High Speed Rail 2 questions

[w1bbl3]

However as I said before I would limit the top speed on the new segregated fast lines to 140mph until we have transfered our power supply to nucular and renewables.

By limit I take you mean the operating speed of the trainsets not the line design speed, as designing the line for only 140mph operation would be quite frankly be insane. The capital cost of later infrastructure upgrades to enable 140mph+ on HS2 would pay for multiple high speed lines, the line should be designed for potential operating speeds and capacity requirements in 50+ years time not today's needs.

Current dirty coal power will be gone in 30 years... actually much of it will be gone in 10 years and Natural gas is only going to become more expensive. However HS2 isn't going to open tomorrow or anytime this decade so the plans should reflect future needs and energy mix which in 15 years time should see the first new generation nuclear plants coming on stream.

Remember the government doesn't actually have to pay for the line today, capital works spending on the project is possibly 8-10 years away.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The HSTs will not last forever, and can't be refurbished over and over - so new trains have to be built. It therefore makes sense to make the bi-mode trains, which may cost more to run now but can then be adapted/switched to be electric only when the whole line is electrified.

Isn't it okay to do it in stages? You will hopefully keep the same rolling stock for when the wires continue beyond Cardiff.

Like HS2, this is just the beginning. All the work needs to be done in stages, not just because of the need to find the funding, but also to secure the manpower to actually do the work.

Of course, it is ok to do it in stages. What's not ok is to order new diesel trains which are more expensive to run (even when they're running on electric power) than the current diesel trains and more poluting. The first stage is Paddington to Oxford, Bristol and Cardiff, but this should be extended to Swansea. Until each section is completed, the Intercity 125s should remain on the route. As each stage is complete you retire the class 43 power cars used on the route, until eventually you have eliminated diesel power. You get rid of 125s, but replace them later on with clean electric trains not sooner with enviromentally damaging diesels. I would however keep the mark 3 coaches, which I'm sure will last much longer than the power cars, for use elsewhere. Perhaps 'elsewhere' could be in new 5-WES style EMUs for Portsmouth - Waterloo, displacing 450s onto lines like Lymington which are electrified but run using diesels due to a shortage of electric stock.

By limit I take you mean the operating speed of the trainsets not the line design speed, as designing the line for only 140mph operation would be quite frankly be insane. The capital cost of later infrastructure upgrades to enable 140mph+ on HS2 would pay for multiple high speed lines, the line should be designed for potential operating speeds and capacity requirements in 50+ years time not today's needs.

If there is need for higher speeds in future then yes, I would limit the train's top speed but build the line for either 202mph (325kph) or 350kph.

 

[Metroland]

However as I said before I would limit the top speed on the new segregated fast lines to 140mph until we have transfered our power supply to nucular and renewables. That's somthing HS2 supporters seem to overlook, the other nations with HighSpeed rail, France particularly, are way ahead of us on cleaner power, in the UK the enviromental impact of HighSpeed rail makes it unjustifable on enviromental grounds as it is no better than private car transport.

That's simply not true, because HSR attracts passengers and the relationship between speed and energy is not as straightforward as some may suggest. More to the point, the dirtiest trains are those in rural areas with 7 passengers on travelling at relatively low speeds, not inter-city trains with decent load factors.

HSR is essentially 1/3 of the emmisions of car travel, given real-world load factors.

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/HSR-CarbonEmissions.pdf

I think what is really interesting, that said, is the long term nuclear policy. Given the current problems in Japan, which if you do some reading is now turning into a significant problem, it will be interesting as to what public opinion is. Because without nuclear, I very much doubt (especially personal) mobility is going to be anything like it is now.

The antidote is a lot more walking, cycling and public transport. Business as usual is very unlikely to continue in it's present form. Without HS2 it's very doubtful the railways will have the capacity to switch a significant amount of freight onto rail, which we need to keep carbon emmisions under check and save significant petro-chemicals.

 

[jon0844]

Of course, it is ok to do it in stages. What's not ok is to order new diesel trains which are more expensive to run (even when they're running on electric power) than the current diesel trains and more poluting.

But there's going to be a crossover, as you'll have the wires up THEN the HSTs have to go, then more wires, then the trains can go electric only.

The new trains will probably be used for 30-40 years, so if you can't put the wires up all the way then you'd end up needing another diesel only train for the 'time being' then all-electric when fully wired. And during that time, you've wasted all that diesel fuel when you had wires for the majority of the route.

I get the fact it won't be as efficient for a while, but the trains won't be operating like this for long (hopefully).

I think what is really interesting, that said, is the long term nuclear policy. Given the current problems in Japan, which if you do some reading is now turning into a significant problem, it will be interesting as to what public opinion is. Because without nuclear, I very much doubt (especially personal) mobility is going to be anything like it is now.

Besides the initial hysteria, caused mostly by the media watching the plant almost 24/7 looking and hoping for big explosions and a massive disaster (and ignoring the 10,000-30,000 killed by the tsunami), now I think most people are realising that even after this incident - nuclear power is still pretty safe.

Even the 'xxx higher than normal' stories about radiation are often put into context by people who understand these things, although some people will probably use it to be anti-nuclear for their own agenda obviously. Just like the people who are finding reasons to be against HS2 because they haven't got the guts to be honest and say they just don't like the route.

 

[Philip Elliott]

dalmahoyhill,

"HS2 is of no benefit to me therefore I wont support it"? well HS2 wont benefit me either but I still support it as I think it is good for the country.

There are ten million households in the UK without access to a car and the public transport system is incapable of giving comparable oppurtunities to tose who have a car. The result is millions of people can only take local and often minimum wage jobs. My own commute into Birmingham is only feasible because the large village of Narborough has a station (closed 1968, reopened 1970). There are far larger towns without access to the network!

Something that is "good for the economy" needn't necessarily be good for society though. Fossils fuels have litterally fuelled the economy for some time now but the effect on the environment has now become very apparent. Aviation is very good for the economy but again not for the environment. Remember the Eddington report that suggested air expansion over HSR? There is not "clear cut" case for HSR.

I disagree, I think we need both, it is not black and white. Taking the pressure off the existing main line helps free up capacity, you think the opposite, that services will suffer

You can only do both if you have the money - the DfT budget has just been cut let never mind the increases needed.

