Crewe Hub

[HSTEd]

No it can't. A double deck train UIC gauge train can take at most 1.5 times the passengers of a single deck train of the same length - at that multiplier it will be extremely cramped. 1.3 times is a more sensible figure. It's insignificant.

30% more passengers is not an insignificant figure.
Its the difference between ~1000 passengers on a 400m set and 1350 I projected using TGV Duplex seating plans for reference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

30% more passengers is not an insignificant figure.
Its the difference between ~1000 passengers on a 400m set and 1350 I projected using TGV Duplex seating plans for reference.

Where's the demand coming from for even 1000 passengers every 20 minutes or more? People are latching onto this 400m thing, but it is completely unnecessary, even in single deck form. 11x23m/10x26m is a sensible maximum length for UK domestic services - beyond that the length becomes an inconvenience (see E*) and you might as well just up the frequency.

In practice DoSto sets are used to save money. It's cheaper, in UIC gauge, to build a 4-car DoSto set than a 6-car single deck set. That's 4 fewer bogies, 2 fewer braking systems etc.

 

[HSTEd]

Where's the demand coming from for even 1000 passengers every 20 minutes or more? People are latching onto this 400m thing, but it is completely unnecessary, even in single deck form.

By cutting fares to something close to the marginal cost of operation plus an appropriate infrastructure charge.
Pile it as high as everest and sell it for peanuts.
Cheap transport is a public good after all, so we can justify pushing a bit past the laffer curve maximum towards cheaper tickets.

Using double decker trains reduces the per seat operating cost and allows fares to be lower - improving the delocalised benefits of the scheme. I want the worlds fastest tube line both in fares and perception.

11x23m/10x26m is a sensible maximum length for UK domestic services - beyond that the length becomes an inconvenience (see E*) and you might as well just up the frequency.

Upping the frequency requires many billions of pounds if HS2 is anything to go by
A path costs something approaching £2bn.
As for the length issues of Eurostar - that is mostly caused by the absolutely lousy design of stations like St Pancras and Waterloo - and if it was such a hindrance why are the new sets 400m rather than shorter 260m trains that you suggest are better? HS1 is hardly full of trains.
Travellators on each and every platform for example would help, as well as positioning the entrances of through stations at the middle of the train.

If you are going to push the capacity angle so hard in the face of accusations about it being obsessed with speed above all else, then you can't complain when people propose a low cost means of maximising the capacity of this route.

In practice DoSto sets are used to save money. It's cheaper, in UIC gauge, to build a 4-car DoSto set than a 6-car single deck set. That's 4 fewer bogies, 2 fewer braking systems etc.

You aren't exactly selling single deck trains to be with that statement....

 

[Bletchleyite]

By cutting fares to something close to the marginal cost of operation plus an appropriate infrastructure charge.
Pile it as high as everest and sell it for peanuts.
Cheap transport is a public good after all

Is it? Surely we need to regulate excessive travel by not charging peanuts for it? There is no societal benefit whatsoever of turning Crewe into a commuter suburb of London.

Using double decker trains reduces the per seat operating cost and allows fares to be lower - improving the delocalised benefits of the scheme. I want the worlds fastest tube line both in fares and perception.

Again, why?

Upping the frequency requires many billions of pounds if HS2 is anything to go by
A path costs something approaching £2bn.

That's just a cost model.

As for the length issues of Eurostar - that is mostly caused by the absolutely lousy design of stations like St Pancras and Waterloo - and if it was such a hindrance why are the new sets 400m rather than shorter 260m trains that you suggest are better?

Channel Tunnel emergency evacuation rules - the exits are 400m apart, and the rule is that part of the train must always be adjacent to one.

Travellators on each and every platform for example would help, as well as positioning the entrances of through stations at the middle of the train.

They would help, but better simply not to do it.

If you are going to push the capacity angle so hard in the face of accusations about it being obsessed with speed above all else, then you can't complain when people propose a low cost means of maximising the capacity of this route.

You're missing the point. What is needed is to remove trains from the south WCML. That doesn't require an awful lot more fast capacity than presently operated on the south WCML, it just requires effectively two "super-fast" lines as far as Birmingham. Which is all I think HS2 needs to be. No 400m trains, no new Euston, no new Birmingham station, no captive trains etc. Just a Swiss style diversionary Neubaustrecke to allow more freight and more local services on the south WCML south of Northampton. (North of Northampton upping everything to 12x20m will provide enough local capacity for years).

You aren't exactly selling single deck trains to be with that statement....

The benefits of single deck relate to accessibility and comfort. Cost is not everything.

