Euston 'level decking' and over-throat development - post-Higgins plans

[po8crg]

You make two significant assumptions here.

One - that they'll definitely be double deck trains - the gauge being designed for it doesn't mean they have to use DD trains.

Two - single door per carriage. Presumably you think this because the original Eurostar sets have only one door (per side) per carriage? But the latest Eurostar sets have doors at both ends, so why wouldn't HS2 captive stock?

One - No, I don't mean they will definitely be that size, but that the infrastructure would have to be designed to be capable of coping with that capacity. I think I mentioned that initially, the trains will be single-deck.

Two - no, I was basing that on the TGV Duplex, which are the only high-speed DD trains. Given the (large) size of a DD vestibule/stairs area, I'd expect any future DD train to have only one door per carriage to maximise seating space.

Turn-around times for DD trains are going to be large, partly because there are lots of people exiting through each door, and partly because even the wide platforms are going to get clogged up with passengers when a thousand or so emerge from a single train.

However, I clearly didn't get my point across. So let me try again:

Long-term, there could well be 18-20 trains per hour, all of them 400m DD captive. But that might not be until the first-generation HS2 trains get replaced, probably in the 2050s (by which time, HS2 will have been extended to Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Liverpool).

It would be sensible to build Euston to be able to cope with HS2 running at full capacity, even if it takes a long time to complete - better that than having to rebuild Euston again when HS2 is extended to Scotland.

But Euston HS2 won't be running at full capacity for a long, long time after construction. At the completion of Phase 2, it will have no more than 9tph captive, and 3-4 tph of 400m classic-compatible. And some of those captives may be 200m SD to start with. That means that the rebuild doesn't have to be complete even for Phase 2 - as long as there are some captive platforms, and there's an interconnect into the WCML platforms from HS2 track, then trains can be managed until the works are completed.

SD trains probably do have two doors per carriage, as the doors don't need stairs to the upper deck; that means their turnaround times are dramatically better than DD trains, so their platform occupancy is much lower. If a platform could serve 4tph, then four captive platforms would be enough for Euston for a few years until the full rebuild is complete.

 

[Ironside]

....I was basing that on the TGV Duplex, which are the only high-speed DD trains.....

Just being pedantic but the E4 Shinkansen is double deck as the Swedish X40 (although the latter runs at 200kmh so it depends on you definition of high speed rail).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two - no, I was basing that on the TGV Duplex, which are the only high-speed DD trains. Given the (large) size of a DD vestibule/stairs area, I'd expect any future DD train to have only one door per carriage to maximise seating space.

Remember that TGVs are short articulated vehicles. If you've got a 26m vehicle you've got plenty of room for two - and you probably want two for emergency evacuation purposes anyway. And there are gangways to consider.

Neil

 

[HSTEd]

Where did you get that from? It is completely false.

Neil

TGV Duplex?
Sorry, perhaps I should have said "Double deck high speed train" - I just assumed it was implied.
The Japanese double decks are definitely not in production and are indeed mostly gone - leaving only the Alstom stable.

You are mistaken. In some commuter scenarios, double deck trains can permit an uplift in capacity of ~40%. In other scenarios, the uplift is **much** lower.

TGV Reseau - 8 trailer vehicles, total seating is 360.
TGV Duplex - 8 trailer vehicles, total seating is ~545.

That is a 51% increase in seating count.
And before you mention EMUs - it seems likely now there will be a double deck AGV in the near future, so you must compare like with like.
The uplift is in fact higher in Intercity scenarios as the vestibule spaces are far smaller and are not limited by people throughput.

Also I don't really think there is much reason to not go to Double Deckers immediately - there will be no shortage of custom, Birmingham International and Birmingham will pick up massive commuter traffic, and with journey times that short you could easily obtain pseudo Metroland levels of custom.
At which point you want all the seats you can throw at it.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

5 minutes turnaround for a 400m train to get everyone off and back on and go again? Behave, thats just fantasy. So how do you propose to deal with people management during this mythical 5 minutes?

I was suggesting 5 minutes to get people off the train and then 5 minutes to get people back on. Not 5 minutes altogether. Though it must be said that there is absolutely nothing in the laws of physics that says you can't do this in less time. Maybe its a cultural thing but here in Australia one proposal for high speed rail does involve just that. A turnover in 5 minutes, in Sydney. No that doesn't involve anything more than the most perfunctory checks but its possible.

Edit: In any case the length of time being allowed for in the HS2 proposals have almost no detailed working out of why they seem to want close to half an hour turnover per train.

In Sydney we have double deck trains often operating over capacity (1300 people per 8 car train) with narrow stairs and only being opened on one side. And being loaded and unloaded on an overcrowded platform, and all in under 70 seconds.

Yes I know that luggage etc will complicate things. But it shows you what is possible when people understand that they have a certain time window and that's it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The full rebuild plans included a full extra underground layer under the platforms intended for servicing, including an underground lorry depot and a series of tunnels and ramps designed for electric servicing vehicles to reach the platforms. If these aren't provided at Euston, they have to be provided somewhere else and to the best of my knowledge, the current plans for Curzon Street don't include them and the proposals for Piccadilly and New Lane don't either. The idea of the London end of HS2 being a smaller series of platforms with some sort of run-off to a servicing depot outside of Zone 1 was rejected in favour of the current idea of a proper, classical terminus at Euston.