I disagree, I think we need both, it is not black and white. Taking the pressure off the existing main line helps free up capacity, you think the opposite, that services will suffer

HS2 limited - ie the company that is planning and delivering the line has said it intends to run 1tph to Coventry vice 3 and 1 to Stoke vice 2. How can you not see that as a reduced service?

Especially if you are suggesting it as a replacement for existing buses services. providing buses costs a fraction of the capital costs of re-opening and operating a line. possible conversion to trams for larger population areas but not heavy rail

Whilst rail use has increased by 50% in 15 years bus travel is still falling in many areas. Buses are often not used by choice - few will give up travelling by car for the bus but will you a rail option. One point you picked up I definitely agree with - expansion with the use of LRT. Trams or tram-trains are massively popular - more people use the Nottingham tram than intercity midland franchise!

smaller regional centres are always going to have to rely on local services that feed into main stations to connect with intercity services. i dont know how your grasp is of economics is but intercity services stopping at every station and stopping at small regional centres does not add up to a service that competes with road or air. separating local services and placing intercity onto high speed rail does.

I've not suggested that intercity should stop at "small regional centres" and how do you define what is small or not? HS2 will miss at Stoke & Coventry which are large cities. Coventry is not much smaller than the CITY of Manchester and is in fact bigger than Stockport which is more likely to have a HS station. What we need is local and semi-fast services connecting into intercity services which HS2 is not helping with my having entirely separate station.

My "Amersham to Barnsley" was an example services connecting - you would take a local from Amersham to Aylesbury, intercity/long distance service to Sheffield and then local/semi-fast to Barnsley which we are missing those links between MAJOR regional centres.

What you and most HS2 supporters can't seem to take on board is that very few people make true long distance city centre to city centre journeys - most rail journeys are from towns into cities or small town to large town. Birmingham - London is 2.5 million journeys a year (1.25 to and 1.25 from) - that works out at about 250-300 per hour average not 4,400!

I appreciate the cross England market is badly served by rail and to be fair by road as well. Perhaps the reason our roads and motorways have developed as a radial system is that is because that’s where the trade is? There were no east west trunk lines ever built across middle England only in the north

It might be the primary trade to London but the economy has developed significantly since the 19th century. I'd disagree about the east-west toad network - it is pretty excellent - many major trunk roads such as A14, A45, A43, A34 (it is north-south but cuts across the London - Bristol axis), A50, M69, A46 etc. etc. Many of these roads despite majorly upgraded are heavily congested - there is a large market there. However using the tree analogy - trunk and branches - in the east-west market instead of the destination between the ground at the base of the trunk (London) the destination is a long the various roots. Hence for the transport network we need high quality links that feed into and OUT OF trunk route interchanges. CREWE is a good example of a true interchange station.

The only way of tackling this in the future is to get more people to move to public transport for more of their journeys which you advocate but differently to me

How do you expect people to use public transport when there is NO SERVICE? A lot of traffic on the M6/M5 is from places like ALDRIDGE, WILLENHALL, HALESOWEN. HS2 will no nothing for these places nor to add capacity on the chronically congested Stour corridor to Wolverhampton.

Again, how do you expect people from Northamptonshire to move to public transport when the only place to have a service to the county town is the little village of Long Buckby (which is only there because of Lord Spencer!)

Secondly as one of the other posters said, you keep on referring to the French tgv network. well not all the network is built with out of town stations. Lille station is in the middle. Plus there is quite a difference between the design of high speed networks. the Japanese, Taiwanese and Koreans have built elevated lines that run right into cities elevated over the existing track. The Germans, Dutch, and Belgium have built lines between cities and uses adapted classic lines to run into the centres. Our network is more likely to be like the German than the French design.

I quote use of the "find" option in Internet Explorer shows I've not mentioned the TGV network once in this thread nor have I made comments about politicians so quite why you wish to make these unfounded allegations I don't know. The design of Fazeley St. , the potential of Toton & Beighton does suggest we are going down the French rather than the German route. We should definitely go down the German route which is exactly what my London - Wigan via loop lines route is all about.

Finally:

I am assuming with your opinion that you believe the money should be spent on opening local lines that you do not believe there will be a forthcoming capacity issue with the WCML and the service as it stands will be adequate for the next 30 years? I would draw your attention to the fact that transport planners have consistently underestimated passenger growth over the last 15 years and that the WCML upgrade was exceptionally expensive for what it delivered.

The WCML is currently the least congested of our main lines. Granted it now has the least potential for upgrades within the existing boundaries but a lot of HS2 supporters are already calling it full when it plainly isn't. There is still plenty of scope for increased capacity in both seats and train paths without infrastructure upgrades. Interestingly only 31 Pendos are being lengthened because the business case doesn't stack up. Odd for a route that is supposedly creaking at the seams? There are currently 11tph on the fast lines which can be increased to 13tph tomorrow with sufficient stock. The biggest bottlenecks will still be there after HS2 - Brinklow to Attleborough, Ledburn Jn., Coventry corridor, Colwich junction which would be improved under Rail Package 2. Most LM services are still only 4-car or 8-car and not 12-car.

The WCML carts huge amounts of fresh air whereas other routes are rammed day in day out, peak, off peak, both directions etc. etc. The 16.52 & 17.52 services from New Street to Leicester arrive in Leicester still full and standing for a 58-minute journey. If that is acceptable why is it unnacceptable for people to stand in the peak to Milton Keynes (30 mins) or Coventry (62 mins) ? In both cases the quickest answer is longer trains - 11 car 390s and 3-car 170s.

I don't buy this "rail travel will double in 10 years" rubbish. We've had an exceptional last 15 years in which travel has grown really quite significantly - by 50%. To double patronage from an already high base just isn't going happen unless more towns were connected to the network...

Interestingly last year patronage rose to 1.3bn, the highest since 1928 (?) but some areas actually went down - Glasgow Central usage declined significantly and Birmingham New Street stayed still. The major increase was in inner-suburban London services due to the introduction of Oyster.

Bus patronage will certainly drop this year - whilst HS2 planning costs have been ring-fenced bus subsidies have been massively cut with the result of many services withdrawn - how is that going to help increase public transport use?

 

[Popper]

I hope no one else has said this already, but I recommend reading the special 'why we need HS2' feature in the Modern Railways April Magazine. It is very detailed and about 50 percent of it explains how other places not served by HS2 could benefit.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The latest edition of modern railways explains the benefits very well.
And while volunteering this phrase was put out.