 

[The Planner]

So presumably you are saying the quantum of trains at Birmingham and Euston will be the same? If not, then you need to do something at both ends station wise.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it? Surely we need to regulate excessive travel by not charging peanuts for it? There is no societal benefit whatsoever of turning Crewe into a commuter suburb of London.

Charging more for it just makes it so the poor can't travel and have to remain where they are.
That is hardly conducive to a healthy society.
How can travel be "excessive"?
The extra environmental damage from the longer, higher capacity trains is very small compared to the damage of the first few carriages [limited additional energy use from rolling resistance and a bit of side drag and more material for stock basically]

Again, why?

Because inexpensive travel seems to be a fairly unalloyed good, it promotes improvements in wages and living conditions by allowing people to live in cheap areas and yet work in areas with superior pay and conditions - for example.
It also allows people to go on day trips and the like and experience things that they would never otherwise experience.

That's just a cost model.

So the route doesn't cost that?
Adding 18 paths per hour is costing an enormous sum of money.

You're missing the point. What is needed is to remove trains from the south WCML. That doesn't require an awful lot more fast capacity than presently operated on the south WCML, it just requires effectively two "super-fast" lines as far as Birmingham.

Why do we need to remove trains from the south WCML?
IF you don't need lots more capacity what is the point of the whole thing?

Which is all I think HS2 needs to be. No 400m trains, no new Euston, no new Birmingham station, no captive trains etc. Just a Swiss style diversionary Neubaustrecke to allow more freight and more local services on the south WCML south of Northampton. (North of Northampton upping everything to 12x20m will provide enough local capacity for years).

And where will the platform capacity for these new local trains come from without a rebuild of Euston and or Birmingham?
Any significant new line construction between London and Birmingham will cost many tens of billions, the tunneling out of London, which is pretty much unavoidable alone costs some enormous sum of money.
If we want build this line we need to use it as much as possible from day one to actually get some return from the collosal investment.

The benefits of single deck relate to accessibility and comfort. Cost is not everything.

Accesibility is not that much worse with a double deck train using continental height platforms, and space for several wheelchairs, with flat access, can be provided in the end vehicles iwthout significantly reducing the capacity of the set.

And comfort? How is a single deck set built to UK loading gauge more comfortable than a double deck built to UIC? Since you are demanding no new captive trains you end up with tiny interiors no matter what you do.

 

[Holly]

... And comfort? How is a single deck set built to UK loading gauge more comfortable than a double deck built to UIC? Since you are demanding no new captive trains you end up with tiny interiors no matter what you do.

And cost. A CC train is bound to cost more than a UIC train of similar length.
Specialist item versus readily available off-the-shelf item.

 

[MarkyT]

And cost. A CC train is bound to cost more than a UIC train of similar length.
Specialist item versus readily available off-the-shelf item.

Maybe a little more. The big cost of CC is going to be in developing and approving a specialist new bodyshell (if an suitable existing design can't be sourced - perhaps a mini shinkansen design such as the E6 might fit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6_Series_Shinkansen#/media/File:E6-E5-Coupling_in_omiya_20130320.jpg ) . The subsequent construction costs per vehicle should not differ greatly. The development costs will be required no matter how few are built, so the best way of spreading these costs is to build as large a fleet of CCs as possible. Perhaps at least for phase 1 the entire fleet could be built as CC for maximum flexibility and maintenance commonality, seeing as most destinations will be on the classic network.

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe a little more. The big cost of CC is going to be in developing and approving a specialist new bodyshell (if an suitable existing design can't be sourced - perhaps a mini shinkansen design such as the E6 might fit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6_Series_Shinkansen#/media/File:E6-E5-Coupling_in_omiya_20130320.jpg ) . The subsequent construction costs per vehicle should not differ greatly. The development costs will be required no matter how few are built, so the best way of spreading these costs is to build as large a fleet of CCs as possible. Perhaps at least for phase 1 the entire fleet could be built as CC for maximum flexibility and maintenance commonality, seeing as most destinations will be on the classic network.

Most of the extra cost will be in the design though a CC train will probably cost a bit more to produce too, due to needing extra kit particularly the moveable steps on each doorway to accommodate UK and TSI platform dimensions. I agree the likes of Sheffield and Stoke are gradually shifting the balance of the future fleet towards CCs rather than captive sets, and I also think it's quite likely the initial order will be all CCs.

I don't think the reason is to do with spreading the design cost though. If you order a mixed fleet the design cost for the captives is not far off zero as they are standard Euro-trains. The design cost for the CCs is the same whether they make up the whole fleet or just one unit, so altering the proportion of CCs even to 100% won't change the total cost very much. There are three other big reasons to go for an all-CC fleet:
- A uniform fleet simplifies diagramming
- There is flexibility to change routeings according to demand
- There is then probably no risk of having to buy more CCs later (which would probably incur a further design cost) until the intial fleet is life-expired. Captives, being a standard design, can be ordered in small quantities if necessary without that sort of cost overhead.

