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

[Shrop]

2) the number of people who actually travel Plymouth / Exeter / Bristol / Birmigham (and not the intermediate stations) is relatively small.

Just to add to my comments at post #285, I do wonder what figures you're using to base your comments on. Are you certain that the longer trips you say are smaller in number, account fully for all journeys purchased with split-ticketing?

Over the years I've made many, many long distance journeys by splitting my tickets at various points along the route depending upon all sorts of relevant circumstances at the time. Sometimes I've used different train companies for my purchases, even including newspaper offers or certain types of railrovers.

Perhaps I'm not typical in my journeys or the way I make my bookings, but I also doubt that I'm alone. The point is that many of my journeys have been completely untraceable as end to end trips, and therefore it would be impossible to account for them when considering what passengers want to do. I suspect that a good many longer distance journeys are actually pretty difficult to trace with much accuracy.

 

[NCT]

Just to add to my comments at post #285, I do wonder what figures you're using to base your comments on. Are you certain that the longer trips you say are smaller in number, account fully for all journeys purchased with split-ticketing?

Over the years I've made many, many long distance journeys by splitting my tickets at various points along the route depending upon all sorts of relevant circumstances at the time. Sometimes I've used different train companies for my purchases, even including newspaper offers or certain types of railrovers.

Perhaps I'm not typical in my journeys or the way I make my bookings, but I also doubt that I'm alone. The point is that many of my journeys have been completely untraceable as end to end trips, and therefore it would be impossible to account for them when considering what passengers want to do. I suspect that a good many longer distance journeys are actually pretty difficult to trace with much accuracy.

You are letting personal anecdotes do a lot of the heavy lifting, in a conversation with someone who (as far as I can tell) has sight of and good understanding of the data.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just to add to my comments at post #285, I do wonder what figures you're using to base your comments on. Are you certain that the longer trips you say are smaller in number, account fully for all journeys purchased with split-ticketing?

Over the years I've made many, many long distance journeys by splitting my tickets at various points along the route depending upon all sorts of relevant circumstances at the time. Sometimes I've used different train companies for my purchases, even including newspaper offers or certain types of railrovers.

Perhaps I'm not typical in my journeys or the way I make my bookings, but I also doubt that I'm alone. The point is that many of my journeys have been completely untraceable as end to end trips, and therefore it would be impossible to account for them when considering what passengers want to do. I suspect that a good many longer distance journeys are actually pretty difficult to trace with much accuracy.

Split ticketing is accounted for in revenue modelling, yes. The models are fantastic, and now make use of mobile network data. So we know how many people travel from from (say) Shropshire to (say) Devon via Birmingham, and compare that to ticket data for that particular group of flows. The models then make an assessment of what ticket(s) have been bought for those journeys, and can forecast accordingly.

These models work on a very granular time basis, and can account for flows at different times of day / week / year and even the impacts of engineering work or unplanned disruption.

 

[NCT]

Ooo, I wasn't aware split ticketing adjustments are now applied to MOIRA matrices ...

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1231/regional-rail-usage-quality-report.pdf

(search on the word 'split')

 

[Shrop]

You are letting personal anecdotes do a lot of the heavy lifting, in a conversation with someone who (as far as I can tell) has sight of and good understanding of the data.

I don't dispute your comment, I was just giving an example. But I'm far from convinced that the modelling is as good as seems to be claimed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2026 ==

Split ticketing is accounted for in revenue modelling, yes. The models are fantastic, and now make use of mobile network data.

That sounds either somewhat intrusive into personal data, or incredibly capable, or even both. If it's so capable, then perhaps it's worth selling this capability to the police, whose various forces around the country often seem to be criticised for not comparing notes with each other about criminal activity!

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't dispute your comment, I was just giving an example. But I'm far from convinced that the modelling is as good as seems to be claimed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2026 ==


That sounds either somewhat intrusive into personal data, or incredibly capable, or even both. If it's so capable, then perhaps it's worth selling this capability to the police, whose various forces around the country often seem to be criticised for not comparing notes with each other about criminal activity!

There is no personal data involved.