"High speed two is the 4th arterial route north that we desperately need, built to modern standards"

It is not a high speed line it is a new route north to free capacity simply being built to modern standards

 

[tbtc]

Of course, it is ok to do it in stages

The lines west from Paddington have around thirty termini, of which only one (Heathrow) is currently electrified).

IEP will allow EMU operation from London to Reading when that section is wired, then from London to Swindon once that is completed, then London to Cardiff... (etc), allowing EWU operation out of London then switching to diesel operation (with the same train) beyond the wires.

If you are suggesting electric-only EMUs then are you suggesting now using the electrification until it is completed to every western extremity?

The good thing about IEP is it allows direct services from Newquay/ Paignton/ Fishguard (etc). Some of these branches are too infrequent to justify electrifying in the short/medium term - you either get IEP to allow such through services to continue or you accept London services terminating at Cardiff/Swansea/ Bristol etc...

I would however keep the mark 3 coaches, which I'm sure will last much longer than the power cars, for use elsewhere

Mk3s are 1970s coaches, they're not going to last forever, certainly not as EMU coaches
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are ten million households in the UK without access to a car

...a lot of which are pensioner houses etc.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed HS2 will tackle this. Or the flights from Plymouth to Belfast. Or any of the other long list of things you criticise it for not solving... :roll:

HS2 limited - ie the company that is planning and delivering the line has said it intends to run 1tph to Coventry vice 3 and 1 to Stoke vice 2. How can you not see that as a reduced service?

HS2 will miss at Stoke & Coventry which are large cities

You're saying that HS2 will only run one train per hour to Coventry and Stoke, and then in the next breath that it'll miss Stoke and Coventry? Is it just me getting confused?

You are aware that the existing lines will still be running and will continue to provide these places with direct trains.

Also, odd that you are so obsessed with their service to London when your other arguments are that "travel to London really isn't that important, local services are more relevant". Is it just a case of finding anything to criticise HS2 for?

Coventry is not much smaller than the CITY of Manchester

Manchester, like Nottingham, has narrow boundaries because it didn't increase as the population spread during the urban sprawl. Areas like Salford aren't part of Manchester by these statistics, but its all one big conurbation.

Birmingham - London is 2.5 million journeys a year (1.25 to and 1.25 from) - that works out at about 250-300 per hour average not 4,400!

Ah, you're back to pretending that all 4,400 seats on HS2 from London to Birmingham each hour (the potential maximum capacity) are for London to Birmingham passengers, ignoring the fact that a significant number of these services will be to/from places like Manchester/ Glasgow/ Leeds. Disingenuous, at best...

Again, how do you expect people from Northamptonshire to move to public transport when the only place to have a service to the county town is the little village of Long Buckby (which is only there because of Lord Spencer!)

Again, what is this to do with HS2? My suburb doesn't have a good bus service late at night, should I blame HS2 for this too?

The 16.52 & 17.52 services from New Street to Leicester arrive in Leicester still full and standing for a 58-minute journey

Again, nothing to do with HS2. If there are two journeys on this hour long service with standing passengers, that's nothing compared to Transpennine services, where passengers regularly stand *off* peak, and the rush hour services are pandaemonium. But nothing to do with HS2.

some areas actually went down - Glasgow Central usage declined significantly and Birmingham New Street stayed still

The trouble with these stats for big city stations is they are easily manipulated/ changed. The allocation of revenue under "Glasgow Stations" gets changed from year to year to show a different percentage of passengers using other stations (like Charing Cross/ High Street). Same with Deansgate/ Ox ford Road in Manchester (taking a share from Piccadilly).

 

[Christopher125]

I despair at the argument that HS2 is bad because places like Coventry might get less services - it doesnt *need* 3 trains an hour outside of the peaks, so with capacity finite it will be quite rightly be reduced.

The phrase 'you cant have you cake and eat it' comes to mind - remember that you're comparing WCML train services in 2025 with today, however they are highly unlikey to have remained the same. As passenger numbers increase in the years ahead it will get to the point where either stops are reduced to fit in more services and reduce conflicts, or journey times are extended; probably a combination of both. The benefits of HS2 will therefore be even greater, and the downside for users of the WCML less noticeable.

Chris

 

[ukrob]

Philip Elliott, I have watched this thread from the start. Sadly, tbtc is correct - you keep contradicting yourself which is weakening your viewpoint - sometimes it is coming across as you don't actually know what your view is yourself. I applaud you (and others) though for the lengthy posts on this thread.

I do have to pick you up on something:

HS2 limited - ie the company that is planning and delivering the line has said it intends to run 1tph to Coventry vice 3 and 1 to Stoke vice 2. How can you not see that as a reduced service?

It is addition to other services.

For example, Coventry would also have an hourly Pendolino service on the Liverpool - Euston route. It is also listed as having two trains per hour to Euston with Class 350s.

I make that an increase to four services per hour, not a reduction from three to one.

I could do the same for Stoke, but you get the idea.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The lines west from Paddington have around thirty termini, of which only one (Heathrow) is currently electrified).

IEP will allow EMU operation from London to Reading when that section is wired, then from London to Swindon once that is completed, then London to Cardiff... (etc), allowing EWU operation out of London then switching to diesel operation (with the same train) beyond the wires.

If you are suggesting electric-only EMUs then are you suggesting now using the electrification until it is completed to every western extremity?

No, I don't think that's exactly what I meant. Say the Oxford route is done first, as soon as the wires reach Oxford you replace those IC125s with electrics and leave 125s on the other routes. Then the wires reach Bristol, you replace the 125s going there with electrics. Then the wires reach Cardiff, that's another train per hour you can switch to electric stock. If they carry on to Swansea then they can introduce electrics on that route too. Provided the electrification team(s) never stop moving onwards the diesel wastage will be minimal compared to IEP bi-mode (which is a strong disinsentive to electrifying further, if they hadn't come up with that idea I expect electrification to Swansea would have been announced already (or more likely, as the government seems to be intent on enviromental suicide in regard to transport policy, scrapped electrification altogther)).