 

[Voglitz]

TGV Reseau - 8 trailer vehicles, total seating is 360.
TGV Duplex - 8 trailer vehicles, total seating is ~545.

That is a 51% increase in seating count.

TGV-R were delivered with a capacity of 377. The SNCF's third generation Duplex TGVs have 509 seats. The HS2 classic compatible s/d train is supposed to have "up to 550" seats.

it seems likely now there will be a double deck AGV in the near future

"Near future"? How many prototypes have been built?

The uplift is in fact higher in Intercity scenarios as the vestibule spaces are far smaller and are not limited by people throughput.

No, it isn't. See above.

Also I don't really think there is much reason to not go to Double Deckers immediately - there will be no shortage of custom, Birmingham International and Birmingham will pick up massive commuter traffic, and with journey times that short you could easily obtain pseudo Metroland levels of custom.

At which point you want all the seats you can throw at it.

'You don't want all the seats you can throw at it', because the daily demand for HS travel between Birmingham and Leeds, for example, wouldn't even fill one single-deck train.

Furthermore, the subsidies to the HS1 commuter operation are enormous. Using public cash to bankroll a tiny number of people to commute hundreds of kilometres to London from the north of England, is an absurd proposition.

 

[A0]

It now looks likely to also lose Hertford Loop to Moorgate - as we keep hearing more and more about keeping that station open 24/7 - indeed there is no major technical reason you couldn't do that.
That leaves KGX with some peak extras, Intercity trains and the Beer Train - hardly enough to justify the cavernous station.

Most Hertford Loop services run from Moorgate now though - it's only the 'out of hours' ones when the Moorgate branch is shut that run from KX.

I don't think there's even an 'outer suburban' service to Hertford any longer? There was back in the early 90s an outer which ran via Hertford and onto Huntingdon (I think).

 

[The Planner]

In Sydney we have double deck trains often operating over capacity (1300 people per 8 car train) with narrow stairs and only being opened on one side. And being loaded and unloaded on an overcrowded platform, and all in under 70 seconds.

Yes I know that luggage etc will complicate things. But it shows you what is possible when people understand that they have a certain time window and that's it.

As you say it must be a cultural thing then, as I don't believe that could ever work over here.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

As you say it must be a cultural thing then, as I don't believe that could ever work over here.

Actually I'd like your suggestions as to exactly why. Is it related to the passengers moving in and out of seats and through the door. Or is it more the other (non passenger) processes that you're thinking of?

 

[The Planner]

Are we talking the 70 second dwells or the HS2 scenario?

 

[zoomwhoosh]

Are we talking the 70 second dwells or the HS2 scenario?

I'm querying the entire process. Again, if you assume half an hour occupying a platform (which is what they appear to have done) then you end up with a lot of platforms. It wouldn't matter if it was any ordinary railway station, but when it costs billions, the exact justification for the length of time per train ought to be scrutinised and documented to the nth degree. Instead it appears to be somewhat wishful and arbitrary.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm querying the entire process. Again, if you assume half an hour occupying a platform (which is what they appear to have done) then you end up with a lot of platforms. It wouldn't matter if it was any ordinary railway station, but when it costs billions, the exact justification for the length of time per train ought to be scrutinised and documented to the nth degree. Instead it appears to be somewhat wishful and arbitrary.

However, the new platforms at Euston are an absolutely essential part of delivering the entire scheme. If you start to cut down on the number to save billions from the cost of rebuilding Euston, you jeopardise the ability of HS2 to serve much purpose at all if your initial assumptions about how long people take to get on and off trains are wrong. Remember that it isn't just the turnaround capability in a normal scenario that matters, it's the turnaround capability when things go completely wrong that will make or break the scheme. If you could manage a 'hail mary' operating procedure that could allow you to use only a handful of platforms, then you're not going to have a lot of scope to absorb any operational problems that will inevitably happen. If a train breaks down in one of the 11 or 12 planned captive platforms there is still slack for other trains to use other platforms, likely requiring more work to turn the trains around faster. The fewer platforms you have, the greater the impact of such an occurrence, but that occurrence doesn't become any less likely.

Something to consider on top of this is that the HS2 terminus becomes far more important than any of the classic north-south mainline termini in London. If the four MML platforms at St Pancras got messed up, there's still the possibility of passengers from the North making their way to WCML and ECML stations and getting a train there. The HS2 platforms at Euston, on the other hand, will serve all three lines, and so if anything goes wrong at all on Phase 1 the entire north-south railway network will seize up very quickly indeed.

Once the need for another high speed rail line from London to the Country has been identified, the idea of the central London station having fewer platforms may have some more merit. Euston is the only mainline terminus currently ready to be completely reconstructed for a new high speed rail line, and as any future lines will only add to capacity on trunk routes rather than replacing them (as in, it's not just a matter of gauge-clearing and extending the existing platforms at King's Cross or Paddington), it will be necessary to find some other place to put the station. The only realistic option for this is to build an entirely new station underground in the only areas of London without massively expensive buildings on top - the Royal Parks. Another line from London to the West and South West will be needed once the GWML upgrade has completed, and another line from London to the East Midlands will be necessary once HS2 Phase 1 fills up, so what could happen is that instead of each having their own ~11 platform central London terminus, they would share a single large through station and services would run through after stopping.

