High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[tbtc]

Of course it is a political decision. I am knocking all politicians not just conservatives. Making a choice like this is the sort of decision that politicians find easy and love. It makes good headlines and the subsequent effects will be felt long after the decision makers have shuffled off to their consultancies and seats in the Lords.

Building HS2 is like painting go faster stripes on a clapped out car. It looks good, but unfortunately the basic mechanics of the engine arn’t up to it. Sort out the existing railway first.

In the case of Heathrow’s 3rd runway, a private business was asking the government to expand in order to compete on an international level. How many private railway companies have been lobbying the government to build high speed rail links because they see it as good business? I would like to know the answer.

So you'd be in favour of a new High Speed line if it was privately funded? Like the Virgin plan for a new London - Doncaster "ECML by-pass"?

 

[jon0844]

Does Heathrow need a third runway when flying is going to become more expensive in the future? Sure, it would have been handy now to rotate between them while clearing one of snow, but the airports will eventually see a decrease in flights - either through increased ticket prices or using larger planes, plus less short haul flights if people switch to train (as I would, given the many benefits of going by train).

The railway is going to need increases in capacity that go beyond HS2. There will need to be many more lines built (not all as high speed lines) and I am surprised that people are now talking about the railway in the same was as building a new road.

I'm not against road building either (or indeed runways if they're needed) but I can sort of understand the argument about pollution from cars, but trains? When did people care so much for their own property that they don't want anything to change?

Unless we can get populations to go down, we're going to need to keep building new roads, railway tracks, runways, houses and all the other things a growing population needs (hospitals, schools, services/utilities etc).

Surely something to be done in the next 10-20 years is the opposite of what most short-termist politicians look to doing? That's why we're in the mess we are today, because people only look forward a few years. It's surely good that we're looking beyond a single term of Government.

 

[Geezertronic]

Building HS2 is like painting go faster stripes on a clapped out car. It looks good, but unfortunately the basic mechanics of the engine arn’t up to it. Sort out the existing railway first.

At what cost though? How can extra capacity/speed be achieved on the WCML especially without massive investment and disruption? Look at the recent upgrade of the WCML, what it achieved, and the cost compared to HS2.

 

[CosherB]

Why build HS2? Because we need the extra rail capacity it will bring. The shorter inter-city journeys are a bonus; probably not that significant London to Brum, more so London to MAN, and a real take-over from air travel when eventually HS2 reaches Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Why not simply expand the current network instead to provide that capacity? Becuase that will cost far, far more, will disrupt the current network while the work is carried out, it would require aquisition of land in built-up areas so demolition of houses etc, and in many places it simply isn't geographically possible.

The only argument for not building HS2 is that the current railway can cope with current and future demand for passenger and freight traffic. Clearly, it can't, so HS2 HAS to be built - it's a no-brainer.

 

[spaceartuk]

I recently saw a TV programme which said that the HS2 will carry 1500 passengers (presumably per train) and there will a train every 2 minutes. This just sounds ridiculous, unrealistic and totally unachievable! NO route has this many trains, and there could not possibly be enough passenger demand. Can anyone tell me where this came from and what the actual figures are likely to be, please?

 

[jopsuk]

1500? that would be near enought the equivalent of a pair of Japanese E4 MAX Shinkansen! Even they only have 26 of them- so impossible to sustain an "every two mminutes" service.

Perhaps those numbers are just extrapolations? Perfectly feasible for the signalling to allow for 2-minute headways- I think LGV Sud-Est has such headways?- and the design would cerainly allow trains as big as the E4 along it. Someone's ruin with those numbers without considering that that means moving 45,000 people per hour!

 

[colpepper]

Governments prefer prestige willy waving exercises to the difficult job of Making Things Work, so the PR value of high speed trunk routes are invaluable. They'll be occupied by individuals important enough to the their employers to avoid cattle class air travel.

 

[Hydro]

The initial stages of HS2 are basically the birth of a new north/south main line. The capacity alone will be worth it. In my eyes the fact it's a dedicated High Speed line means that finally the UK start making in roads into having a future network constrained by current and future specifications of speed and loading gauge, rather than specifications and standards of 50 years ago.

