with pathing.

In theory, yes. But in reality it would kind of waste all the design and engineering already put into designing the line to have 400km/h capabilities. I know the trains won't operate at that speed but they will still be faster than Pendolinos could dream of reaching. Plus, if HS2 opens in the 2030s the Pendolino would need to be replaced within the decade anyway so you might as well just move along with the current order as it is.

 

[Nottingham59]

HS2 is planning to operate HS2 stock at 320kph and only use 360kph when "recovering the timetable".

That's most days then, given the vagaries of the WCML.

Even at 320kph, it's 48 mins (plus acceleration) to Crewe on HS2 stock, which is still 14 minutes faster than any 155mph super-Pendolino. And the HS2 trains have already been ordered.

If the issue is lack of tilt on curves, then just fit baffles to the table edges and order passngers to sit down in the twisty bits.

If the issue is short trains at Piccadilly and Glasgow, then run HS2 trains that at 250m long to everywhere except Curzon St

 

[Bald Rick]

from what I’ve seen of the proposal, it has some merit.

But not much.

The time loss for non-tilt stock north of Preston to Glasgow / Edinburgh is relatively little (around 4-6 mins) assuming the HS2 stock accelerates a little more quickly than the 390s and a new ‘MU’ speed profile is adopted using the same principles as south of Crewe.

 

[stevieinselby]

I think you're misunderstanding.

What it is is a proposal for a service pattern using HS2 Phase 1 as it is being built only, on the grounds that that is the only part likely to be built, and certainly is the only part that will be in operation for at least another 10-20 years even if 2A etc was signed off tomorrow. Obviously if 2A and 2B were built, the plan would change accordingly.

Nothing in that service pattern in any way prejudices any future decision to build 2A, 2B or anything else. Nor does it change the fact that Phase 1 is being built for 300-400km/h operation - it simply wouldn't be run that fast in daily use, just like "Javelin" units run at 140mph on HS1.

Ah, thanks for clarifying (I don't have a subscription to the magazines and so couldn't read the articles about it).
That makes more sense – my gut reaction is that I'm not convinced, but maybe with a bit more reading about it I could be brought round.

 

[Nottingham59]

What do others think?

I don't have access to the articles. What problem is the Gibbs proposal trying to solve?

Euston would get two (if I recall correctly) 400m platforms and Manchester could perhaps gain some later to allow those to go to 400m pairs.

How would that work? What sort of station is Gibbs proposing at Euston, please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even allowing 9 minutes for a robust interchange at Crewe, it's still faster by changing.

People don't like changing.

EDIT: I've just noticed that Gibbs is proposing to run the HS2 stock at 300kph, to make it all fit. That's bonkers.

It's sensible. HS2 should only ever have been a 300km/h line anyway - we're a small country!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2024 ==

I don't have access to the articles. What problem is the Gibbs proposal trying to solve?

Capacity (issues with the 200m HS2 stock vs. 265m Pendolinos) and speed (due to lack of tilt on routes that extend too far onto the classic line).

How would that work? What sort of station is Gibbs proposing at Euston, please?

He seems to discuss a couple of options, one being the existing two long platforms being extended slightly to 400m and the other being constructing a couple of 400m platforms on the old 17-18 space which is now demolished. He doesn't seem to take a concrete line on Euston other than that it'd not be as expensive as the full thing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2024 ==

If the issue is lack of tilt on curves, then just fit baffles to the table edges and order passngers to sit down in the twisty bits.

That's a non-starter unless you're going to put a steward in every coach.

If the issue is short trains at Piccadilly and Glasgow, then run HS2 trains that at 250m long to everywhere except Curzon St

I do agree that the HS2 stock order should be changed to in part 250 or 275m units for that reason (unless this idea is followed). I think I'd go 275m and do the small number of platform works required/use ASDO where required, as that would add considerable capacity over now.

 

[cinders&ashes]

How much time would an enhanced ETCS Pendolino save compared to HS2 stock from Crewe to Glasgow?

And conversely, how much time would an HS2 train save compared to a 155mph pendolino from Crewe to Euston?