 

[HSTEd]

TGV-R were delivered with a capacity of 377. The SNCF's third generation Duplex TGVs have 509 seats. The HS2 classic compatible s/d train is supposed to have "up to 550" seats.

Oops - I got mixed up on that particular count.
509/377 = 1.35
So still a 35% capacity uplift - which is rather more than that tweet below seems to propose.

"Near future"? How many prototypes have been built?

That depends on your definition of near future.
There will almost certainly be one in production before HS2-1 comes out, since it is worth noting that single deck TGV/AGV vehicle sales since the TGV Duplex came out are two dozen sets to a random Italian private operator.
Compared to the ridiculous numbers of TGV Duplex sets now in service.
SNCF has not ordered any single deck trailers since the Duplex entered service - this says something. The only European railway with high speed train experience has fallen in love with them.
SNCF will never buy the AGV unless it comes in a double deck version, Alstom knows this.

And even if such a train does not arrive in time - it is worth noting that the V150 study showed that a small number of intermediate power vehicles on a TGV Duplex are feasible - and with the 1500V requirement removed the power cars will be able to pack higher power traction drives than conventional TGVs - which means you could finally realise SNCF's dream of a 400m TGV with only two power cars.
Which is when you get into the real capacity gains - 1350 seats.

No, it isn't. See above.

And who is this exactly?
As far as I can tell they are a fairly minor design house that advises on the interior designs of trains.

'You don't want all the seats you can throw at it', because the daily demand for HS travel between Birmingham and Leeds, for example, wouldn't even fill one single-deck train.

Did you account for the collapse in ticket prices? High Speed Rail is far cheaper per seat kilometre than conventional rail - and will be moreso with double deck trains (as costs are dominated with things that accrue per train path available, the length and weight of the train is almost irrelevant).

Additionally - I don't think anyone believes that the Leeds-Birmingham flow will be where HS2 carries its passengers, it is all about shifting lots and lots and lots of passengers over the core section from Birmingham International to London. Capacity has to be maximised or you will strangle the schemes passenger flows and thus its economic returns.

Furthermore, the subsidies to the HS1 commuter operation are enormous. Using public cash to bankroll a tiny number of people to commute hundreds of kilometres to London from the north of England, is an absurd proposition.

And that is because the HS1 commuter services are an example of how you do not do commuter operations on a high speed route.
Short trains with no capacity, drastically increasing per passenger operating costs since a two car train and a sixteen car train will cost the same in pathing terms, and indeed in crewing terms.

HS2 won't make a return on the investment if you insist on holding capacity down, fares high and reserving it as some sort of "elite" service for those discerning passengers with disposable income.
It has been shown that the only way that these services can do anything is if they generate as many passengers as they can carry - this means fares drastically lower than those on conventional rail.
"Pile them high, sell them cheap" is the name of the game.
In fact I think it probably comes out better to run the line flat out at all times with maximum train lengths and then dump very very very cheap seats on the offpeak advance market.
£10 return London-Manchester sort of thing.

 

[Voglitz]

Oops - I got mixed up on that particular count.
509/377 = 1.35
So still a 35% capacity uplift - which is rather more than that tweet below seems to propose.

A 200-metre IEP would seat around 550 passengers. So, on that comparison, the double deck capacity uplift would be minus seven percent.

That depends on your definition of near future.
There will almost certainly be one in production before HS2-1 comes out, since it is worth noting that single deck TGV/AGV vehicle sales since the TGV Duplex came out are two dozen sets to a random Italian private operator.
Compared to the ridiculous numbers of TGV Duplex sets now in service.
SNCF has not ordered any single deck trailers since the Duplex entered service - this says something. The only European railway with high speed train experience has fallen in love with them.
SNCF will never buy the AGV unless it comes in a double deck version, Alstom knows this.

The average daily use of a TGV is just 5 hours, so yes, the numbers do look ridiculous.

There doesn't appear to be much d/d export potential (other than to a "random" Moroccan operator). Eurostar chose s/d for fleet renewal.

And who is this exactly?
As far as I can tell they are a fairly minor design house that advises on the interior designs of trains.

They seem to be "a fairly minor design house", who were paid by HS2 Ltd to advise on the interior designs of trains.

High Speed Rail is far cheaper per seat kilometre than conventional rail - and will be moreso with double deck trains (as costs are dominated with things that accrue per train path available, the length and weight of the train is almost irrelevant).

Your evidence is where?

Additionally - I don't think anyone believes that the Leeds-Birmingham flow will be where HS2 carries its passengers, it is all about shifting lots and lots and lots of passengers over the core section from Birmingham International to London. Capacity has to be maximised or you will strangle the schemes passenger flows and thus its economic returns.

And that is because the HS1 commuter services are an example of how you do not do commuter operations on a high speed route.
Short trains with no capacity, drastically increasing per passenger operating costs since a two car train and a sixteen car train will cost the same in pathing terms, and indeed in crewing terms.

HS2 won't make a return on the investment if you insist on holding capacity down, fares high and reserving it as some sort of "elite" service for those discerning passengers with disposable income.

What does 'return on the investment' mean? Like HS1, HS2 would be dependent on public subsidy.

It has been shown that the only way that these services can do anything is if they generate as many passengers as they can carry - this means fares drastically lower than those on conventional rail.

Shown by whom?

"Pile them high, sell them cheap" is the name of the game.
In fact I think it probably comes out better to run the line flat out at all times with maximum train lengths and then dump very very very cheap seats on the offpeak advance market.
£10 return London-Manchester sort of thing.