 

[colpepper]

The only reason to build a new north-south route would be to open up the whole country as a commuting route with a fare structure to enable that to happen. That would provide real social benefit and - to some extent - equalise housing costs.
If a worker could be at their home station in an hour of leaving London (like say, Kings X- Newark) and afford to do so, a new line would have some benefit. The fear as I stated is that it'll target executive travellers to get to the city and back rather quicker than they do at present.

I'd much rather realistic proposals were put in place to reactivate Beeching cut lines and create diversions where that was not possible.

 

[WatcherZero]

I recently saw a TV programme which said that the HS2 will carry 1500 passengers (presumably per train) and there will a train every 2 minutes. This just sounds ridiculous, unrealistic and totally unachievable! NO route has this many trains, and there could not possibly be enough passenger demand. Can anyone tell me where this came from and what the actual figures are likely to be, please?

The 2 minutes is maximum possible line capacity (and the same as will operate on Crossrail), the suggested train capacity is 2x200m 600 passengers for a total of 1200 and trains would be serving Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and classic compatible trains serving a host of other large cities and Scotland. For example a quick calculations shows todays WCML passenger numbers alone would fill 10-13 of those an hour. I am ready to be corrected but wasnt the mooted first service pattern 13tph rising to 17tph?

 

[YesToHS2]

I remember some time ago myself and a few others had a debate about speeds on the WCML, I think it was in the HS2 rolling stock thread.

Anyway I have finally heard back from HS2 Ltd who have assured me that the 20+ time saving will be retained for all HS2 rolling stock travelling north on the WCML without them having to tilt. They have been in talks with Network Rail about the feasibility of faster running trains by making small changes to the WCML.

They have suggested that running trains at 125mph rather than 110mph on straight sections of track will cut down the reported 30 minute time penalty to 6 minutes which they hope will be further brought down. In actual fact they said trains travelling without tilt at 110mph were only 13 minutes slower from Glasgow to London not 30 at all.

It will also be the case that trains travelling from the WCML onto the HS2 line will be travelling at a faster speed for longer than the accelerating London bound Birmingham trains.

It was also pointed out that the 10 tonnes of extra weight needed for tilt mechanisms on ever increasing light trains would not help the overall performance of high speed trains especially where acceleration is concerned.

It may not help the debate but it's just some further information for anyone interested.

 

[WatcherZero]

I did see some figures to suggest a 110mph non tilting train could match the performance of a 125mph tilting train on the Scotland section of the WCML if it only had marginally superior acceleration to the tilting. I had heard talk before of the small speed improvements to Scottish WCML as a sop to Scotland not having its own HS line (straightening here and there, building crossovers instead of points) theres even places where the speed is limited purely by signalling rather than the track.

 

[spaceartuk]

Thank you to those who have responded to my post. I think this answers my question, and makes a lot more sense! But I wonder what the price of tickets is likely to be, and would this put off potential passengers? It would have to be very competitive with airlines, eg. for trips to Glasgow (but has the advantage of avoiding long check-in times, etc. . .)

 

[YesToHS2]

If anyone wishes to see the full response I have published in on the YesToHS2 blog

http://yestohs2.blogspot.com/2011/01/hs2-beyond-birmingham-response-from-hs2.html

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

Anyone remember "Central Railway"?

Ooooohhh the plans they had to get lorries offa the roads.

Nothing has come of it of course, and I'll believe HS2 when I see it.

 

[YesToHS2]

Anyone remember "Central Railway"?

Ooooohhh the plans they had to get lorries offa the roads.

Nothing has come of it of course, and I'll believe HS2 when I see it.

Sorry to pic up your point but it has just made me realise the confusion and completely different ranges of views on the subject of HS2. Usually with a debate you have yes, no or I don't know.

With HS2 though you have

- Absolutely not needed, no business case etc etc
- We need HSR but not HS2 (In other words not in my back yard)
- We don't need HSR but we do need a new line, "it's cheaper" (Only by roughly £2bn over the whole London to Scotland £33bn ish route)
- I'll believe it when I see it
- HS2 is needed, business case, greener than flying, capacity etc etc
- HS2 isn't going far enough, it should be four tracked and should be planned from London to Scotland form the outset
- HS2 isn't going far enough there should be at least 2 high speed lines, running up the east and west coast and running west to Cardiff.

