High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[The Planner]

Some VT services currently use a 3 minute headway with the current signalling so the same theory you have would apply to classic lines as well.

Thats a planning headway as well, there are lots of sections on the southern WCML that can go green to green in around 80 seconds.

 

[Metroland]

Indeed.

3 minutes in the normal planned headway for classic intercity lines, TGV lines and Japanese Shinkansen.

90 seconds on metro lines with moving block, 2 minutes on standard metro lines.

90 seconds gives you about enough time to run a train in, get passengers to board, and have another one to run straight in behind it.

Parts of the London underground have traffic levels of ~ 40,000 people per hour. Moscow and Hong Kong metros have double that. You need very dense population to achieve the latter throughput and is not applicable to UK conditions.

HS2 is designed I think to run 18 trains per hour with 1100 on, so 19800 per hour. The Pendolino fast line service is ~ 5000 per hour, so nearly 4 times the traffic volume of the fast line.

http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/77048

 

[MCR247]

If only our HS2 could use traditional lines when it gets to cities like everywhere else.

 

[Striker]

If only our HS2 could use traditional lines when it gets to cities like everywhere else.

The Shinkansen doesn't.

 

[MCR247]

Should probably have added in Europe

You still in Japan?

 

[Striker]

Should probably have added in Europe

You still in Japan?

No unfortunately.

 

[The Planner]

HS2 is designed I think to run 18 trains per hour with 1100 on, so 19800 per hour.

That says to me 3 minute headways with a spare path every 30 minutes as a buffer.

 

[vtiman]

grey man and deltic....

mmm lets be honest it might not be double in might be well £17 billion as this already includes the so called optimism bias.

not sure why you think people wont walk ten minutes when they do anyway for example from kings cross to euston.

and if you are talking about curzon street this is about a mile from new street and will be connected via tram. and passengers will be able to get through trains to points further north in any case. or they can change at i believe the new nec hs2 station.

it is also a bit early to talk about how much the tickets will be it is all so much speculation. and where does the £60 billion come from are you just making that up or has someone somewhere calculated that amount

and i dont see what the subsidy of fares has to do with the numbers now using trains as this amount has been going down not up ! and even at 50% taxpayer support farepayers are complaining that prices are too high. if the rise in numbers corresponded with a rise in taxpayer subsidy i would agree with you. but the growth in rail travel is despite the massive rise in fares. and if hs2 has higher fares then you dont have to use it.

as an aside here hs2 gets criticised at the same time for being either too optimistic on passenger numbers or not sound enough on pollution grounds. the hs2 report says that the worst impact would be a 0.03% rise in co2. but if the passengers numbers arent fully met, then theres nothing to worry about re co2 !!!

it is anyones right to criticise hs2 but you need to at least be consistent and logical with your criticisms. and i presume we are all supporters of the railway industry so why would we criticise plans to inject up to £33 billion into this industry ? if even supporters of rail dont well support hs2 there is no guarantee that the money will be invested in the industry at all ! there is a big danger that the govt might throw its hands up in the air and say they tried to support rail but no-one supported them so goodbye £33billion!!!

 

[185]

Two words for this thread.

1.
Yes.

Reason?
Growth.

 

[grey_man]

grey man and deltic....

mmm lets be honest it might not be double in might be well £17 billion as this already includes the so called optimism bias.

not sure why you think people wont walk ten minutes when they do anyway for example from kings cross to euston.

and if you are talking about curzon street this is about a mile from new street and will be connected via tram. and passengers will be able to get through trains to points further north in any case. or they can change at i believe the new nec hs2 station.

it is also a bit early to talk about how much the tickets will be it is all so much speculation. and where does the £60 billion come from are you just making that up or has someone somewhere calculated that amount

and i dont see what the subsidy of fares has to do with the numbers now using trains as this amount has been going down not up ! and even at 50% taxpayer support farepayers are complaining that prices are too high. if the rise in numbers corresponded with a rise in taxpayer subsidy i would agree with you. but the growth in rail travel is despite the massive rise in fares. and if hs2 has higher fares then you dont have to use it.

as an aside here hs2 gets criticised at the same time for being either too optimistic on passenger numbers or not sound enough on pollution grounds. the hs2 report says that the worst impact would be a 0.03% rise in co2. but if the passengers numbers arent fully met, then theres nothing to worry about re co2 !!!

it is anyones right to criticise hs2 but you need to at least be consistent and logical with your criticisms. and i presume we are all supporters of the railway industry so why would we criticise plans to inject up to £33 billion into this industry ? if even supporters of rail dont well support hs2 there is no guarantee that the money will be invested in the industry at all ! there is a big danger that the govt might throw its hands up in the air and say they tried to support rail but no-one supported them so goodbye £33billion!!!