"Comes out better" for whom?

Why isn't there '£10 return London - Dover sort of thing' on HS1?

 

[NotATrainspott]

A 200-metre IEP would seat around 550 passengers. So, on that comparison, the double deck capacity uplift would be minus seven percent.

On the IET website there's a video with a speaker from HS2 Ltd, who says that the capacity uplift from double-deck trains is only around 10%.

What does 'return on the investment' mean? Like HS1, HS2 would be dependent on public subsidy.

Not necessarily. When you look at the predicted passenger numbers, there should be no reason why the captive flows won't make quite a bit of revenue for the high speed operator. Indeed, it will probably abstract away most of the profit from the remaining InterCity operators, so the shine of running ICWC or ICEC will likely disappear.

Why isn't there '£10 return London - Dover sort of thing' on HS1?

The Javelins aren't very high capacity and have to interface with the classic rail network. Also, the HS2 services that would be priced like this are just the same as the ones which have promotional pricing today on ICWC or ICEC. The captive network will start at 0500 Mon-Sat, so there would be much more capacity available at the start and end of the days than there is now. Instead of running a 0530 Manchester-London service with only a handful of people on board, you may as well reduce prices for many of the tickets for this service down to this level so that you stimulate more demand.

 

[Voglitz]

On the IET website there's a video with a speaker from HS2 Ltd, who says that the capacity uplift from double-deck trains is only around 10%.

Do keep up.

Not necessarily. When you look at the predicted passenger numbers, there should be no reason why the captive flows won't make quite a bit of revenue for the high speed operator.

HS1 carries millions of passengers each year so there's quite a bit of revenue. Unfortunately the revenue is nowhere near the cost of running the service. Hence the massive subsidies.

Indeed, it will probably abstract away most of the profit from the remaining InterCity operators, so the shine of running ICWC or ICEC will likely disappear.

Just your opinion. No evidence.

The Javelins aren't very high capacity and have to interface with the classic rail network. Also, the HS2 services that would be priced like this are just the same as the ones which have promotional pricing today on ICWC or ICEC. The captive network will start at 0500 Mon-Sat, so there would be much more capacity available at the start and end of the days than there is now. Instead of running a 0530 Manchester-London service with only a handful of people on board, you may as well reduce prices for many of the tickets for this service down to this level so that you stimulate more demand.

Whether or not Javelins are very high capacity, is not really relevant. They have plenty of empty seats, most of the time. Megabuses aren't very high capacity. So, why doesn't Southeastern HS "might as well" have £10 returns on offer?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Do keep up.

Here's the link to what I believe is the right video about passenger experience. I can't be bothered watching through all of it to check that it is the right one but if it isn't, it would be one of the other videos on their site by HS2 Ltd. Given that these are videos by people whose job it is to worry about how HS2 will work, I think their words carry more weight than anything we put together based upon brief research from data sheets.

HS1 carries millions of passengers each year so there's quite a bit of revenue. Unfortunately the revenue is nowhere near the cost of running the service. Hence the massive subsidies.

And HS2 will carry many, many more millions of people. How many Eurostar services are there an hour? Around one or two. The city of Liverpool alone is not happy that it will only get around that number. 16tph with between 550 and 1100 passengers on each train is an order of magnitude higher than HS1, yet the actual cost of running the railway once complete will not be significantly higher.

Just your opinion. No evidence.

What, so you're saying most of Virgin West Coast's profits come from taking people from Carlisle to Crewe rather than Glasgow/Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham to London? If you're on this forum demanding absolutely every single statement be backed up by cold hard evidence, despite it genuinely going without saying, then you're not exactly helping anything. If I said something ridiculous, like that most of ICWC profits come from non city-to-city flows, then you would be on to something.

Whether or not Javelins are very high capacity, is not really relevant. They have plenty of empty seats, most of the time. Megabuses aren't very high capacity. So, why doesn't Southeastern HS "might as well" have £10 returns on offer?

The Southeastern Highspeed network is just a glorified commuter network, where there is no incentive to fill seats in the same way as there is little discretionary travel. Comparatively few people are going to use HS2 to commute to London, but there will be many more business and leisure travellers. It's like asking why the French haven't got Ouigo running some of their less-busy regional commuter networks - the entire Ouigo business model relies upon high passenger flows served by a high-efficiency operator. As the captive network on HS2 is wholly captive, there is no point differentiating between a standard and a 'Ouigo' operator as the only way to realistically serve anywhere is to go all the way to the captive termini. It wouldn't be possible, for example, for there to be an Old Oak Common-Birmingham Interchange-Manchester Airport shuttle (which is similar to the Ouigo service pattern) because there would be no space for the trains to turn around or do anything else at either end.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

However, the new platforms at Euston are an absolutely essential part of delivering the entire scheme. If you start to cut down on the number to save billions from the cost of rebuilding Euston, you jeopardise the ability of HS2 to serve much purpose at all if your initial assumptions about how long people take to get on and off trains are wrong. Remember that it isn't just the turnaround capability in a normal scenario that matters, it's the turnaround capability when things go completely wrong that will make or break the scheme. If you could manage a 'hail mary' operating procedure that could allow you to use only a handful of platforms, then you're not going to have a lot of scope to absorb any operational problems that will inevitably happen. If a train breaks down in one of the 11 or 12 planned captive platforms there is still slack for other trains to use other platforms, likely requiring more work to turn the trains around faster. The fewer platforms you have, the greater the impact of such an occurrence, but that occurrence doesn't become any less likely.