London to Reading is only a very small portion of the routes to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth/Newquay/Paignton/Penzance via Westbury so I really don't think it's worth having bi-mode just for running on electric power for that bit, especially as the extra weight makes a bi-mode running on electric power 15%-20% more expensive than running an Intercity 125 under the wires (an all electric IEP would be about 8% cheaper than said IC125). On diesel power, bi-mode IEP will probablly have a fuel ecconomy at least as bad as the Voyagers (which are worse than IC125s in this respect too).

The good thing about IEP is it allows direct services from Newquay/ Paignton/ Fishguard (etc). Some of these branches are too infrequent to justify electrifying in the short/medium term - you either get IEP to allow such through services to continue or you accept London services terminating at Cardiff/Swansea/ Bristol etc...

Swindon to Cheltenham (assuming the Severn Tunnel diversionary route isn't wired (which would be 1 train per hour switching to electric if done, even if the Severn Tunnel never closed)) could probablly be done by dragging the IEP with an existing diesel locomotive (don't try to claim we don't have loads of spares).(

• 30x Class 37
• 30x Class 47
• 61x Class 60
• 3x Class 57

)
I'd like to use the same method on the Hereford/Worcester/Great Malvern services, but some claim the station layout at Oxford wouldn't allow for this. If so, and somthing can be done to get the fuel economy down to IC125 levels (re-gearing for 100mph max when on diesel perhaps, if that's possible) I might grudgingly except bi-mode ON THIS ROUTE ONLY.

West of Swansea, and at Aberdeen, Inverness, Hull and Harrogate, the number of (franchised) London services per day is low, so I doubt attaching a diesel loco to an all-electric train at the limit of electrification for these trains would be much trobble.

Fishguard does not have direct services from London anymore, and there's a good chance that, like the Pembroke & Tenby (where there are a few direct services), the Fishguard branch won't have room for 26m coaches anyway. Due to this I see only one solution for the services west of Swansea, move the INTERCITY 225s over to the GWML and put the 91 on the London end so it can be swapped for a TDM fitted diesel locomotive at Swansea.

Mk3s are 1970s coaches, they're not going to last forever, certainly not as EMU coaches.

I never said they would last forever, just that they would last longer than the power cars, some of which seem to be being life-extended beyond 2020 anyway. We need the extra rolling stock, and my suggestion was one way of reducing the number of new carriges that would need to be built to solve that problem. It may be better to order extra 444s for the route in question and use the mark3s as push-pull LHCS elsewhere but I don't know which is the better suggestion (and, by the way, I don't mean you would be able to put power gear in the coaches, the new driving cars would have all that stuff and the mark3s would just be trailers).

 

[55003]

My question is why is Nigel Harris so gung-ho about this project in Rail magazine?In a recent edition he showed a before and after picture of a field in Kent during the building of HS 1.Does he really want us to believe that HS2 will only last a few years and then revert to green fields?

 

[Philip Elliott]

...a lot of which are pensioner houses etc

And a hell of lot that aren't. The percentage of pensioners who use cars is increasing all the time as those that are coming up to retirement are the same that fuelled the explosion in car ownership and use in the 1960s. Council estates both inner city and suburban (such as Braunstone, Leicester) are where most car-less homes are to be found.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed HS2 will tackle this. Or the flights from Plymouth to Belfast. Or any of the other long list of things you criticise it for not solving...

Spread the money more wisely and you could solve/help a lot of problems. Not everything clearly but more than the current plans.

You're saying that HS2 will only run one train per hour to Coventry and Stoke, and then in the next breath that it'll miss Stoke and Coventry? Is it just me getting confused?

You are aware that the existing lines will still be running and will continue to provide these places with direct trains

HS2 will miss Coventry and most likely Stoke, it is the current WCML services that will see a reduction from Stoke/Coventry.

"travel to London really isn't that important, local services are more relevant".

No we need both. However the DfT is clearly heavily biased towards intercity ("national" projects are bigger vote winners) and despite talk of intercity services making a profit when you add in all the investment costs they are massively subsidised.

Manchester, like Nottingham, has narrow boundaries because it didn't increase as the population spread during the urban sprawl. Areas like Salford aren't part of Manchester by these statistics, but its all one big conurbation.

Likewise you could add Bedworth, Nuneaton, Leamington etc if you wanted to Coventry. Manchester includes the likes of Wigan and Stockport (which is in a different county!) so technically will have THREE HS stations whereas the whole of Staffordshire may be bypassed once phase 2 opens.

Ah, you're back to pretending that all 4,400 seats on HS2 from London to Birmingham each hour (the potential maximum capacity) are for London to Birmingham passengers, ignoring the fact that a significant number of these services will be to/from places like Manchester/ Glasgow/ Leeds. Disingenuous, at best...

No, HS2 is being designed for upto 18x 1,100 seat trains an hour (19,800 or the '20,000 an hour' quoted by the politicians) The 4,400 is the planned peak service for Birmngham terminator trains. Manchester will be upto 3,300 (phase 2) Liverpool 1,100 (2x 'classic' trains). Get your facts straight.

Again, what is this to do with HS2?

The MONEY for HS2 could be used to solve problems. 100s of bus services have already been cut whilst £700million is set aside for paperwork for HS2.

Again, nothing to do with HS2.

Again, the DfT claim there isn't enough money to lengthen these trains - Adonis cancelled the planned extension of the 185s but we're still spending money on HS2. Ask commuters on TPE, Northern whether they prefer HS2 or lengthened trains!

The trouble with these stats for big city stations is they are easily manipulated/ changed. The allocation of revenue under "Glasgow Stations" gets changed from year to year to show a different percentage of passengers using other stations (like Charing Cross/ High Street). Same with Deansgate/ Ox ford Road in Manchester (taking a share from Piccadilly).

There are other examples which I can't remember off hand but the point is growth can't be uniformly high year on year - the greater the modal share achieved, the less oppurtunity to capture anymore. "The law of diminishing returns".

I despair at the argument that HS2 is bad because places like Coventry might get less services - it doesnt *need* 3 trains an hour outside of the peaks, so with capacity finite it will be quite rightly be reduced.

Does Birmingham *need* 3 trains an hour off peak? Very unlikely. The beauty of the current timetable is that they cross subsidise each other making it viable. The key point of having high frequency timetables is to entice people to use it in the first place creating demand. Running a service to recorded demand is a recipe for a spiral of decline.