If ETCS allows for 140mph running (which was the original WCML goal, but they didn't finish the job) then it's top speed would be ~30% faster than the 110mph of an HS2 unit.
Top speed is of course not always reached, and the more stops there are, the more you're slowing down and speeding up again.
As there are 2 trains/hr Crewe-Glasgow, personally I'd divide those stops (Preston, Lancaster etc) into 2 hourly services to achieve better end to end times and win market from cars and planes.
The northern stops might get a less frequent service but in return get a faster link to both London and Glasgow.

 

[Trainbike46]

People don't like changing.



It's sensible. HS2 should only ever have been a 300km/h line anyway - we're a small country!

designing and building a 300 (or 320) km/h railway wouldn't have allowed politicians to brag about building Europe's fastest high speed line though

If ETCS allows for 140mph running (which was the original WCML goal, but they didn't finish the job) then it's top speed would be ~30% faster than the 110mph of an HS2 unit.
Top speed is of course not always reached, and the more stops there are, the more you're slowing down and speeding up again.
As there are 2 trains/hr Crewe-Glasgow, personally I'd divide those stops (Preston, Lancaster etc) into 2 hourly services to achieve better end to end times and win market from cars and planes.
The northern stops might get a less frequent service but in return get a faster link to both London and Glasgow.

you're making the (incorrect) assumption that a new MU profile, and the works involved in your ETCS proposal, wouldn't raise speeds for the HS2 units above 110 mph - which seems highly unlikely

 

[Howardh]

Layman question - if a current Pendolino without modification was put on the new HS2 track, how fast could it actually go assuming it's not physically restricted to 125mph? Or could the HS2 line simply not take a Pendolino in it's current form?

 

[Bald Rick]

Layman question - if a current Pendolino without modification was put on the new HS2 track, how fast could it actually go assuming it's not physically restricted to 125mph? Or could the HS2 line simply not take a Pendolino in it's current form?

It couldn‘t work, as Class 390s would not be compatible with HS2 signalling (ETCS).

However, if they were fitted with ETCS, the fastest they could go, officially, is 140mph, as that is what the stock is restricted to currently. Even that would need a change to maintenance arrangements.

 

[Howardh]

It couldn‘t work, as Class 390s would not be compatible with HS2 signalling (ETCS).

However, if they were fitted with ETCS, the fastest they could go, officially, is 140mph, as that is what the stock is restricted to currently. Even that would need a change to maintenance arrangements.

Thanks for that!

 

[MarkyT]

designing and building a 300 (or 320) km/h railway wouldn't have allowed politicians to brag about building Europe's fastest high speed line though

It's sensible to have some upgrade margin in the basic alignment design, i.e curves capable or 400kph where possible even if initial railway systems and trains can only achieve 360kph. Early rail engineers like Brunel worked at a time when 100kph was about the limit, yet they designed wide curves that are being traversed at twice that speed today.

you're making the (incorrect) assumption that a new MU profile, and the works involved in your ETCS proposal, wouldn't raise speeds for the HS2 units above 110 mph - which seems highly unlikely

There are undoubtedly many places where non tilt stock could go faster. It's just that when WCRM took place, the only trains planned to go faster were the tilting pendolinos and voyagers with TASS, only fitted to those trains. A higher EPS at a particular location today does not necessarily mean the train will actually deploy tilt there. TASS can allow higher speed without tilt for these trains alone. New trains will probably be more sprightly than the heavy pendolinos, so will also be able to accelerate more rapidly out of curve speed restrictions. New trains will be ETCS for HS2. I would have thought that TASS should be possible to emulate in the onboard equipment of such new rolling stock, and instead of controlling tilt it could just permit higher speeds on straighter sections where suitable.

 

[Trainbike46]

There are undoubtedly many places where non tilt stock could go faster. It's just that when WCRM took place, the only trains planned to go faster were the tilting pendolinos and voyagers with TASS, only fitted to those trains. A higher EPS at a particular location today does not necessarily mean the train will actually deploy tilt there. TASS can allow higher speed without tilt for these trains alone. New trains will probably be more sprightly than the heavy pendolinos, so will also be able to accelerate more rapidly out of curve speed restrictions. New trains will be ETCS for HS2. I would have thought that TASS should be possible to emulate in the onboard equipment of such new rolling stock, and instead of controlling tilt it could just permit higher speeds on straighter sections where suitable.

exactly my point; assuming that HS2 stock will run at 110 mph, and pendolinos at 140 mph between Crewe and Glasgow isn't representative of what is likely to happen at all

 

[WAB]

For those of you who don't have access to the relevant publications, this PDF may be of interest to you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for posting that - it's vastly more comprehensive than either of the articles.