The police have had this capability for a long time, as is demonstrated by various convictions where such data was used as part of the prosecution.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I too have wondered whether 4 8 car Electrostars an hour from Bristol to Birmingham calling at most stations might be better than a high speed line.

But I think a high speed line on this corridor might still work to simply release the capacity to provide such a service. Plus it’ll take XC trains off the 2 track route into Birmingham.

Plus, depending on the routing, it could put Birmingham Airport directly on the NE-SW axis. Although I propose this should be done anyway with a new conventional line between Tamworth and Birmingham.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2026 ==

Yes exactly, that’s why I think the Heathrow Southern Railway should be built as part as HS2.

I mentioned Reading once in the context of getting to OOC, but all the other points are not just about Reading. There would have been greater variety and more frequency from OOC, as well as frequency from the stations on the existing network to OOC.



Same.


Birmingham, yes, and that should be an easier journey post HS2 if the post hs2 plans come to fruition, but Basingstoke, Southampton, Bournemouth etc may also go via hs2, plus that place that beings with R in Berkshire is the changing point for other places too to the North Newbury, Slough, Bracknell, Winnersh, Taplow... and its not just about going to Manchester, but Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Blackpool, Preston, plus for full hs2, even more.

Same for the other long distance XC service, particularly for the SW-EM/NE services if full hs2. More frequency, more seats and quicker. Leave XC serving the intermediate stations better for regional and local.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2026 ==

Yes exactly, that’s why I think the Heathrow Southern Railway should be built as part as HS2.

I mentioned Reading once in the context of getting to OOC, but all the other points are not just about Reading. There would have been greater variety and more frequency from OOC, as well as frequency from the stations on the existing network to OOC.



Same.


Birmingham, yes, and that should be an easier journey post HS2 if the post hs2 plans come to fruition, but Basingstoke, Southampton, Bournemouth etc may also go via hs2, plus that place that beings with R in Berkshire is the changing point for other places too to the North Newbury, Slough, Bracknell, Winnersh, Taplow... and its not just about going to Manchester, but Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Blackpool, Preston, plus for full hs2, even more.

Same for the other long distance XC service, particularly for the SW-EM/NE services if full hs2. More frequency, more seats and quicker. Leave XC serving the intermediate stations better for regional and local.

 

[eldomtom2]

There is no personal data involved.

What precisely is considered "personal data" here? Is there any information available about what data is collected?

 

[The Planner]

What precisely is considered "personal data" here? Is there any information available about what data is collected?

Mobile Network Data - Network Rail

We have commissioned BT to provide a system that uses Mobile Network Data to give us data insights on travel patterns

www.networkrail.co.uk

 

[eldomtom2]

Mobile Network Data - Network Rail

We have commissioned BT to provide a system that uses Mobile Network Data to give us data insights on travel patterns

www.networkrail.co.uk

Thanks.

 

[Shrop]

There is no personal data involved.

Please excuse my ignorance but I'm curious to know how mobile network data can be used to solve the split-ticketing issue?

 

[NCT]

Please excuse my ignorance but I'm curious to know how mobile network data can be used to solve the split-ticketing issue?

You can look at relative strengths of A-B, B-C and A-C mobile data location flows against ticket flows. If ticket sales say A-B and B-C dominate and mobile phone data say A-C dominate, then you know there's split ticketing going on.

 

[Shrop]

You can look at relative strengths of A-B, B-C and A-C mobile data location flows against ticket flows. If ticket sales say A-B and B-C dominate and mobile phone data say A-C dominate, then you know there's split ticketing going on.

So is that not the same as your mobile phone being used in a clandestine manner to track your movements?

 

[FMerrymon]

Yes exactly, that’s why I think the Heathrow Southern Railway should be built as part as HS2.

Hopefully, the Heathrow expansion will have to fund/part-fund that. Really would further cement the hub idea at OOC.

 

[NCT]

So is that not the same as your mobile phone being used in a clandestine manner to track your movements?

Where have you been the past two decades?

How do you think Google Maps works out traffic congestion levels and how busy a pub is?

 

[Bald Rick]

So is that not the same as your mobile phone being used in a clandestine manner to track your movements?