In answer to the main question within all that. Because it is yet to be shown that it will deal with some of the main issues facing travellers, not least cost. If it's supposed to compete with air travel, it should be cheaper and guarantee some degree of comfort. Rail fares are already out of control, spiralling further away from reality and forcing businesses (like my own in the North West) to severely question taking on contracts in the South East.

Great if they're investing, we're all for it. The question is, is it going in to the right things and the answer I'm swaying towards is no. I think the government (and the last one) is far more interested in shiny marquee projects than it is dealing with the nitty gritty of the existing rail system in the UK. I'd be happy clapping this project all the way if it wasn't my suspicion it's just more **** on top of the existing pile.

 

[deltic]

grey man and deltic....



it is also a bit early to talk about how much the tickets will be it is all so much speculation. and where does the £60 billion come from are you just making that up or has someone somewhere calculated that amount

!

For the £60bn figure see the BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8434653.stm

I would love for £60bn to be invested in the rail network just dont think HS2 is the best way of spending it. I would rather it was spent electifiying most of the present network and expansion of urban light rail/tram schemes

 

[Chris125]

Deltic, that isnt how you prioritise spending - there are millions of projects that could in theory deliver great benefits, but you can cant do all them. HS2 is a large, long term project of national importance to the countries economy which puts it above tram schemes however locally beneficial.

Lets be clear about this, HS2 isnt being built to get people to Brum quicker - thats just the incentive for a lot more people to use the new line. Its primary purpose is to solve a major capacity crisis; our most important rail artery running out of capacity. You cant just forget about it and spend the money on tramways instead.

Chris

 

[WatcherZero]

Meh, its effectivley the annual Crossrail budget slid over into another program when it finishes. I just believe that afer Thameslink, Crossrail and HS2 it should be a long time before another multibillion pound program in London when there are so many £20-£30m mini projects which would benefit many more people.

Its not going to steal from local rail projects in the rest of the country, if HS2 hadnt come along it would probably have been funding Crossrail 2 or Thameslink+ or another underground line.

While im on the subject the rolling stock order for Crossrail (£1bn) hasnt been included in the rest of the projects budget. Their currently planning it as a PFI scheme, but if no ROSCO stumps up the cash thats another £bn they would have to pillage from the rest of the country to pay for Crossrail.

 

[Chris125]

I cant see any reason why the ROSCO's wouldnt be interested in the Crossrail stock - there's not much chance of them becoming redundant, so its very low risk.

 

[tbtc]

For the £60bn figure see the BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8434653.stm

I would love for £60bn to be invested in the rail network just dont think HS2 is the best way of spending it. I would rather it was spent electifiying most of the present network and expansion of urban light rail/tram schemes

Given that the WCML upgrade (not a brand new line, just an upgrade) cost around £10 billion, you'll not resolve all the bottlenecks/ electrify all lines/ reopen routes for your money.

HS2 also has the advantage of being built without disrupting existing lines (e.g. replace Welwyn and you are talking months of bus-replacement-services etc.

 

[deltic]

Given that the WCML upgrade (not a brand new line, just an upgrade) cost around £10 billion, you'll not resolve all the bottlenecks/ electrify all lines/ reopen routes for your money.

HS2 also has the advantage of being built without disrupting existing lines (e.g. replace Welwyn and you are talking months of bus-replacement-services etc.

I think that the planned 6 years of building works at Euston for HS2 would be described by most people as disruption!

Out of interest does anyone know how much of the money spent on WCML upgrade was really on renewal work that would have been needed anyway and how much was actually on upgrade work?

 

[tbtc]

I think that the planned 6 years of building works at Euston for HS2 would be described by most people as disruption!

...but it can be managed a lot better than several years of closing the railway at weekends which is what would happen if you tried to upgrade existing lines - e.g. replace the Watford stoppers by extending the Bakerloo line, divert the LM services to Clapham Junction (conveniently changing at Shepherd's Bush for the Central etc), suddenly Euston is only getting half the current volume of trains, meaning you can rebuild one side at a time.