For example, Coventry would also have an hourly Pendolino service on the Liverpool - Euston route. It is also listed as having two trains per hour to Euston with Class 350s.

I make that an increase to four services per hour, not a reduction from three to one.

Coventry currently has 3x 390 and 1x350 plus an easy connection at Northampton for another so that is 4 or 5 currently so not an increase at all. Even before the WCRM, Coventry had 2 VT services and 2 Silverlink making 4! The point is the LM services cater for a different market so don't help grow the Coventry - London market in the way that 3x 62 minute trains do at equal 20 minute intervals does. These trains also provide large capacity for the Coventry - Birmingham market. HS2 suggests the void should be filled by diverting an XC Voyager via Coventry. A 220 from Newcastle - Southampton with the boat passengers with their luggage and Coventry commuters on top of that - just imagine the overcrowding on that!

The Liverpool service you mention is planned to be the only intercity service through Coventry. A service that calls at Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, International, New Street, Sandwell, Wolves, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn and Liverpool is going to be hideously overcrowded!

HS2 could be a brilliant railway but in it's current form provides little benefit from what it could do. I wish my image editing skills were better so I could map out the route I think is best.

 

[Metroland]

My question is why is Nigel Harris so gung-ho about this project in Rail magazine?In a recent edition he showed a before and after picture of a field in Kent during the building of HS 1.Does he really want us to believe that HS2 will only last a few years and then revert to green fields?

The point was the detractors of the project like to use emotive terms like 'wreck the countryside'. I was walking along the grand union canal the other day, quite near to the 4 track Midland main line, and you could hardly see the railway, some 1/4-1/2 a mile away, which was hidden in cuttings and behind trees. HS2 is not even as wide, at 22 meters, and will probably be even less noticeable. You could hear the drone of the M1 some 4 miles away quite clearly and the planes landing at East Midlands airport, but the railway makes very little noise in comparison and only for a few seconds.

The detractors would also like people to believe that it would bankrupt the country, even though it's about the same cost per year as free pensioner bus travel, for a limited period while it's built. Per year, it's about 1/100th of the cost of the NHS. Sure a lot of money, but this is a nation transforming project, which may help to bridge the long standing north/south divide. We don't want to live in a museum, where business goes east.

The detractors also offer little imagination or alternative, I'm glad they think people won't be travelling. Perhaps we should ration travel instead, I wonder who would lose out more from that? Could it be the 2/3 car families of the Chilterns who take frequent foreign holidays, or those more reliant on public transport, who probably don't own a car in the northern cities or even London?

I suspect they might point to all the 'rich' rail travellers, presumably like me and many people I know, who can't afford a car or even want one and actually welcome alternatives.

 

[w1bbl3]

London to Reading is only a very small portion of the routes to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth/Newquay/Paignton/Penzance via Westbury so I really don't think it's worth having bi-mode just for running on electric power for that bit, especially as the extra weight makes a bi-mode running on electric power 15%-20% more expensive than running an Intercity 125 under the wires (an all electric IEP would be about 8% cheaper than said IC125). On diesel power, bi-mode IEP will probablly have a fuel ecconomy at least as bad as the Voyagers (which are worse than IC125s in this respect too).

As it stands routes to the west are not due to receive IEP's, rumours have suggested that IEP is somewhat lacking in the power / tonne department for climbing hills beyond Exeter anyway.

IC125's upgraded to modern standards with powered doors, retention toilets and appropriate disabled seating would and will have worse operating costs than current. I suppose the question is what is actual operating cost differential. There is I recall an RSSB study into the operating costs and weight of a mk3 coach built to modern standards indicating a 6 tonne increase in OEW.

Swindon to Cheltenham (assuming the Severn Tunnel diversionary route isn't wired (which would be 1 train per hour switching to electric if done, even if the Severn Tunnel never closed)) could probablly be done by dragging the IEP with an existing diesel locomotive (don't try to claim we don't have loads of spares).

Of that list I only see class 60 as being likely to last into the 2030's.. you'd need an order of new build loco's at some point to keep the service viable or electrification. Dragging a heavy EMU doesn't sound any more cost effective than a bimode once the cost of two drivers, standing time at Swindon, time of loco attachment/de-attachment and reduction of paths is factored. A second driver would be required to avoid blocking the GWML at Swindon, who then gets an enforced 1 hour break between turns. The drivers operating both CHM > SWI > CHM and PAD > SWI > PAD both can't drive the respective service there and back.

If so, and somthing can be done to get the fuel economy down to IC125 levels (re-gearing for 100mph max when on diesel perhaps, if that's possible) I might grudgingly except bi-mode ON THIS ROUTE ONLY.

It would be surely be commercially unviable for such a small production run of say 8-10? bi-modes to be developed and produced. At least with Cl180's Alstom could utilise an existing train family and the already in production Cl175 design to avoid developing a completely bespoke trainset. Hitachi do not have standard gauge diesel or bi-mode in production anywhere else in the world.

the Fishguard branch won't have room for 26m coaches anyway. Due to this I see only one solution for the services west of Swansea, move the INTERCITY 225s over to the GWML and put the 91 on the London end so it can be swapped for a TDM fitted diesel locomotive at Swansea.

Assuming mk4's last to 40 years old you'd need a new build order ready for service in 2028 which is only 17 years away, if IEP follow-on orders happen I can see 91+mk4's being replaced by further IEP EMU sets.

Anyway had the mk4 design not been so far advanced BR would have raised variation order for the coaches to be built as 25.5m long and BR IC250/mk5 was being planned as 26m. BR before privatisation had planned MML and GWML new train projects to follow on from IC250 logically I'd assume 26m coaches....

I recall that the IEP project is supposed to include all costs for platform lengthening, regauging and/or clearance work needed to accommodate 26m cars with 19m bogie centres. The introduction of 91's+mk4 saw a number tertiary destinations loose direct through services to London.

 

[Geezertronic]

The MONEY for HS2 could be used to solve problems.

You've nailed it on the head there - "The money for HS2"... Without HS2, the money won't be there regardless of what anyone says or wishes, and the funding of HS2 does not affect the NR budget so existing improvements won't be affected by the funding of HS2

 

[jon0844]

I certainly don't think that if HS2 is canned, the money will suddenly find it way to councils to subsidise a load of new bus services (or the restoration of those recently cut).