Yes, but not “in a clandestine manner”; the methodology and purpose is public knowledge. In any case, the system only knows that it is a mobile, not your mobile; it is tracking mobile phones, not associating them with specific people.

 

[Shrop]

Yes, but not “in a clandestine manner”; the methodology and purpose is public knowledge. In any case, the system only knows that it is a mobile, not your mobile; it is tracking mobile phones, not associating them with specific people.

That's interesting and I appreciate the explanation
I'm still sceptical about our evaluation of the journeys that people make and want to make though. I think our overall approach could be more pro-rail than it often is, if we focused more on what can be done, rather than finding reasons why we can't.
A lot is due to the British culture, which I found working in road traffic, where politicians generally shy away from sufficient improvements in driving standards in case it loses votes (ie. we end up with a can't do approach).
I've changed the subject now, maybe something for a new thread, but yes, I genuinely do find your comments interesting and informative.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think our overall approach could be more pro-rail than it often is, if we focused more on what can be done, rather than finding reasons why we can't.

I quite agree, and I learned very early in my career, and have subsequently drilled it into countless colleagues, that we need to find one way to say yes, rather than a hundred ways to say no. However, there comes with that a responsibility to highlight the issues that need to be overcome in order to say yes. Put another way, “what needs to be true to enable x to happen”

Pretty much every project that has gone over budget or delivered late has been because someone has said ‘yes’ without properly assessing and/or highlighting issues that need to be overcome. I appreciate that such assessments can feel rather pessimistic.

 

[NCT]

The very fact we have 200km of HSR and 4 major stations (yes I am counting Euston) under construction is a massive show of 'yes'. Yes, a lot has gone wrong but 200km and 4 stations still represents one of the biggest single-phase HSR projects in Europe. The ability to create 10tph worth of new capacity (even with Handsacre frustrations) represents some of the biggest transformative impacts seen anywhere in Europe.

There's a difference between saying yes, and 'only accepting the flavour of yes I approve of'. Midlands Connect's proposal of bringing South West Cross Country services to Moor Street and improving Birmingham and Cardiff frequencies represent a realistic aspiration of 'x to happen' based on a realistic assessment of 'what can hold true'.

 

[eldomtom2]

I quite agree, and I learned very early in my career, and have subsequently drilled it into countless colleagues, that we need to find one way to say yes, rather than a hundred ways to say no.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this - are you talking about, for instance, HS2 having to get local planning consent for every access road etc.?

 

[rower40]

(Should I have read the last 11 pages of this thread? Probably. Sorry.)
HS2 was originally mooted to alleviate the WCML Capacity issues by building WCML tracks 5 and 6 on a greenfield site, rather than alongside the existing 4 tracks.
This aim then morphed into an "I can go faster/bigger/more-frequently than you" vanity project.

To steal Tony Blair's "Education, Education, Education" idea; any future HS2 design decision should be based on "Compatibility, Compatibility, Compatibility". All HS2 trains should be able to run on classic lines (i.e. no captive stock that can only do Euston to Curzon St), and suitably-fitted (i.e. ETCS) conventional stock can and should be able to be diverted onto HS2. This isn't a Maglev or a different track gauge; so let's have the same platform height and stepping distances as the existing infrastructure, a compatible signalling system, and through-working as standard.

 

[MarkyT]

(Should I have read the last 11 pages of this thread? Probably. Sorry.)
HS2 was originally mooted to alleviate the WCML Capacity issues by building WCML tracks 5 and 6 on a greenfield site, rather than alongside the existing 4 tracks.
This aim then morphed into an "I can go faster/bigger/more-frequently than you" vanity project.

To steal Tony Blair's "Education, Education, Education" idea; any future HS2 design decision should be based on "Compatibility, Compatibility, Compatibility". All HS2 trains should be able to run on classic lines (i.e. no captive stock that can only do Euston to Curzon St), and suitably-fitted (i.e. ETCS) conventional stock can and should be able to be diverted onto HS2. This isn't a Maglev or a different track gauge; so let's have the same platform height and stepping distances as the existing infrastructure, a compatible signalling system, and through-working as standard.