Something to consider on top of this is that the HS2 terminus becomes far more important than any of the classic north-south mainline termini in London. If the four MML platforms at St Pancras got messed up, there's still the possibility of passengers from the North making their way to WCML and ECML stations and getting a train there. The HS2 platforms at Euston, on the other hand, will serve all three lines, and so if anything goes wrong at all on Phase 1 the entire north-south railway network will seize up very quickly indeed.

Once the need for another high speed rail line from London to the Country has been identified, the idea of the central London station having fewer platforms may have some more merit. Euston is the only mainline terminus currently ready to be completely reconstructed for a new high speed rail line, and as any future lines will only add to capacity on trunk routes rather than replacing them (as in, it's not just a matter of gauge-clearing and extending the existing platforms at King's Cross or Paddington), it will be necessary to find some other place to put the station. The only realistic option for this is to build an entirely new station underground in the only areas of London without massively expensive buildings on top - the Royal Parks. Another line from London to the West and South West will be needed once the GWML upgrade has completed, and another line from London to the East Midlands will be necessary once HS2 Phase 1 fills up, so what could happen is that instead of each having their own ~11 platform central London terminus, they would share a single large through station and services would run through after stopping.

You've essentially made two arguments here. The first is "that if your initial assumptions are wrong". This is essentially an argument to over-provision based on uncertainty. In other words instead of actually carefully investigating the matter, we'll simply have more platforms to be sure (to be sure).

Second is the argument "what if things go wrong". Well, like what? Bomb threat? That'll put a stop on the entire station no matter how big it is. Indeed it doesn't matter how many platforms you have, there are lots of things to go wrong that will delay the entire network. And that's thinking only about the station. Then there's the line itself. Lots of things to go wrong there that cannot be fixed by more platforms. Like snow for instance. There is always a background level of irresolvable outcomes. Ok, there are scenarios where an extra platform or two would help (say a broken down train) but again, isn't this what proper analysis is for? I just don't see the level of analysis in this project that would be called for when hundreds of millions or billions are at stake.

And since you brought up the issue of where to put the station, I agree the future needs to be considered and its quite possible that what is needed is a brand new site. In fact this should have been considered when St. Pancreas was built.

One opportunity is the south east corner of Regents park. It would be a lot easier to build a brand new station there. It would even be possible to rebuild the entirety of Euston there and make it future proof and then redevelop the Euston site. Yes I know I'm just speculating, but as an outsider it impresses me that HS2 haven't done the hard yards in thinking through these possibilities. Instead they've gotten obsessed about Euston and keeping pushing on that particular lump of difficulty.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You've essentially made two arguments here. The first is "that if your initial assumptions are wrong". This is essentially an argument to over-provision based on uncertainty. In other words instead of actually carefully investigating the matter, we'll simply have more platforms to be sure (to be sure).

My point is that if you add more assumptions to the scheme, you massively increase the chance of it all going horribly wrong. We know 100% that we can manage to run a high speed railway at >16tph if we have 11-12 platforms split across a grade-separated throat. We do not know if we can run any number like that using the number of platforms you are suggesting. With the rate at which passenger numbers are growing, HS2 needs to work first time and on time or there's going to be pain and suffering all around.

Second is the argument "what if things go wrong". Well, like what? Bomb threat? Doesn't matter how many platforms you have, there are lots of things to go wrong that will delay the entire network. And that's thinking only about the station. Then there's the line itself. Lots of things to go wrong there that cannot be fixed by more platforms. Ok, there are scenarios where an extra platform or two would help (say a broken down train) but again, isn't this what proper analysis is for? I just don't see the level of analysis in this project that would be called for when hundreds of millions or billions are at stake.

Here you're looking at the relative risk of things happening at each point. On the plain line route, not really a vast amount happens at all due to the complete lack of passenger access and the lack of complexity. At Euston, passengers will be milling around the platforms, embarking and disembarking and inevitably causing all sorts of problems.

The only really semi-feasible way of reducing the platform numbers in Zone 1 is to have a run-off tunnel and set of sidings. However, these aren't as easy to implement as you might want to think. The station needs to serve an existing public transport hub like Euston-St-Pancras-King's-Cross, yet those hubs have a warren's nest of underground tunnels surrounding them and making it very difficult to have any sort of tunnel continuing beyond. A Euston + runoff terminus would require almost exactly the same works as the Two Lords proposal for an underground Euston, which was even more challenging to build than razing the existing station to the ground while still running services into it. The amount of depot space you would need for it to work would also be rather significant, and the length of tunnel needed to get to a suitable site for such a depot would not be insignificant. All of these eat away at any cost savings that you might think you could get by changing the plan.

And since you brought up the issue of where to put the station, I agree the future needs to be considered and its quite possible that what is needed is a brand new site. In fact this should have been considered when St. Pancreas was built.

A new subterranean station in the King's Cross Railway Lands was considered, I believe, but the decision was made to take advantage of the existing St Pancras with its Barlow trainshed.