I can remember when Tony Blair tried to justify fuel duty increases by saying that not doing so would cost the equivalent of building xx new hospitals. That was just a way of stopping the protests about the increased cost of petrol/diesel, as to argue for a cut in duty was going to make you look like someone out to harm the NHS. How selfish for the sake of wanting cheap petrol...

How long until the anti-HS2 come up with the idea that, rather than talk about how the HS2 money could be better used on other transport upgrades, it should be compared to how much money could be better spent on hospitals, schools etc?

 

[Philip Elliott]

You've nailed it on the head there - "The money for HS2"... Without HS2, the money won't be there regardless of what anyone says or wishes, and the funding of HS2 does not affect the NR budget so existing improvements won't be affected by the funding of HS2

I'm sorry put that is not how public budgets work. If any public body - government department, council or quango does not spend their budget for that year, it will be reduced the next as "it isn't needed to be that high". That is why at the end of the tax year road works appear everywhere - the council is using up it's transport budget so it doesn't get reduced next year.

There is still a lot of speculation at the moment on how it will be paid for but before te election the Tories announced they intended to pay for it by taking £1.13 bn out of the existing railway budget but that could change obviously. However we do know that for 3 years regulated fares will go up by RPI+3% for the purpose of reducing subsidy.



I think it is best to "agree to disagree" and any further discussion on HS2 should be limited to news/announcements of progress etc. or we'll just end up going in circles.

 

[j0hn0]

No, because you are the one perpetuating it.

Hs2 will be funded the same way that hs1 and crossrail have been funded, ie. not affecting the nr budget

Now call it a day? Hahahahahahaha

 

[tbtc]

How long until the anti-HS2 come up with the idea that, rather than talk about how the HS2 money could be better used on other transport upgrades, it should be compared to how much money could be better spent on hospitals, schools etc?

Have you seen the "anti Alternative Vote" adverts?

There's one with a woman in a hospital and the slogan:

"She needs a new cardiac facility, not an alternative voting system"

Another features a soldier, with the slogan:

"He needs a bulletproof vest, not an alternative voting system"

That's the kind of disingenuous nonsense the anti-HS2 people are using. The argument that HS2 is bad because it won't link every town in Northamptonshire, because it won't get rid of flights from Plymouth to Belfast, because it won't serve all ten million houses without a car*, because it won't tackle social inequality in Coventry... all nonsense, and nothing to do with HS2.

It won't be long before we see adverts showing an orphaned boy saying "Little Timmy needs a good meal, not a High Speed Railway" :roll:

* - our house doesn't have a car, and I've love a High Speed Railway Station
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Council estates both inner city and suburban (such as Braunstone, Leicester) are where most car-less homes are to be found

So your alternative to HS2 would serve council estates like Braunstone? Because if it wouldn't then I fail to see why you are criticising HS2 for not serving this kind of market

Likewise you could add Bedworth, Nuneaton, Leamington etc if you wanted to Coventry. Manchester includes the likes of Wigan and Stockport (which is in a different county!) so technically will have THREE HS stations whereas the whole of Staffordshire may be bypassed once phase 2 opens

Saying that Stockport is in a different county (Cheshire, rather than Lancashire) - the same could be said about Birmingham (Worcestershire) and much of the West Midlands (Staffordshire etc). You can use one size for Manchester (the Manchester council area), but that ignores places in Manchester which are de facto Mancunian (like the Manchester United ground in Salford).

The MONEY for HS2 could be used to solve problems. 100s of bus services have already been cut whilst £700million is set aside for paperwork for HS2

Again, missing the point

Ask commuters on TPE, Northern whether they prefer HS2 or lengthened trains!

If HS2 was intended to provide local services in Yorkshire and Lancashire then I could see your point... similarly you could ask commuters on the Northern Line whether they want money spent on the Northern Line or on Crossrail - but there'd be no point because its a worthless question

There are other examples which I can't remember off hand but the point is growth can't be uniformly high year on year

Growth is never going to be uniformly increasing all across the country, but changing definitions (like the "Glasgow Stations" one I mentioned) will provide statistical anomalies (there was a similar one in South Yorkshire when they changed the share of "Thorne Stations" revenue shared between Thorne North and Thorne South - a statistical alteration which makes little difference in the real world

Does Birmingham *need* 3 trains an hour off peak? Very unlikely

Apparently you feel Coventry does

Coventry currently has 3x 390 and 1x350 plus an easy connection at Northampton for another so that is 4 or 5 currently

No point in connecting at Northampton though, since your train will be overtaken by the next 390

I wish my image editing skills were better so I could map out the route I think is best

I'd love to see it, since you've criticised HS2 for a lot of different things, I'd love to see a route which (from your comments about what HS2 won't do) I presume:

• Connects all the Northamptonshire towns together
• Relieves all pressure of Northern and TPE services
• Has stops in council estates
• Ensures that nowhere ends up with a worse service
• Takes pressure of the WCML, MML and ECML
• Can be done significantly cheaper
• Links Corby to Glasgow
• Has stops in each historic county is passes...

If there's an alternative, I'm happy to argue the pros and cons.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, I don't think that's exactly what I meant. Say the Oxford route is done first, as soon as the wires reach Oxford you replace those IC125s with electrics and leave 125s on the other routes. Then the wires reach Bristol, you replace the 125s going there with electrics. Then the wires reach Cardiff, that's another train per hour you can switch to electric stock. If they carry on to Swansea then they can introduce electrics on that route too

So you'd have diesels running all that way under the wires? Waste of fuel?

London to Reading is only a very small portion of the routes to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth/Newquay/Paignton/Penzance via Westbury so I really don't think it's worth having bi-mode just for running on electric power for that bit

As discussed by w1bbl3 these routes aren't getting IEP (as things stand)

an existing diesel locomotive (don't try to claim we don't have loads of spares)

We have some 37s, as you mentioned. Are you suggesting we have engines from 1960 hauling intercity trains in 2020? I know we are all attached to things like Mk3s and old diesels, but we can't use these as the basis for future services...

Fishguard does not have direct services from London anymore, and there's a good chance that, like the Pembroke & Tenby (where there are a few direct services), the Fishguard branch won't have room for 26m coaches anyway. Due to this I see only one solution for the services west of Swansea, move the INTERCITY 225s over to the GWML and put the 91 on the London end so it can be swapped for a TDM fitted diesel locomotive at Swansea.