 

[FlyingPotato]

You can also find the proposal on Chris Gibb's Linkedin

 

[Nottingham59]

For those of you who don't have access to the relevant publications, this PDF may be of interest to you.

Thanks for posting.

So the proposal is dependent on:

• Building a new 155mph "New North Line" from Fradley Junction to Manchester. (Presumably on the planned HS2 alignment?)
• ETCS on WCML between Warrington and Quintishill by 2029
• Upgrading the Pendolino fleet to run at 155mph in non-tilt mode, and 140mph or more with tilt.
• Upgrading the WCML electrification to support 140mph running, but not as an "enhancement". These are merely "renewals consistent with higher line speed"
• A very different design for HS2 Euston station, with only two 400m platforms.

Have I got this right?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds largely right but that it seems like there'd be 4 long platforms at Euston (2 new and 2 existing that the Sleeper use).

 

[HSTEd]

So how will this line from Fradley to Manchester differ from HS2.....?

It goes all the same places and given the time constraints proposed it would just have to be HS2 Phase 2.

 

[chrisgibb]

Running 155mph stock on a 225mph line is also a dysfunctional railway. By all means have through services as well. For instance, you could let the Glasgow to Crewe pendolino continue to Euston down the WCML to serve Milton Keynes. (Just like Glasgow Avantis serve Birmingham today). Or you could allow HS2 trains to continue north to Glasgow, calling at more stations, flighted immediately after the Pendolino leaves. It's 160 miles from Crewe to Euston. Assuming 2a gets built, this takes 62 minutes by super-Pendolino at 155mph (plus acceleration time). 360kph on HS2 stock takes 43 mins plus acceleration. So that's 19 minutes faster using HS2 stock south of Crewe. And it's at least 10 minutes faster by Pendolino north of Crewe. Even allowing 9 minutes for a robust interchange at Crewe, it's still faster by changing. EDIT: I've just noticed that Gibbs is proposing to run the HS2 stock at 300kph, to make it all fit. That's bonkers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2024 ==

My full proposal is available on LinkedIn - it’s not confidential. Comments welcome on LinkedIn. Better ideas that don’t involve millions of pounds of extra public money this is not currently available, and will be ready in a little over five years, are welcome and should also be made public. I’m not saying I have the best idea, I just want to start a debate as no other plans are published and the clock is ticking. Phase 1 is being built, the trains are ordered, and that’s what the rail industry must now make the best of. I believe we can deliver big benefits to millions of people across the UK: the same or more seats on all WCML + HS2 routes, reduced journey times and capacity for more freight. Chris Gibb

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2024 ==

It’s all in the proposal. As I said comments welcome on LinkedIn.

 

[cinders&ashes]

Not having a fast through service from London to Glasgow and vice versa would be the absolute demonstration of a dysfunctional railway. That, I'm afraid, is an unbelievably terrible idea.

I agree making people change sounds like it won't fly - esp intercity passengers who are more likely to have luggage etc if they're using the train instead of flying.
But maybe they should see if there is mileage in it? If the fast line finishes just north of Birmingham, then a direct Euston-Glasgow service on HS2 stock could be timetabled to stop alongside a Glasgow-bound Pendolino service out of Birmingham at the earliest stop after the high speed track ends (likely Crewe or Stafford). Passengers could choose to switch to the faster service or remain on a direct service. The Pendo would depart, followed straight after by the non-tilt. After several months the stats would bear out whether to continue with this, move to just switching or just direct.
SWR do something similar at Haslemere for Portsmouth-bound trains and most people switch (though, per my above point, they're mainly commuters).

So how will this line from Fradley to Manchester differ from HS2.....?

It goes all the same places and given the time constraints proposed it would just have to be HS2 Phase 2.

Per the proposal, it'd be specced for 155mph rather than 250mph