 

[Holly]

Maybe a little more. The big cost of CC is going to be in developing and approving a specialist new bodyshell (if an suitable existing design can't be sourced - perhaps a mini shinkansen design such as the E6 might fit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6_Series_Shinkansen#/media/File:E6-E5-Coupling_in_omiya_20130320.jpg ) . The subsequent construction costs per vehicle should not differ greatly. The development costs will be required no matter how few are built, so the best way of spreading these costs is to build as large a fleet of CCs as possible. Perhaps at least for phase 1 the entire fleet could be built as CC for maximum flexibility and maintenance commonality, seeing as most destinations will be on the classic network.

Don't forget that with CC you end up with a monopoly supplier who is not state owned.
Versus with UIC it is a competitive bid each time you come to order more units.
So it's going to be a lot more cost effective (cheaper fares) to provide UIC terminators at Crewe than CC trains passing through Crewe.

In my view, double decking the existing Crewe station with only UIC terminators on top is the way to go. But, as the Americans say, "your mileage will vary".

 

[The Planner]

Nothing on HS2 will terminate at Crewe. It certainly won't be anything more than a single deck either.

 

[MarkyT]

Don't forget that with CC you end up with a monopoly supplier who is not state owned.
Versus with UIC it is a competitive bid each time you come to order more units.
So it's going to be a lot more cost effective (cheaper fares) to provide UIC terminators at Crewe than CC trains passing through Crewe.

In my view, double decking the existing Crewe station with only UIC terminators on top is the way to go. But, as the Americans say, "your mileage will vary".

It would not be a potential monopoly, a least at first. A tender for CCs could be open to any European or other supplier, and the larger that order the more a manufacturer would be incentivised to swallow the extra development costs. Subsequent follow on orders would be a little different however as the company with the pre-existing design would have the advantage. An initial large order could come with optional add-ons later to help control price.

I'm certainly not against captive UIC trains, even double deckers if justified, but the latter in particular I would see as a relatively small fleet deployed as 'peak busters' and purchased later as demand builds up. Running a relatively small fleet of GC units cost effectively on HS2, where the majority would be CC, is not impractical, clearly. Open access operators run small 'non-standard' fleets successfully on the classic network today.

 

[itwasntme]

Well it seems that the Basford Hall plan is truly dead and buried.

The only proposal going forward is to use the site of the existing station. Would that mean an underground station for HS2 (as it's going under in a tunnel)?

I realise it's expensive and never likely to happen but I've always thought the idea of a pedestrian underpass from North of Crewe Station running North and connecting up the four disparate points (all cut off by the railway) of the Heritage Centre/Tesco, Crewe Signal Box/Wickes, the Retail Park and possible Total Fitness. It would bring the Town Centre to within a comfortable 10 minute walk.

Here is a rough sketch!
http://imgur.com/a/DPRuJ

 

[6Gman]

Well it seems that the Basford Hall plan is truly dead and buried.

The only proposal going forward is to use the site of the existing station. Would that mean an underground station for HS2 (as it's going under in a tunnel)?

I realise it's expensive and never likely to happen but I've always thought the idea of a pedestrian underpass from North of Crewe Station running North and connecting up the four disparate points (all cut off by the railway) of the Heritage Centre/Tesco, Crewe Signal Box/Wickes, the Retail Park and possible Total Fitness. It would bring the Town Centre to within a comfortable 10 minute walk.

Here is a rough sketch!
http://imgur.com/a/DPRuJ

1. The cost would be enormous.
2. The demand is pretty small.
3. It would be a magnet for anti-social behaviour and crime.

 

[Camden]

So in a nutshell the plan is the plan, and the consultation only resulted in a tweaking effect and gave the government time to shunt off parts of the project into never-never land (such as Sheffield's northern connection to HS2, which will only go ahead as "N.P.R." and possibly paid for by council tax payers).

Neither Crewe nor Stoke won in the end.

 

[Chris125]

Neither Crewe nor Stoke won in the end.

Given the economics of what they wanted this shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[6Gman]

So in a nutshell the plan is the plan, and the consultation only resulted in a tweaking effect and gave the government time to shunt off parts of the project into never-never land (such as Sheffield's northern connection to HS2, which will only go ahead as "N.P.R." and possibly paid for by council tax payers).

Neither Crewe nor Stoke won in the end.

Alternatively, Crewe won but Cheshire East lost.

(Cheshire East Council wanted Basford - the people of Crewe would probably prefer their railway station to be in ... Crewe rather than off a by-pass in the Parish of Basford!)