What is going to run the ECML services (if you take the 225s)? And see my point above about using 1960s engines to haul such services away from the wires...

 

[rb311]

I think it is best to "agree to disagree" and any further discussion on HS2 should be limited to news/announcements of progress etc. or we'll just end up going in circles.

What a great idea..

Particularly as I have said before, this whole extrapolated debate is purely hypothetical because HS2 will never happen.

 

[Christopher125]

Philip, its YOU that doesnt understands how government spending works - councils, like all government departments, need to know what money they have in advance, however governments dont know how much money they'll get back through taxation - hence why we have a 'national debt' for when they dont match; this can be either reduced or increased depending on the economy and goverment spending.

There is a good reason why rail did so well in the Spending Review, and why the government has no issue with spending a billion or two a year on HS2 at a time when the economy should have fully recovered - much of the spending is on infrastructure.

While they do have a large upfront cost, most of it goes back into the UK economy, and the benefit is an ongoing boost to the economy for decades into the future, especially with HS2.

Chris

 

[LE Greys]

I'd love to see it, since you've criticised HS2 for a lot of different things, I'd love to see a route which (from your comments about what HS2 won't do) I presume:

• Connects all the Northamptonshire towns together
• Relieves all pressure of Northern and TPE services
• Has stops in council estates
• Ensures that nowhere ends up with a worse service
• Takes pressure of the WCML, MML and ECML
• Can be done significantly cheaper
• Links Corby to Glasgow
• Has stops in each historic county is passes...

If there's an alternative, I'm happy to argue the pros and cons.

There is, but it's a lot more expensive, so it fails on number 6. I estimate at least £50,000,000,000

It involves full reinstatement of the GCR, including the Woodhead line, four track for the entire length and with every single station on the line reopened, plus several branches and extensions to the light rail networks in Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham, plus a new one in Leicester and extensions to the Metropolitan Line in Buckinghamshire, plus an expansion of Chiltern. Speed 200 mph on the fast lines and 125 mph on the slows. Here is the full list of stations, slow line only in plain text, all lines in bold. Only twin-track section is Sheffield to Penistone, and all stations have through lines. I'm also assuming the Wath line reopens, plus a Sheffield-Fitzwilliam connection upgrade; and Leeds-York and Manchester-Preston electrification. Oh yes, and the High Wycombe route while Birmingham Snow Hill services divert back to Paddington to make room at Marylebone.

• The whole route, excluding branches:
• Manchester Central (expanded to reduce congestion at Piccadilly)
• Ardwick
• Ashburys
• Gorton
• Guide Bridge
• Flowery Field
• Newton
• Godley
• Hattersley
• Broadbottom
• Dinting
• Hadfield
• Crowden
• Woodhead
• Dunford Bridge
• Hazelhead Bridge
• Penistone (junction for Wath and Bradford lines)
• Deepcar
• Oughty Bridge
• Wadsley Bridge
• Neepsend
• Sheffield Victoria (connections to Fitzwilliam and Doncaster)
• Darnell
• Woodhouse
• Beighton
• Killamarsh Central
• Renishaw Central
• Staveley Central
• Heath
• Pilsley
• Tibshelf Town
• Kirkby Bentinck
• Annesley
• Hucknall Central
• Bulwell Hall Halt
• Bulwell Common
• New Basford
• Carrington
• Nottingham Victoria (junction for Grantham)
• Diversion to avoid preserved line
• Syston
• Leicester London Road
• Rejoins route
• Whetstone
• Ashby Magna
• Lutterworth
• Rugby Central
• Braunston & Willoughby
• Charwelton
• Woodford Halse (connection for XC to Banbury)
• Culworth
• Helmdon
• Brackley Central
• Finmere
• Calvert
• Quainton Road (junction for Buckingham, Northampton and Milton Keynes)
• Waddesdon Manor
• Aylesbury Vale Parkway (Metropolitan Terminus)
• Aylesbury Town
• Met stations to Baker Street or Marylebone
• Current proposed HS2 route
• Old Oak Common
• London Euston Low Level (got to expand somewhere)

As I said, it would be far more expensive, and would duplicate the MML in many places. It would provide a central route for serving both Anglo-Scottish main lines, WCML via Manchester and ECML via Leeds, but not quite fit Corby to Glasgow, because you would have to change at Leicester. You would also need major upgrades to the main lines, especially the ECML north of York. It might be useful to divert some XC services this way, plus Norwich-Liverpool and South TPX.

If money is no object, then go right ahead and build it. However, I don't think for one moment that it's feasible.

 

[jon0844]

What a great idea..

Particularly as I have said before, this whole extrapolated debate is purely hypothetical because HS2 will never happen.

A great idea, but then you will have to leave the forum won't you?! A scan of all your posts shows that most have been about HS2, or talking about the pros of air travel over train travel.

So, by stopping these discussions, you'll not be able to post anything. It also kind of defeats the object of a forum!

 

[rb311]

Regarding my position, since you choose to analyze it, it is based around two premises. One is that air travel in the UK over long distances is faster, more flexible, more easy to adapt to changing demands, and overall, far less costly to the tax payer than rail. The second is that rail is a mass transit system best suited to moving many people over short distances.

Research and practice reveals that if you create more trunk routes, more traffic results. Motorways in particular allow for people to commute further distances and business to centralise more and create more regional distributional traffic.

HS2, not that it will happen, of course, would do precisely the same. It would simply encourage more people to live further from London, but still commute.

In order to reduce transport related carbon footprints, an increase in localisation should be encouraged. Sourcing resources locally to be consumed locally, people living local to their work and business becoming more diversely located instead having centralised uber-centres.

This would not please accountants, of course, but it is the only way forward in the long term. Therefore rail networks of whatever weight gauge, should be developed to suit local communities, to improve local communications and better facilities for commuting.

By making more communities self serving and sufficient, less long distance journeys are required, as a result. Reaching this goal will take as long as it has taken to erode the very local communities that existed before the advent of mass transport, ie the motorway and reliable cars and large HGVs. But it is ultimately the only way forward for local economies, people and global CO2 emissions.

Grandiose scheme proposals will not bring long term benefit, they scar the landscape, blight lives and will only serve to drain more talent from the regional communities they serve.