If you're going to segregate express lines you might as well go much faster, bearing in mind faster round-trips mean greater carrying capacity for a given sized fleet and crew complement. How much faster is a legitimate question, but HS2 is not ahead of the pack in this respect compared to other current and recent schemes internationally, envisioning a top operational speed of 360km/h. Where possible, alignments have an additional margin to 400km/h which seems a reasonable allowance to future-proof an asset that will likely be used for centuries.

I was pleased when the initial fleet was confirmed as all classic compatible. A microfleet of captive UIC stock for Birmingham alone couldn't possibly be viable. While it perhaps ought to be technically possible, it's likely very rarely practical operationally to run slower non-HS stock among any reasonable HS service. There might be very quiet times of day when a slower path may be available in normal service, like freight running on HS1.

I agree HS2 platform height should ideally be harmonised with the national 3ft standard, so future lower floor trains could potentially offer level boarding at all stations, not just the handful of busiest new ones. High-speed trains seem the most difficult to crack regarding lower floors. Only Talgo have achieved a fully level floor at 760mm so far with their special split-axle running gear allowing the intercar gangway to pass between the tops of the wheels, which can thus be large, which is desirable for the highest speeds.

Unfortunately, Talgo's latest 360km/h Avril is experiencing a very troubled introduction into service with Renfe. Innovation will continue no doubt, with other manufacturers tackling the challenges of level boarding at various platform heights around Europe. It remains the fact however that the vast majority of high speed trains available today in Europe and East Asia have resolutely high floors of ~1200m over traditionally large wheeled bogies, including the bulkier powered ones which are many given the distributed traction paradigm that is popular.

 

[HSTEd]

How much faster is a legitimate question, but HS2 is not ahead of the pack in this respect compared to other current and recent schemes internationally, envisioning a top operational speed of 360km/h. Where possible, alignments have an additional margin to 400km/h which seems a reasonable allowance to future-proof an asset that will likely be used for centuries.

There is little chance that 400km/h running will occur before 2100. Even 360km/h running is looking shaky abroad in economics terms, with HS2 settling for an operational speed closer to 320km/h in practice.

Going for 400 instead of 320 will save a small handful of minutes, it really doesn't seem to have been a good idea. It's six minutes neglecting acceleration between London and Birmingham, so probably more like two.

I was pleased when the initial fleet was confirmed as all classic compatible. A microfleet of captive UIC stock for Birmingham alone couldn't possibly be viable.

The UK railway is full of micro fleets.
A handful of 400m sets would not be a small order by the standards of the railway and would allow us to pile seats high and sell them cheap. Four or six 400m captive trains per hour with a single crew member would allow us to drive astronomical traffic growth.

nnovation will continue no doubt, with other manufacturers tackling the challenges of level boarding at various platform heights around Europe. It remains the fact however that the vast majority of high speed trains available today in Europe and East Asia have resolutely high floors of ~1200m over traditionally large wheeled bogies, including the bulkier powered ones which are many given the distributed traction paradigm that is popular.

Innovation won't be able to get us out of the trap that HS2 will have made level boarding on the mainline system impossible to achieve.
London to Birmingham passengers get level boarding, but noone else ever will.

It's rather funny that HS2 is all about future proofing when it comes to getting the speed they want, but then cripples the railway forever because they can't easily get ultra high speed trains with level boarding from our platforms today.

HS2 should have set the platform height to 915mm and ordered whatever the fastest trains they could get would be. They would be at least 250km/h because the SMILE has level boarding at 760mm.

For captive trains, at GC loading gauge a TGV duplex could be jacked up enough that it wouldn't be that far from level boarding onto the lower deck! (Would get to ~700mm above rail height)

 

[BogiePicker]

I agree, it only has to be a few hundred millimetres taller than a TGV Duplex trailer in order to enable level boarding at a 915mm class platform.

The potential capacity of a 3.45m wide, double deck train with level boarding at ~915mm is enormous. Especially as you could have a gangway on both levels.
Even a 3.45m wide single deck would be a huge change.

I make it you could have 2+2 seating using something like typical UK first class seats, and still add substantially to the width of the gangway. A gangway passable to wheelchairs or for people to easily pass people using the overheads would be within reach.