The problem with the anti-HS2 argument is that the "you should spend the £20bn/ £30bn/ £60bn on upgrading existing lines" idea is too vague and uncosted. If you can tell me that for the same price as building HS2 you could four track the ECML and MML from London to Yorkshire (with no bottle necks), build half a dozen additional platforms at Birmingham New Street, electrify the GWML and Transpennine route then I could argue the merits of one vs the other. However, as the WCML upgrade cost so much (for some four-tracking, remoddeling some junctions etc), I'm doubtful of what other people would do with their £20bn/ £30bn/ £60bn ...

 

[rb311]

The problem with the anti-HS2 argument is that the "you should spend the £20bn/ £30bn/ £60bn on upgrading existing lines" idea is too vague and uncosted. If you can tell me that for the same price as building HS2 you could four track the ECML and MML from London to Yorkshire (with no bottle necks),

The problem with the pro HS2 argument is the blind faith that the budget for the construction of this will not increase or overrun. Sadly, this faith is very much misplaced. If changing a few junctions or adding a couple of tracks in a few places can be so grossly over cost, then what hope slicing through virgin countryside supported by an extremely strong, well resourced and determined group of people.

Improving existing problem areas will return far more bang per buck, but it ain't glamorous, headline catching, and doesn't give politicians hard ons.

 

[jon0844]

Improving existing problem areas will return far more bang per buck, but it ain't glamorous, headline catching, and doesn't give politicians hard ons.

I would hope that HS2 isn't going to be all we spend any money on in the next 10-15 years.

As long as the existing network is maintained and upgraded, there shouldn't be a problem and the new line(s) will relieve some pressure - and give those all-important Plan B's for when things go wrong.

 

[spaceartuk]

Just for the record, a considerabl amount IS already being spent on a new New Street Station in Birmingham regardless of whether HST goes ahead. . .

 

[Geezertronic]

Just for the record, a considerabl amount IS already being spent on a new New Street Station in Birmingham regardless of whether HST goes ahead. . .

And a considerable amount of money will still be ploughed into the existing infrastructure despite what some of the anti brigade would like you to believe

 

[YesToHS2]

It just so happens I have looked into the alternatives. Should probably have called it a broad look instead of an in depth look. But I think it raises some interesting questions about the so called "cheaper" alternatives to HS2.

http://yestohs2.blogspot.com/2011/01/alternatives-to-hs2-in-depth-look.html

 

[rb311]

The main reason stated for HS2 is it frees up extra capacity....

Well, today the company operating services between London and the West Midlands has gone out of business.

I guess that extra capacity isn't as much in demand as the pro HS2s want us to believe.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Well, today the company operating services between London and the West Midlands has gone out of business.

WSMR were not, and would never have been the primary operator, this falls to Virgin, then London Midland. The reason for WSMR going bust is the moderation of competition, and the fact that Tame Bridge is only really suitable for Walsall and the nearby motorway. Demand is still very high from the core WM towns, W&S had very little to do with this, and them folding is not a reflection of capacity.

 

[The Planner]

Is that a serious post ??

 

[Metroland]

@ rb311 Not quite the same...

In fact it proves the point, that unless the journey time is attractive, people won't use the services, which is why we need HSR, not a new conventional line that will never cover it's costs.

 

[spaceartuk]

The main reason stated for HS2 is it frees up extra capacity....

Well, today the company operating services between London and the West Midlands has gone out of business.

I guess that extra capacity isn't as much in demand as the pro HS2s want us to believe.

You mean London Midland? There's nothing about this in the news. . .

 

[YesToHS2]

No I think he means WSMR operating a relatively slow and unprofitable service from Wrexham to London Marylebone (I think)

 

[Geezertronic]

No I think he means WSMR operating a relatively slow and unprofitable service from Wrexham to London Marylebone (I think)

Of course rb311 means WSMR (which stands for Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway Company), but don't let the real facts get in the way of a good old rant

The fact that WSMR's only proper station stop in the West Midlands is (or unfortunately was) Tame Bridge Parkway obviously means that they were the permier carrier for the West Midlands. I suggest rb311 does some research

 

[tbtc]

The main reason stated for HS2 is it frees up extra capacity....

Well, today the company operating services between London and the West Midlands has gone out of business.

I guess that extra capacity isn't as much in demand as the pro HS2s want us to believe.

I know we all want to use the untimely demise of WMSR to suit our agendas, but you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel there :roll: