High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[The Ham]

He drags up the cost because £4 billion is a lot of money to spend on a rail network that only a minority of the public taxpayers ever use. Average person on the street can't afford rail travel..

Spending money on childcare will probably do more for the UKs GDP than HS2 anyway!!

...so what about the £11bn pa wasted because of achol related crime, that's an even bigger figure!

 

[eps200]

I can see the next goverment doing a re brand fiddle round the edges, sell it as a new WCML upgrade investing in what we have perhaps working in 140MPH running some place and claiming it's all joined up thinking and that they fixed it.

 

[billio]

The other thing, as I see it, is that if you're building to facilitate ongoing connections, there's far more to be gained at the Birmingham end than the London end. If HS2 has quick and easy interchange with Moor & New, you've made the service accessible to everyone who can already get a train into Birmingham.

At the London end, we've already got the hopeless situation of a multitude of terminals for any ongoing journeys, so there's little to be gained by running the HS services into any existing London terminal, especially the one terminal where the only services are ones that go back the way you came...

I think this is the whole point about the bad design of HS2: it doesn't integrate well with the existing network. Most TGV services in France run into existing stations and this is true of Germany, Belgium, Holland and so on. Lille may be an exception, but it serves as a major interchange between several high speed services.

London requires at least 3 stations on HS2, with services calling at all of them. If Euston were a through station towards Stratford then there would be useful connections to HS1, many of the places South and East of London and also places served by DLR. Though even this might not be the best solution and a link into services South of the Thames would be very useful to many passengers.

If HS2 integrates well wth local services then although the headline speeds might be slightly lower, the overall travel times of many more passengers will be greatly reduced.

This applies to other places as well as London - Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, Nottingham stations all present travellers with inconvenient and time consuming connections from existing services.

For this reason more than anything else, HS2 needs a rethink, not the blind following of an idea that seems increasingly dodgy for all sorts of reasons. This blind dogged thinking is typical of UK government and the Civil Service, creating the inflexibility in project development which, for example, results in the loss of £10bn on NHS IT.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think this is the whole point about the bad design of HS2: it doesn't integrate well with the existing network. Most TGV services in France run into existing stations and this is true of Germany, Belgium, Holland and so on. Lille may be an exception, but it serves as a major interchange between several high speed services.

I thought that the proposed Manchester Piccadilly HS2 station was planned to be next to the current heavy rail station there.

 

[Manchester77]

It is and is also planned to improve the metrolink station!

 

[edwin_m]

I agree with you to a degree, the lines between the Paris and the second and third biggest cities (Lyon and Marseille), whilst Bordeaux is under construction and Toulouse is planned. The latter are still large (metropolitan areas of over 1 million) but further away and smaller than the former two cities so I can understand why they were built first.

Both Bordeaux and Toulouse benefit from LGV Atlantique which covers nearly half the journey from Paris to Bordeaux.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I think this is the whole point about the bad design of HS2: it doesn't integrate well with the existing network. Most TGV services in France run into existing stations and this is true of Germany, Belgium, Holland and so on. Lille may be an exception, but it serves as a major interchange between several high speed services.

London requires at least 3 stations on HS2, with services calling at all of them. If Euston were a through station towards Stratford then there would be useful connections to HS1, many of the places South and East of London and also places served by DLR. Though even this might not be the best solution and a link into services South of the Thames would be very useful to many passengers.

If HS2 integrates well wth local services then although the headline speeds might be slightly lower, the overall travel times of many more passengers will be greatly reduced.

This applies to other places as well as London - Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, Nottingham stations all present travellers with inconvenient and time consuming connections from existing services.

For this reason more than anything else, HS2 needs a rethink, not the blind following of an idea that seems increasingly dodgy for all sorts of reasons. This blind dogged thinking is typical of UK government and the Civil Service, creating the inflexibility in project development which, for example, results in the loss of £10bn on NHS IT.

I agree to an extent, I myself would prefer the HS2 route proposed by Heathrow hub with a station on the GWML near Iver to serve the airport before turning north and following the M40 with a parkway station where it crosses the East-West Rail Link (allowing Oxford a quick interchange for faster services to places further north). This combined with a proper Eutson/Cross through station to HS1 would allow International services from Europe to Heathrow and the North (allowing it to compete with Charles de Gaulle or Schipol). It would also allow HS1 domestic services from Kent much quicker access to our hub airport and if run with 395 esque stock, these services could then join the GWML and continue on to Oxford or Newbury as commuter trains into London. North of Birmingham International I would stick with the route as currently proposed.

I concede such a route via the M40 would need a lower design speed of perhaps 180-200mph rather than the 250mph proposed for HS2 but I not convinced of the benefits of running at higher speeds vs energy consumption.

 

[HSTEd]

But those trains would require paths on HS2 even if only going to Heathrow.

So is that worth it?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

But those trains would require paths on HS2 even if only going to Heathrow.

So is that worth it?

Wouldn't that depend on the whether the route is in tunnel as far as the edge of London and the operating speed as lower speed would allow more trains per hour? (I confess I am not an expert on this).

 

[AndyLandy]

But those trains would require paths on HS2 even if only going to Heathrow.

So is that worth it?

If it's just the section between the HS1/2 link and Heathrow, and you're building a new line anyway, you could just quad-track it...

 

[Ironside]

Both Bordeaux and Toulouse benefit from LGV Atlantique which covers nearly half the journey from Paris to Bordeaux.

I didn't LGV Atlantique was that far advanced yet, it doesn't look that far on the map on Wikipedia, but I guess you can't rely on that.

 

[brianthegiant]

For those calling for a rethink on HS2, I would ask if IEP weren't a more suspect project in need of a rethink. An overly complex untested concept which is going to have serious reliability issues. Yet which attracts no media coverage whatsoever.

 

[edwin_m]

I didn't LGV Atlantique was that far advanced yet, it doesn't look that far on the map on Wikipedia, but I guess you can't rely on that.

The section as far as near Poitiers was definitely there when I travelled on it in the late 90s, and the map I found suggests that's about the half way mark.

 

[tbtc]

For those calling for a rethink on HS2, I would ask if IEP weren't a more suspect project in need of a rethink. An overly complex untested concept which is going to have serious reliability issues. Yet which attracts no media coverage whatsoever.

I think that most enthusiasts were very against IEP when first announced - almost ten years ago. I'd guess that most of the comments you'd have had would have been about "plastic Voyager clones".

Now that the HSTs are getting older and older and details of IEP are becoming known about (showing that lessons have been learnt from problems with some modern stock and that these expensive trains have features that justify at least some of this high cost), the mood seems to be changing somewhat - especially now that IEP is getting closer and closer.

I'm not trying to turn this into an IEP discussion, just to show that time changes opinions of these things, especially as the "status quo" looks more tired.

 

[edwin_m]

I concede such a route via the M40 would need a lower design speed of perhaps 180-200mph rather than the 250mph proposed for HS2 but I not convinced of the benefits of running at higher speeds vs energy consumption.

Higher speed isn't so important in the early stages but becomes crucial if and when it extends to Scotland which is when competition with air travel becomes serious.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think this is the whole point about the bad design of HS2: it doesn't integrate well with the existing network. Most TGV services in France run into existing stations and this is true of Germany, Belgium, Holland and so on. Lille may be an exception, but it serves as a major interchange between several high speed services.

Those countries have the benefit that their classic and HS lines are built to the same loading gauge, so they can easily use existing approach tracks, platforms and other infrastructure. A lot of the benefits of building HS2 would disappear if you forced it to use existing stations - the trains couldn't be much longer than they are today (~250m long rather than 400m), they couldn't be double-decked in future, you would have to buy all of them custom built for the loading gauge rather than just the number needed for CC services, and it would enable problems on the classic lines to be transmitted along the HS network much more so than what will be possible with HS2 as planned.

By the time HS2 opens the existing service patterns and infrastructure across the country will have changed a lot to help connect to HS2. It's a lot cheaper to adjust or even build new classic, low speed lines to connect in with HS2 than to try to bend the high-speed route itself.

 

[Chris125]

I think this is the whole point about the bad design of HS2: it doesn't integrate well with the existing network. Most TGV services in France run into existing stations and this is true of Germany, Belgium, Holland and so on.

They can run into existing stations because they tend to use existing tracks and existing platforms - that's fine when the aim is to speed up existing services, but not when you're trying to increase capacity.

London requires at least 3 stations on HS2, with services calling at all of them. If Euston were a through station towards Stratford then there would be useful connections to HS1, many of the places South and East of London and also places served by DLR.

HS2 doesn't 'require' 3 stations, and even if there was sufficient cross-London traffic to justify 'Euston Cross' - which I've seen no evidence of - it's neither practical nor reliable to interwork intensive long distance HS2 services with the loading gauge restricted, 240m Kent Domestic services or Eurostar with it's border security requirements.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

If it's just the section between the HS1/2 link and Heathrow, and you're building a new line anyway, you could just quad-track it...

Then why do these two tracks to Heathrow have to go the same route as the normal HS2 tracks?

Why not just build a high speed spur to Heathrow from HS1 and then have two platforms at "Euston Cross" rather than god knows how many.

Quad tracking is stupid because it prevents optimisation of routes possible using two twin track alignments.

 

[RichmondCommu]

How about tram trains on Midland Metro so you can run a Wolverhampton-Moor Street service which would provide relatively easy connections to the Curzon street platforms?

But that would be much slower than taking the train from Wolverhampton to New Street, and would begin to eat into the time saved by running via HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

But that would be much slower than taking the train from Wolverhampton to New Street, and would begin to eat into the time saved by running via HS2.

But if the New Street-Curzon street connection is really as dreadful as people seem to claim it is, you might still be up.

 

[jon0844]

London has loads of stations, with the need to cross London, but how far apart will these stations be in Birmingham?

Will people mind that much?

 

[RichmondCommu]

then there's Euston it's self. Is it actually tall enough to have double deck infrastructure (higher lines etc). Additionally dwell times would probably increase to allow people up above on a busy service to get down in time.

Well it had better be tall enough because the DfT is planning to run double deck captive trains into it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We dont all wear hooped jumpers and wear onions round our necks Or drive on the wrong side of the road and make really bad films just because the French do do we?

Are you planning to vote UKIP at the next election :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And also think of the jobs and the deliver and supply chain that will be created to not only go with the build but future maintenence. THAT will bring in more benefits to the economy through higher tax reciepts to enable everyone to have a kid and recieve tax credits. Dishing out money on free childcare will come nowhere near that.

That's a poor argument. The trains themselves will either be built in France or Germany; there will be no UK input into this. And thankfully there is no guarantee that British companies will be awarded construction contracts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Source? Seeing as it's possible, for example, to get to London and back from Darlington for about £20 I struggle to see how the average person can't afford rail travel at all (which is what your statement suggests). Again I refer you to more people than ever before traveling on the railway. Rather suggests that the average person can afford rail travel...

The source is on your own forum; Life After A Railcard by Butts. Perhaps you might like to take a few minutes to read it?

 

[HSTEd]

If rail travel is so expensive then perhaps we should be attempting to make it cheaper.....

High Speed rail compatible with TSIs has a far lower operating cost base than conventional British style rail.

 

[RichmondCommu]

...so what about the £11bn pa wasted because of achol related crime, that's an even bigger figure!

I concur. We could instead use the money to teach people to spell.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought that the proposed Manchester Piccadilly HS2 station was planned to be next to the current heavy rail station there.

That's Manchester, what about everywhere else?

 

[HSTEd]

I make it ~270m from the buffer stops at Leeds New Lane to the south side of the current Leeds City station where an entrance has been or will be provided.

The proposed pedestrian link bridge which will be probably be refitted with travellators would allow most passengers to traverse this distance is something like two and a half minutes, with slower passengers managing it in ~5 minutes (if they just stand on the travellator and don't attempt to walk).

That is hardly going to be sufficient to discourage people, that is about the same distance you have to walk from the Eurostar buffer stops to the EMT ones at St Pancras.

And at Sheffield Meadowhall the classic line platforms are being shunted along so they are directly beneath the High speed ones as they cross the valley.
Can't get much closer than that.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I make it ~270m from the buffer stops at Leeds New Lane to the south side of the current Leeds City station where an entrance has been or will be provided.