Let modern air travel, with its associated flexibility, adaptability and connectivity serve the long distance market, between places like Plymouth and Newcastle, Southampton and Glasgow etc etc, in aircraft, which per seat, emit no more CO2 than the most efficient car available in the market today, and for that fact, tomorrow.

But in any case HS2 won’t be built anyway...

 

[Christopher125]

You cant say it as often as you like, but if you really didnt think it was going to happen you wouldnt spend so much time posting about it...

 

[tbtc]

Regarding my position, since you choose to analyze it, it is based around two premises. One is that air travel in the UK over long distances is faster, more flexible, more easy to adapt to changing demands, and overall, far less costly to the tax payer than rail. The second is that rail is a mass transit system best suited to moving many people over short distances.

Research and practice reveals that if you create more trunk routes, more traffic results. Motorways in particular allow for people to commute further distances and business to centralise more and create more regional distributional traffic.

HS2, not that it will happen, of course, would do precisely the same. It would simply encourage more people to live further from London, but still commute.

In order to reduce transport related carbon footprints, an increase in localisation should be encouraged. Sourcing resources locally to be consumed locally, people living local to their work and business becoming more diversely located instead having centralised uber-centres.

This would not please accountants, of course, but it is the only way forward in the long term. Therefore rail networks of whatever weight gauge, should be developed to suit local communities, to improve local communications and better facilities for commuting.

By making more communities self serving and sufficient, less long distance journeys are required, as a result. Reaching this goal will take as long as it has taken to erode the very local communities that existed before the advent of mass transport, ie the motorway and reliable cars and large HGVs. But it is ultimately the only way forward for local economies, people and global CO2 emissions.

Grandiose scheme proposals will not bring long term benefit, they scar the landscape, blight lives and will only serve to drain more talent from the regional communities they serve.

Let modern air travel, with its associated flexibility, adaptability and connectivity serve the long distance market, between places like Plymouth and Newcastle, Southampton and Glasgow etc etc, in aircraft, which per seat, emit no more CO2 than the most efficient car available in the market today, and for that fact, tomorrow.

But in any case HS2 won’t be built anyway...

Our of interest, what is the distance (from London) where you think rail should stop competing against air?

Are you saying that rail should stop trying to compete for London - Inverness? Give up on London - Edinburgh/Glasgow? Stop running London - Manchester/Leeds? What is your "cut off"?

At the moment we have both rail and air as competing forms between all of these cities - are you suggesting that trains stop bothering with services like London - Manchester?

 

[LE Greys]

You can prove anything with statistics.

Remember that we are currently discussing a hub-and-spoke network based entirely on London. I could compare the time taken from my home to my old student rooms in Aberdeen, and if I owned a Pilatus PC-12, I could make the run in 2-2½ hours including a taxi ride at the other end by using the Franklyn's private airstrip. Unfortunately, I don't, I have to rely on British Airways or EasyJet if I choose to fly. We are looking at city-centre to city-centre travel, or perhaps door-to-door, and we must certainly bear in mind airport delays and travel time to the airports. Cross-Country links such as Plymouth-Newcastle should be left out of the equation for now. Heathrow, which most airlines have settled on as their main London airport (unfortunately AFAIAC) is a considerable distance from the City and linked by either an expensive rail link or a slow rail link. It is possible to improve it, but for the intransigence of BAA, who insist on charging high access charges to use it. There is not much else we can do about that (London Westminster Airport was an April Fool). As for flexibility, being tied to airports really is no better than being tied to major stations. Airlines have to bid for slots just as TOCs have to bid for paths, so timetable changes take an equally long time. Reliability is another question. I do not have any figures, but I ask anyone who does to put air travel through a rail PPM analysis, just to see what happens. Air travel also needs to factor in several things. Oil exploration, refining and distribution of fuel, car/bus travel to get to airports and emissions from airports themselves. Rail travel needs to factor in power generation (including fuel sourcing/mining), emissions from stations and again car/bus travel to get to stations. Finally, there are the inconveniences, such as the risk of losing your luggage or security problems.

Conflating this with the localism argument is probably invalid. I am a great supporter of localism, and believe that our small communities need a major revival. However, the destruction of our local communities is a matter of fact, and we cannot change it by modifying our inter-urban transport network. Unfortunately, money talks. If we could make it economically viable to reopen local sub-Post Offices, reintroduce village doctors, reopen local stations and so on, then that would change things. I believe that the main reason why they went was not travel patterns, it was a major change in the way people worked. Intensification of agriculture was the main contributor in the country, since we needed far fewer people to work on industrial-scale farms without the need to look after horses. Villages thus became dormitories for towns and lost their services. The Beeching cuts were probably another symptom, but not the cause. Sometimes, things change, but we can't put HS2 in with this.

 

[YorkshireBear]

anyone who flies from leeds or manchester to london i cant see why the train as it is now is at least an hour quicker and city centre to city centre with no security checks or check in.....
Modern railways shows a ver interesting map comparing the current train time, aviation and HS2 inc leeds n manchester

From places like leeds to canary wharf... makes intresting read, leeds to canary wharf will beat aviation by at least 2 and a half hours when opened (thats a change at old oak common onto crossrail) and beats it by just under an hour already

 

[rb311]

Our of interest, what is the distance (from London) where you think rail should stop competing against air?

Are you saying that rail should stop trying to compete for London - Inverness? Give up on London - Edinburgh/Glasgow? Stop running London - Manchester/Leeds? What is your "cut off"?

At the moment we have both rail and air as competing forms between all of these cities - are you suggesting that trains stop bothering with services like London - Manchester?

What is interesting is you ignore the main thrust of my argument and focus in on one small point. As it happens, your question is indicative of the fact that that London is the only starting point on a journey where rail can compete with air.

Like many people have pointed out, not all journeys are London centric, therefore distance is not the only factor. Journey time is far more relevant, hence an example like Plymouth to Newcastle.

That of course is the biggest flaw in HS2, it only covers one small axis of transport in the UK.

As to your original question... Let the market decide. Perhaps there will be less flights between London and Manchester, but it’s going to be a long time before travelling on a train between Bristol and Edinburgh is going to compete, not just on time, but price, convenience, efficiency, timing, I could go on.

But perhaps have another look at the overall point I am making.