I'm now of the view that the UIC GC width of 'only' 3.15m is adequate, considering vehicles of around that width elsewhere (US & ROK). I don't know whether the extra foot of width could be justified cost-wise, especially as you wouldnt be adding any extra seating capacity. I think you would need to go even wider to have comfortable 3 + 2 seating.

Standard UK platfom offsets imply a lower sector structure gauge of 2,895mm IIRC. So accepting some platform overhangs at select dead straight platforms might allow for 3m wide trains, we have had 2.9x trains running before.

If you're going to segregate express lines you might as well go much faster, bearing in mind faster round-trips mean greater carrying capacity for a given sized fleet and crew complement. How much faster is a legitimate question, but HS2 is not ahead of the pack in this respect compared to other current and recent schemes internationally, envisioning a top operational speed of 360km/h. Where possible, alignments have an additional margin to 400km/h which seems a reasonable allowance to future-proof an asset that will likely be used for centuries.

I was pleased when the initial fleet was confirmed as all classic compatible. A microfleet of captive UIC stock for Birmingham alone couldn't possibly be viable. While it perhaps ought to be technically possible, it's likely very rarely practical operationally to run slower non-HS stock among any reasonable HS service. There might be very quiet times of day when a slower path may be available in normal service, like freight running on HS1.

I agree HS2 platform height should ideally be harmonised with the national 3ft standard, so future lower floor trains could potentially offer level boarding at all stations, not just the handful of busiest new ones. High-speed trains seem the most difficult to crack regarding lower floors. Only Talgo have achieved a fully level floor at 760mm so far with their special split-axle running gear allowing the intercar gangway to pass between the tops of the wheels, which can thus be large, which is desirable for the highest speeds.

Unfortunately, Talgo's latest 360km/h Avril is experiencing a very troubled introduction into service with Renfe. Innovation will continue no doubt, with other manufacturers tackling the challenges of level boarding at various platform heights around Europe. It remains the fact however that the vast majority of high speed trains available today in Europe and East Asia have resolutely high floors of ~1200m over traditionally large wheeled bogies, including the bulkier powered ones which are many given the distributed traction paradigm that is popular.

The Stadler Smile is 155mph capable and low-floor, while funnily enough the very Scandinavian train @HSTEd probably was alluding to (SJ X55) does have low doors but high floor. It has been tested to 300kph+.

Edit @HSTEd beat me to it lol. A Japanese solution was to build elevators into the E4 'Max' Shinkansen, but they have higher platforms and the trains are again around a foot wider than UIC GC.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm now of the view that the UIC GC width of 'only' 3.15m is adequate, considering vehicles of around that width elsewhere (US & ROK). I don't know whether the extra foot of width could be justified cost-wise, especially as you wouldnt be adding any extra seating capacity. I think you would need to go even wider to have comfortable 3 + 2 seating.

Even if you get no extra seating, I think the extra 30cm would make a big difference to dwell times, and would add something like one extra standee of capacity per metre of train at max loadings. Adding an extra foot to the gangway would let people pass each other far more easily.

Imagine those 2+2 commuter trains that switched from 3+2 to add standing room, but combined with a generous 2+2 layout.

The person trying to get a bag in or out of an overhead would not plug up the unloading of the carriage as they do now.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2026 ==

And not wasted money on Chiltern tunnels however much they moaned.

Without the tunnels I think the project doesn't get built.

HS2's surface route picked an ultimately unwinnable fight, and the resulting mess almost certainly cost more than just admitting that to start with.

The trend abroad is to tunnels and (in China at least) viaducts to minimise interactions with other stuff. Some Japanese schemes are now 70+% tunneled even in relatively low population density areas.

A viaduct in the Chilterns was obviously untenable, so tunnel it is. If they had proposed a largely tunneled scheme then we'd be in a better place today. After all the tunneling is one thing that has gone very well.

Of course oncr you accept mass tunneling then we have to ask if the Chiltern route still makes sense....

 

[BogiePicker]

Even if you get no extra seating, I think the extra 30cm would make a big difference to dwell times, and would add something like one extra standee of capacity per metre of train at max loadings. Adding an extra foot to the gangway would let people pass each other far more easily.