And these are just some of the views I've seen.

 

[Striker]

With a headway of 2 mins and speeds of 400km/h, how would the second train be able to brake hard enough in order to stop in time if the first train came to a sudden halt i.e. a catastrophic failure of some kind or something on the line?

 

[YesToHS2]

If you use the old saying "only a fool brakes the two second rule" Then I think 2 minutes is enough. Is all to do with relative speeds. If two identical vehicles travelling inches apart broke at exactly the same time they would stop at the same time and be the same distance apart as when they were travelling. The two seconds is generally to allow for thinking time.

I assume HS2 units will be fitted with in cab signalling so as soon as the train in front brakes so can the train behind. Depending on the amount of passengers on board and if the trains are travelling at relative speeds they shouldn't end up much closer together than when they began.

 

[Striker]

If you use the old saying "only a fool brakes the two second rule" Then I think 2 minutes is enough. Is all to do with relative speeds. If two identical vehicles travelling inches apart broke at exactly the same time they would stop at the same time and be the same distance apart as when they were travelling. The two seconds is generally to allow for thinking time.

I assume HS2 units will be fitted with in cab signalling so as soon as the train in front brakes so can the train behind. Depending on the amount of passengers on board and if the trains are travelling at relative speeds they shouldn't end up much closer together than when they began.

Er....yes. Thanks for that. Now, maybe someone has an answer to the actual question posed?

".....if the first train came to a sudden halt i.e. a catastrophic failure of some kind or something on the line.

 

[Geezertronic]

Er....yes. Thanks for that. Now, maybe someone has an answer to the actual question posed?

".....if the first train came to a sudden halt i.e. a catastrophic failure of some kind or something on the line.

Your question has been answered

I assume HS2 units will be fitted with in cab signalling so as soon as the train in front brakes so can the train behind. Depending on the amount of passengers on board and if the trains are travelling at relative speeds they shouldn't end up much closer together than when they began.

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.

 

[YorkshireBear]

all signalling would allow for a train infront to crash and the one behind to easily brake in time to not collide.... no one would be that stupid surely

 

[YesToHS2]

Er....yes. Thanks for that. Now, maybe someone has an answer to the actual question posed?

".....if the first train came to a sudden halt i.e. a catastrophic failure of some kind or something on the line.

It was an sensible answer thank you very much, much more sensible than the question. :roll:

Trains don't often just come to a sudden stop unless your talking about The Eschede train disaster, but that train only came to a dead stop because it was wedged between 2 bridge piers.

Lessons learned from the disaster means that HSR bridge designs are now different to stop this sort of thing happening again. The other way the train could come to a dead stop is if a 400 tonne weight was put in it's way.

HSR has been around for decades so why had it taken HS2 to stir up worst case scenarios. If your scared use the old pendolino services.

 

[Striker]

Your question has been answered

No it hasn't. He answered in respect to normal braking. I quite specifically talked about a "catastrophic failure".

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.

Bit of a difference between 200km/h and 400km/h don't you think? It's twice as fast for one.

all signalling would allow for a train infront to crash and the one behind to easily brake in time to not collide.... no one would be that stupid surely

I don't think somebody would be that stupid but it struck me that a two minute gap with trains travelling at 400km/h seems very short.

It was an sensible answer thank you very much, much more sensible than the question. :roll:

No. It was an irrelevant answer to a very sensible question. You went on a long ramble about in-cab signalling and a seemingly bizarre equation with the two second rule on motorways.

Trains don't often just come to a sudden stop unless your talking about The Eschede train disaster, but that train only came to a dead stop because it was wedged between 2 bridge piers.

The Eschede disaster was exactly what I was thinking about.

Lessons learned from the disaster means that HSR bridge designs are now different to stop this sort of thing happening again.

Disasters happen and continue to happen when something occurs that the designers hadn't considered. The simple truth is, in two minutes a 400km/h train will have travelled over 13km. That's a lot of distance.