The proposed pedestrian link bridge which will be probably be refitted with travellators would allow most passengers to traverse this distance is something like two and a half minutes, with slower passengers managing it in ~5 minutes (if they just stand on the travellator and don't attempt to walk).

That is hardly going to be sufficient to discourage people, that is about the same distance you have to walk from the Eurostar buffer stops to the EMT ones at St Pancras.

And at Sheffield Meadowhall the classic line platforms are being shunted along so they are directly beneath the High speed ones as they cross the valley.
Can't get much closer than that.

You haven't mentioned the Birmingham stations but I'm sure everything will be fine. For all our sakes let's hope these assumptions come home to roost.

 

[HSTEd]

You haven't mentioned the Birmingham stations but I'm sure everything will be fine. For all our sakes let's hope these assumptions come home to roost.

The Birmingham station is effectively right on top of Moor Street and not really that far from New Street.

This position is certainly far preferable to the massive demolition required for some sort of integrated-into-New-Street station.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If rail travel is so expensive then perhaps we should be attempting to make it cheaper.....

High Speed rail compatible with TSIs has a far lower operating cost base than conventional British style rail.

For the next few decades that's not much use if you're travelling between Bristol and London. Or indeed Scotland to the NE which was Butts initial example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Birmingham station is effectively right on top of Moor Street and not really that far from New Street.

This position is certainly far preferable to the massive demolition required for some sort of integrated-into-New-Street station.

Not really that far sounds great if it's raining dogs and cats and you've got a heavy bag to drag from New Street to Curzon Street.

 

[The Ham]

I concur. We could instead use the money to teach people to spell.

I agree, if I had good primary school teachers who would have spotted I had Dislexyia and didn't say he's a bight kid he'll get it in time then my spelling wouldn't be as bad.

 

[Clip]

Well it had better be tall enough because the DfT is planning to run double deck captive trains into it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are you planning to vote UKIP at the next election :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a poor argument. The trains themselves will either be built in France or Germany; there will be no UK input into this. And thankfully there is no guarantee that British companies will be awarded construction contracts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, Ill probably still vote Tory like I have always done thanks. And if you cant be bothered to notice the sarcasm then thats fine, even though I spelled it out later on.

How is saying it will create thousands of jobs a poor arguement? So what if the trains get built in France or Germany, the infrastructure will still be built here given its a HS line in this country, that means you will need people and plant and places to house those people and plant. You will need a very large supply chain also and whilst granted some may come from abroad there will still be componenets supplied by UK firms - which is a good thing is it not? Or do you think a massive infrastructure project will just sudddenly appear one day without using anyone or anything to build it?

And why is there no guarantee that a UK company will not win the contract to build it? Have you got any facts or figures to back up your claim? Are you claiming that UK firms are not up to the mark of building such a large railway project? ARE YOU REALLY?


Because if so, take a look at this list

Civils:

*Balfour Beatty

*Carillion Civil Engineering

*Costain/Skanska Construction joint venture

*J Murphy and Sons

*Kier Construction

*Laing O’Rourke Construction

*Morgan Est

Demolition:

*Bam Nuttall

*Brown & Mason

*John F Hunt Demolition

*Keltbray

*Kier Construction

*Laing O’Rourke Construction

*McGee Group

*PJ Carey

Utilities:

*Clancy Docwra

*Costain/Skanska Construction

*J Murphy and Sons

*Laing O’Rourke Construction

*McNicholas

*Morgan Est

Now how many of those are UK firms or even joint ventures between UK firms and others? Do you know what that list of companies is for? You want to come across as a smart chap but you are spouting rubbish. So you tell me what that list is for and then get back to me again to tell me why you seem to be glad that there is no guarantee that UK firms will be awarded the building contract.

I concur. We could instead use the money to teach people to spell.

Brilliant bit of posting this. It's the internet and whilst people do strive to spell correctly, some people cant and some people just really dont care as long as you can understand what they are saying. Well done for poiting out someone hasnt spelled something correctly in your attempt to try and belittle them and their views. *Golf claps all round*