One opportunity is the south east corner of Regents park. It would be a lot easier to build a brand new station there. It would even be possible to rebuild the entirety of Euston there and make it future proof and then redevelop the Euston site. Yes I know I'm just speculating, but as an outsider it impresses me that HS2 haven't done the hard yards in thinking through these possibilities. Instead they've gotten obsessed about Euston and keeping pushing on that particular lump of difficulty.

HS2 Ltd did genuinely look at the option of a Royal Park station, and it would have been perfectly possible to build it. However, it would have been problematic in terms of onward passenger dispersal, as there is nowhere near these places capable of handling as many onward passengers as the Euston-St-Pancras-King's-Cross complex. A royal park station would almost certainly require a new Crossrail or metro line or two to meet it, which could easily be planned as part of Crossrail 3 or 4 but in the HS2 timescale, working only with Crossrail 1 at OOC and Crossrail 2 at Euston was the least bad idea.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

My point is that if you add more assumptions to the scheme, you massively increase the chance of it all going horribly wrong. We know 100% that we can manage to run a high speed railway at >16tph if we have 11-12 platforms split across a grade-separated throat. We do not know if we can run any number like that using the number of platforms you are suggesting. With the rate at which passenger numbers are growing, HS2 needs to work first time and on time or there's going to be pain and suffering all around.



Here you're looking at the relative risk of things happening at each point. On the plain line route, not really a vast amount happens at all due to the complete lack of passenger access and the lack of complexity. At Euston, passengers will be milling around the platforms, embarking and disembarking and inevitably causing all sorts of problems.

The only really semi-feasible way of reducing the platform numbers in Zone 1 is to have a run-off tunnel and set of sidings. However, these aren't as easy to implement as you might want to think. The station needs to serve an existing pubic transport hub like Euston-St-Pancras-King's-Cross, yet those hubs have a warren's nest of underground tunnels surrounding them and making it very difficult to have any sort of tunnel continuing beyond. A Euston + runoff terminus would require almost exactly the same works as the Two Lords proposal for an underground Euston, which was even more challenging to build than razing the existing station to the ground while still running services into it. The amount of depot space you would need for it to work would also be rather significant, and the length of tunnel needed to get to a suitable site for such a depot would not be insignificant. All of these eat away at any cost savings that you might think you could get by changing the plan.



A new subterranean station in the King's Cross Railway Lands was considered, I believe, but the decision was made to take advantage of the existing St Pancras with its Barlow trainshed.



HS2 Ltd did genuinely look at the option of a Royal Park station, and it would have been perfectly possible to build it. However, it would have been problematic in terms of onward passenger dispersal, as there is nowhere near these places capable of handling as many onward passengers as the Euston-St-Pancras-King's-Cross complex. A royal park station would almost certainly require a new Crossrail or metro line or two to meet it, which could easily be planned as part of Crossrail 3 or 4 but in the HS2 timescale, working only with Crossrail 1 at OOC and Crossrail 2 at Euston was the least bad idea.

My point still stands though. The level of analysis needed hasn't been done. They've simply said "ok, lets have some spares and then we won't have to bother figuring it all out". What I say is yes, its nice to have spares, all else being equal. But if you do want to go down that route then you need to think about paying for it in other ways, like for instance a different site.

Yes I'm aware that there need to be runoff locations. Although why these need to be right next door is beyond me. I'd have thought Old Oak Common would be a large enough site to address some of these issues.

Having passengers milling about says you're not designing the station to allow adequate flow and control of passengers. And to have the space to do that properly does tend to push you towards at least a "tack on" construction if not a whole new site. Trying to rebuild a station within its existing dimensions inevitably causes compromises and it shows up in precisely those extra spaces you need for proper flow of passengers.

Yes you're quite right that Regents Park would quickly demand more cross connections. Which is why I'd suggest taking a leaf out of what airports do and build at the very least a people mover. A shuttle that cross connects at least St. Pancreas and the new station. You can worry about where or how to extend it later. And yes, its a maze down there, but a bit of cleverness never did any harm either.

 

[Voglitz]

We know 100% that we can manage to run a high speed railway at >16tph if we have 11-12 platforms split across a grade-separated throat.

You "know".

Japan Railways, Pierre Messulam, and HS2 Ltd don't know.

There is no intention of running > 16 trains per hour in HS2 phase 1 and there is no guarantee of it ever happening.

Here you're looking at the relative risk of things happening at each point. On the plain line route, not really a vast amount happens at all due to the complete lack of passenger access and the lack of complexity.

On Eurostar's plain line route to Paris, not a vast amount happens at all due to the complete lack of passenger access and the lack of complexity. Apart, that is, from the odd train or two breaking down, leaving people stranded for hours on end.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You "know".

Japan Railways, Pierre Messulam, and HS2 Ltd don't know.

There is no intention of running > 16 trains per hour in HS2 phase 1 and there is no guarantee of it ever happening.

No, there's no chance of >16tph happening in Phase 1 because there would be no MML/ECML destinations. Phase 2 doesn't really enable that many more tph as any extra reliability from captive running to Manchester is counterbalanced by extra classic-compatible running to Newcastle. Once you've got captive running to Newcastle and Scotland, you can start to think about >16tph properly.

On Eurostar's plain line route to Paris, not a vast amount happens at all due to the complete lack of passenger access and the lack of complexity. Apart, that is, from the odd train or two breaking down, leaving people stranded for hours on end.

And how often do things go wrong? The point I'm making is that a hail mary approach relying upon completely untested operating procedures wouldn't be a bad idea. Would having 11 platforms at Euston solve all problems? Not at all. Would it make some problems less likely to happen? Yes. Would it make it slightly easier to recover when something did inevitably go wrong? Yes.

 

[Voglitz]

And HS2 will carry many, many more millions of people. How many Eurostar services are there an hour? Around one or two. The city of Liverpool alone is not happy that it will only get around that number. 16tph with between 550 and 1100 passengers on each train is an order of magnitude higher than HS1

No, it isn't.

yet the actual cost of running the railway once complete will not be significantly higher.

How do you know?

What, so you're saying most of Virgin West Coast's profits come from taking people from Carlisle to Crewe rather than Glasgow/Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham to London?

Virgin West Coast's profits come from the government's direct and indirect support for the industry.

No subsidy ==> no toc profits ==> no train service.

How much profit comes from particular O/D pairs, is unclear.

If you're on this forum demanding absolutely every single statement be backed up by cold hard evidence, despite it genuinely going without saying, then you're not exactly helping anything.

I'm not exactly helping the cause of uninformed speculation and groundless assertion? Guilty, m'lud.

As the captive network on HS2 is wholly captive, there is no point differentiating between a standard and a 'Ouigo' operator as the only way to realistically serve anywhere is to go all the way to the captive termini.

The idea that the Ouigo ticket price doesn't support track access to the Gare de Lyon, but the cost of a Transilien ticket does, is absurd.

 

[NotATrainspott]

No, it isn't.

There are four Southeastern Highspeed services an hour from St Pancras, each carrying a maximum of 680 passengers across two joined-up 395s. There are between one and two Eurostar services an hour as well, carrying 750 passengers each. All in all, that's around 4000 passengers each way maximum per hour.

On HS2, you can have up to 18tph with 1100 seats an hour each way, for a total of around 20,000 passengers each way an hour. Yes, I accept now that this isn't 'an order of magnitude' higher but it is still five times the number, and the passenger types will be different as it isn't a London commuter service. The idea of a £10 HS2 ticket is ridiculous to you, yet that would cost around £2500 a year as a season ticket. Even a £30 ticket would cost around £7500 a year, which would be unacceptable to the vast majority of passengers yet individually, if they were travelling for non-commuting purposes, that £30 fare would look extremely enticing.

How do you know?

And why would HS2 cost five to ten times as much per kilometre as HS1 to run? They're pretty comparable in terms of complexity and route configuration - expensive central London terminus, lots of tunnels out to the M25, open clear route and tunnels through rolling countryside.

Virgin West Coast's profits come from the government's direct and indirect support for the industry.

No subsidy ==> no toc profits ==> no train service.

How much profit comes from particular O/D pairs, is unclear.

And much of Virgin's revenue comes from the city-to-city flows that I described. The HS2 operator will abstract all of this away, as no one will use ICWC services to get from London to Manchester. The remaining services would be intended more for the passengers going to intermediate locations like Milton Keynes or Macclesfield rather than Euston-Piccadilly passengers. Since the journey time is going to be halved, you do have to accept that passenger numbers are going to go up, yet the crewing costs are going to go down as fewer trains are needed to run the same service. That means more money coming in and less money flowing out.

I'm not exactly helping the cause of uninformed speculation and groundless assertion? Guilty, m'lud.

What exactly do you want?

The idea that the Ouigo ticket price doesn't support track access to the Gare de Lyon, but the cost of a Transilien ticket does, is absurd.

Well then, you can look at RFF's charges for track access and see for yourself. No one would use Transilien if it didn't run into the city centre termini, but people will use Ouigo because it can deliver a different but still usable product.

 

[Voglitz]

On HS2, you can have up to 18tph with 1100 seats an hour each way, for a total of around 20,000 passengers each way an hour.

On HS1, you could have up to 18tph with 1100 seats an hour each way, for a total of around 20,000 passengers each way an hour. It was signalled for 20 trains per hour. But the demand isn't there.

The idea of a £10 HS2 ticket is ridiculous to you, yet that would cost around £2500 a year as a season ticket.

£2500 HS2 season tickets from Manchester to London? Yes, that certainly would be ridiculous.

And much of Virgin's revenue comes from the city-to-city flows that I described. The HS2 operator will abstract all of this away, as no one will use ICWC services to get from London to Manchester.

How do you know?

Since the journey time is going to be halved, you do have to accept that passenger numbers are going to go up, yet the crewing costs are going to go down as fewer trains are needed to run the same service. That means more money coming in and less money flowing out.

It means the cost of subsidising high speed rail is added to the cost of subsidising the existing line, i.e., more money flowing out. That's what happened in Kent.

Well then, you can look at RFF's charges for track access and see for yourself.

I can't find any reference to TGVs being charged more than suburban trains to access city stations. If you've got one, post the link.

 

[Metrailway]

The idea of a £10 HS2 ticket is ridiculous to you, yet that would cost around £2500 a year as a season ticket. Even a £30 ticket would cost around £7500 a year, which would be unacceptable to the vast majority of passengers yet individually, if they were travelling for non-commuting purposes, that £30 fare would look extremely enticing.
...
And much of Virgin's revenue comes from the city-to-city flows that I described. The HS2 operator will abstract all of this away, as no one will use ICWC services to get from London to Manchester. The remaining services would be intended more for the passengers going to intermediate locations like Milton Keynes or Macclesfield rather than Euston-Piccadilly passengers. Since the journey time is going to be halved, you do have to accept that passenger numbers are going to go up, yet the crewing costs are going to go down as fewer trains are needed to run the same service. That means more money coming in and less money flowing out.

My bold.

That is incorrect unless you are intending to take an axe to 'classic' IC services.

Due to the design of HS2, it can only supplement and cannot fully replace the InterCity services on the WCML, ECML and MML.

You are still going to need to run the vast majority of traditional IC services from London to places like Coventry (fourth largest London IC flow on WCML), Rugby (fifth largest London IC flow on WCML), Leicester (second largest London IC flow on MML) etc.

While HS2 train operating costs may be lower per seat, operating costs actually increase globally as you are running HS2 as well as classic IC services.

I agree with you that HS2 will abstract a lot of the profitable traffic away from IC services. As a result the farebox revenue ratio would decline substantially on IC services. Unless you want to axe these services, funding for these 'classic' IC services has to come from somewhere. (Hint:It won't be the state)

Which is why I think talk of £10 HS2 fares is absolute fantasy.

 

[NotATrainspott]

My bold.

That is incorrect unless you are intending to take an axe to 'classic' IC services.

Due to the design of HS2, it can only supplement and cannot fully replace the InterCity services on the WCML, ECML and MML.

You are still going to need to run the vast majority of traditional IC services from London to places like Coventry (fourth largest London IC flow on WCML), Rugby (fifth largest London IC flow on WCML), Leicester (second largest London IC flow on MML) etc.

While HS2 train operating costs may be lower per seat, operating costs actually increase globally as you are running HS2 as well as classic IC services.

I agree with you that HS2 will abstract a lot of the profitable traffic away from IC services. As a result the farebox revenue ratio would decline substantially on IC services. Unless you want to axe these services, funding for these 'classic' IC services has to come from somewhere. (Hint:It won't be the state)

Which is why I think talk of £10 HS2 fares is absolute fantasy.

Not necessarily. The planned service pattern on the classic mainlines after HS2 Phase 2 is built has fewer services calling at more places, so one long train (and its crew) can serve multiple of these non-HS2 destinations at once. The most recent assumptions report includes these proposed service patterns and you can see that it does represent a massive reduction (on PDF pages 48 onward). For example, Euston-Birmingham-Wolverhampton would be 2tph all-stops, leaving only 1tph to Chester and North Wales (which could possibly be rolled into HS2 once electrification is complete) and 1tph to Scotland via Manchester. There could be a small number of extra peak time services, but the majority of the WCML paths out of Euston would pass to the London Midland operation, likely involving DOO and so on for reduced running costs. The ECML sees a similar story, with only 1tph to Leeds (and beyond), 1tph to Lincoln, 1tph to Newcastle and 1tph to Edinburgh (and beyond). The MML would go down to only 3tph InterCity - Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham, plus 2tph to Corby.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And much of Virgin's revenue comes from the city-to-city flows that I described. The HS2 operator will abstract all of this away, as no one will use ICWC services to get from London to Manchester.

Do you think?

Tell that to the passengers crammed into the next full-and-standing 4-car EMU on a LM Trent Valley local, many of whom are there not because they live in one of the stations with no VT service, but because of the very cheap fares.

I would expect a post-HS2 WCML to have a lower frequency service with more stops, but also lower fares. I also cannot believe HS2 would not have premium fares (despite what is being said); I would also expect compulsory reservations and airline-style pricing meaning expensive to use on the day (I know this didn't happen for HS1, but HS1 is a different thing entirely being more like the French TER-GV - commuter services that happen to be high speed). The remaining WCML will be an attraction to those who wish to walk-up at a reasonable price, perhaps.

Neil

 

[NotATrainspott]

Do you think?

Tell that to the passengers crammed into the next full-and-standing 4-car EMU on a LM Trent Valley local, many of whom are there not because they live in one of the stations with no VT service, but because of the very cheap fares.

I would expect a post-HS2 WCML to have a lower frequency service with more stops, but also lower fares. I also cannot believe HS2 would not have premium fares (despite what is being said); I would also expect compulsory reservations and airline-style pricing meaning expensive to use on the day (I know this didn't happen for HS1, but HS1 is a different thing entirely being more like the French TER-GV - commuter services that happen to be high speed). The remaining WCML will be an attraction to those who wish to walk-up at a reasonable price, perhaps.

Neil

A premium price over the remaining WCML services is likely but only as much as it can exist today. For example, there would be no way to charge more for a London-Scotland journey on HS2 compared to the current Virgin expresses, as there is no realistic competition with the one remaining service running via the middle of Manchester. The business case for HS2 is based upon exactly this idea. If they charged a premium fare, the other economic improvements and capacity relief of HS2 would decrease, and there's no point doing that if the extra revenue generated is less than the other economic costs created.

I think it's pretty telling that the private sector was singularly incapable of coming up with a solution to the railway's problems on the scale of HS2, and it is certain that the government's current ideas of how railways should run will need to be adjusted quite considerably once HS2 starts running. Other than a handful of open access paths on the ECML, the government hasn't shown any interest in allowing more than one long distance operator to share a London terminus and mainline. The inevitable single HS2 operator would then be put in a very monopolistic position as they would run the vast majority of all north-south long distance intercity services, and it will end up killing off the airlines on London-Scotland journeys once captive running is extended north of the Border.