HSR has been around for decades so why had it taken HS2 to stir up worst case scenarios. If your scared use the old pendolino services.

Oh for God's sake, what an idiotic comment. :roll: I was simply asking a question about a safety margin of two minutes when the train behind is travelling at 400km/h. It wasn't a loaded question. I wasn't suggesting we're all doomed if we travel on HS2. As it happens I am a supporter of HS2. I thought you were unfairly dealt with by a few posters on here with regards things you've said, but having read the above comment, I see their point. So get that chip off your shoulder and stop reading into things what other people have posted.

 

[Geezertronic]

Bit of a difference between 200km/h and 400km/h don't you think? It's twice as fast for one.

So wouldn't that mean a 2 minute difference between these types of train would mean the distance between them would be physically greater than?

A fast train running at 110mph running 2 minutes behind another fast train running at 110mph would not run as close together as a tube train 2 minutes behind another tube train would it?

 

[sprinterguy]

Two HS2 trains running at a 2 minute interval from each other at 240mph would be 8 miles apart. If the first train were to meet a considerable obstacle in its’ path that stopped the train abruptly, then even if it took 15 seconds to relay the information of the halt of the first train to the in-cab signalling of the second train, that would still allow seven miles for the driver to react and make an emergency brake application. Even at 240mph, over 10,000 yards to come to a stop is more than enough: A Thalys TGV can come to a stop from an emergency brake application at 186mph in 3500 metres.

It is also worth pointing out that the back of a train that has just come to such a sudden stop from 240mph will probably be a lot closer to the front than is natural…so there’s an extra couple of hundred yards to make use of…

As Geezertronic rightly points out, there would be a much greater risk, in terms of braking distance, from running two trains travelling at 60mph two minutes apart than two trains at 240mph, were something catastrophic to happen. And that is the worst case scenario possible: Usually in a derailment, there will still be an amount of forward motion after the train has derailed rather than an instantaneous stop.

 

[Striker]

So wouldn't that mean a 2 minute difference between these types of train would mean the distance between them would be physically greater than?

A fast train running at 110mph running 2 minutes behind another fast train running at 110mph would not run as close together as a tube train 2 minutes behind another tube train would it?

Yes, faster trains would be further apart but the faster train would be covering that distance between them much quicker too.

Two HS2 trains running at a 2 minute interval from each other at 240mph would be 8 miles apart. If the first train were to meet a considerable obstacle in its’ path that stopped the train abruptly, then even if it took 15 seconds to relay the information of the halt of the first train to the in-cab signalling of the second train, that would still allow seven miles for the driver to react and make an emergency brake application. Even at 240mph, over 10,000 yards to come to a stop is more than enough: A Thalys TGV can come to a stop from an emergency brake application at 186mph in 3500 metres.

It is also worth pointing out that the back of a train that has just come to such a sudden stop from 240mph will probably be a lot closer to the front than is natural…so there’s an extra couple of hundred yards to make use of…

As Geezertronic rightly points out, there would be a much greater risk, in terms of braking distance, from running two trains travelling at 60mph two minutes apart than two trains at 240mph, were something catastrophic to happen. And that is the worst case scenario possible: Usually in a derailment, there will still be an amount of forward motion after the train has derailed rather than an instantaneous stop.

Great. This is the kind of answer I was hoping for, with information such as the braking distance needed for high speed trains etc. instead of the irrelevant stuff YesToHS2 posted about signalling in normal situations.

 

[YesToHS2]

Oh for God's sake, what an idiotic comment. :roll: I was simply asking a question about a safety margin of two minutes when the train behind is travelling at 400km/h. It wasn't a loaded question. I wasn't suggesting we're all doomed if we travel on HS2. As it happens I am a supporter of HS2. I thought you were unfairly dealt with by a few posters on here with regards things you've said, but having read the above comment, I see their point. So get that chip off your shoulder and stop reading into things what other people have posted.

I use my chip to counter misleading comments from the anti HS2 lobby all the time so for now it will remain where it is.