Imagine those 2+2 commuter trains that switched from 3+2 to add standing room, but combined with a generous 2+2 layout.

The person trying to get a bag in or out of an overhead would not plug up the unloading of the carriage as they do now.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2026 ==


Without the tunnels I think the project doesn't get built.

HS2's surface route picked an ultimately unwinnable fight, and the resulting mess almost certainly cost more than just admitting that to start with.

The trend abroad is to tunnels and (in China at least) viaducts to minimise interactions with other stuff. Some Japanese schemes are now 70+% tunneled even in relatively low population density areas.

A viaduct in the Chilterns was obviously untenable, so tunnel it is. If they had proposed a largely tunneled scheme then we'd be in a better place today. After all the tunneling is one thing that has gone very well.

Of course oncr you accept mass tunneling then we have to ask if the Chiltern route still makes sense....

Ok, but UIC GC itself is over a foot wider than Mk3/IET. There's a question of where you find this extra width in (presumably, existing?) stations. I'm also not sure how comfortable I feel with the gauntleting style of track, with the risk of the train going onto the wrong set of tracks. Given the choice of a new build I'd go with 3.6m

 

[HSTEd]

Ok, but UIC GC itself is over a foot wider than Mk3/IET. There's a question of where you find this extra width in (presumably, existing?) stations.

In this scenario, the wide track would only be provided on new lines and on those receiving extensive reconstruction work. Whilst UIC would be an improvement on the status quo, I think most of that width gain would end up used up trying to make seats large enough to prevent legs and shoulders ending up in the aisle!

I'm also not sure how comfortable I feel with the gauntleting style of track, with the risk of the train going onto the wrong set of tracks. Given the choice of a new build I'd go with 3.6m

If you provide two superimposed layouts as opposed to separately gauntleting each platform, that probably isn't an issue.
The track layout could be arranged to ensure there is no physical connection between the "wide train" side and the "narrow train" side. The wide trains would have dedicated storage areas in the depot and all that.

I don't think the number of extra point machines ends up that much larger - and four rail dual gauge points are standard items made in large numbers abroad. As for 3.6m, thats an interesting idea although I wonder when stability starts to become an issue!

EDIT: Apparently the new Swedish very large standard is 3.6mx4.830m, so perhaps just go with that in terms of gross dimensions. That's tall enough that a TGV Duplex trailer could have a lower floor height of ~830mm! Nearly level boarding onto a double decker train from UK standard platforms. Or perhaps push a bit further to 3.6x4.95m and be done with it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder what effect the London-Glasgow services terminating at Motherwell has had on passenger numbers? As that's a nice analogy for forcing people onto the Liz at Old Oak when they want to go to central London and continue on foot/by bike/by bus...

Or if you had to change to Merseyrail at Liverpool South Parkway instead of going into Lime St.

It sounds ridiculous in those terms, doesn't it? That's why it has to go to Euston.

 

[Uncle Buck]

To those debating whether places on the Great Western corridor will be able to access Birmingham and points north more quickly via OOC or via the existing Cross-Country network…surely the whole point is the space that HS2 will free up on the network?

I wonder what effect the London-Glasgow services terminating at Motherwell has had on passenger numbers? As that's a nice analogy for forcing people onto the Liz at Old Oak when they want to go to central London and continue on foot/by bike/by bus...

Or if you had to change to Merseyrail at Liverpool South Parkway instead of going into Lime St.

It sounds ridiculous in those terms, doesn't it? That's why it has to go to Euston.

It’s not quite the same. The area served by OOC is far, far more populated than the area served by the Strathclyde suburban network, and the Elizabeth Line is far faster (and nicer!) too. But I wouldn’t personally be deterred by having to travel via Motherwell.

 

[Krokodil]

To those debating whether places on the Great Western corridor will be able to access Birmingham and points north more quickly via OOC or via the existing Cross-Country network…surely the whole point is the space that HS2 will free up on the network?

You don't want it doing so by putting additional pressure on other bits of the network though (i.e. Reading-OOC)