As for you being a supporter, that's good to know. It still doesn't make your concerns any more valid. If the time spacing is 2 minutes, then 2 minutes it is. It's not as if some one from HS2Ltd woke up one morning and said 'it'll do', I'm sure it was based on world HSR models specifically European standards and is designed for a maximum safe capacity give the worst potential thing that could happen.

My point still stands, if you meant it that way or not. I have heard some ridiculous claims about HS2 being unsafe, made as if HSR is a new thing, like the rest of the world hasn't been doing it for decades.

 

[Striker]

I use my chip to counter misleading comments from the anti HS2 lobby all the time so for now it will remain where it is.

As for you being a supporter, that's good to know. It still doesn't make your concerns any more valid. If the time spacing is 2 minutes, then 2 minutes it is. It's not as if some one from HS2Ltd woke up one morning and said 'it'll do', I'm sure it was based on world HSR models specifically European standards and is designed for a maximum safe capacity give the worst potential thing that could happen.

My point still stands, if you meant it that way or not. I have heard some ridiculous claims about HS2 being unsafe, made as if HSR is a new thing, like the rest of the world hasn't been doing it for decades.

It was a simple and reasonable question and not in any way intended to question decisions made by the people who are designing it. I didn't think anybody did wake up and think "it'll do". :roll: Neither was I particularly concerned about the safety of HS2. The faster the better I say!. But you seem to be reading into what I've written.

"With a headway of 2 mins and speeds of 400km/h, how would the second train be able to brake hard enough in order to stop in time if the first train came to a sudden halt i.e. a catastrophic failure of some kind or something on the line?"

Sprinterguy has answered it.

Your reaction comes across as histrionic in the extreme and is doing you no favours whatsoever. I will now give any post you make the contempt it so deserves.

 

[YesToHS2]

histrionic in the extreme

If you say so friend. I will have to stop being so flirtatious (amongst other things) in future

thus ends this thread hijack at least on my part

 

[deltic]

A few points.

£17 billion is the start up cost of course. It will be way more than that when finished. Let's be honest and double it.

Nobody is talking about passengers in all of this. I read something by a lobbyist called greengauge21 yesterday. In page after page of one sided but convincing and clearly well informed text, passengers are hardly mentioned. Which is surely the point. I am not as well informed on the subject as the pro lobbyists but I do know what it's like beinga passenger in Britain.

So what will it mean for passengers? Looks to me like even more expensive and overcomplicated ticketing and a time saving for many, if they fancy an obligatory walk to the station first.

...people won't want to walk for ten minutes between stations. Brush this off all you like. They won't like it and many won't do it.

Governments do big projects all the time. That makes headlines. Sweating the small stuff doesn't.

Great swathes of countryside is emotive talk for sure. Let's assume though that it's 'only' 22m wide and several hundred miles long. That's still a lot of countryside and you need to be sure that this is the right thing to do before you dig it up. This case has not been made although of course it willl go ahead.

Some very sensible points

The full HS2 network to Scotland is suggested to cost £60bn - we could have decent urban tram/light rail systems in our largest 20 cities for that amount which would provide far more capacity and greater environmental benefits.

As for passengers - will HS2 be a walk-on service - probably not as unlikely standing will be allowed - so tickets booked for services in advance - will there be security checks before boarding as per Spain's AVE service. These factors mean passengers arrive earlier at the station negating any time savings arising from faster journey times.

Passenger numbers forecasted seem completely unrealistic - works out as 1% of population of W Midlands travelling to London every day

Fares will undoubtedly be at a premium as per HS1.

Besides cost of HS2 itself huge upgrades will be needed in supporting infrastructure eg links from Curzen Street to classic rail network and tram - underground upgrades at Euston - the same for the other cities served.

Demand for rail services has increased - yes - but only because passengers cover only half the cost of a ticket - fares should increase till rail network is profitable then the private sector will want to invest in new infrastructure. Its BAA who wanted to pay for a third runway at Heathrow.

Politicians love big projects and spending other peoples' money - but they often give poor returns - that for HS2 is very poor compared to far lower cost and more sustainable schemes such as walking, cycling and many tram schemes.