High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[YorkshireBear]

I have a nasty feeling they will simply cut the service in half, either at Newcastle or (more likely) at York.

Worse things have happened, but i think they really should look at keeping it as a through service ala what Virgin are about to do as it makes operational sense.

 

[tbtc]

I have a nasty feeling they will simply cut the service in half, either at Newcastle or (more likely) at York.

I very much doubt that, but if they were to eliminate all direct trains via the classic route (which they won't) then I suppose you've got the option for services from Edinburgh to Metro Centre/ Hull/ Bradford, and the option for (more) services from London to Sunderland/ Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Harrogate etc.

I could see some justification for some alternative routes, like some kind of Hull - Newcastle service though, if the focus on the ECML isn't just about getting from London to Edinburgh in around four hours (once the fast services move to HS2 and up the WCML).

 

[HSTEd]

I very much doubt that, but if they were to eliminate all direct trains via the classic route (which they won't)

There is no reason for them to exist in the post HS2-2 scenario?
2tph Compatible to Newcastle via HS2 with journey times the ECML can only dream of, then the trains to Edinburgh via the WCML.

The number of people that want to travel between Edinburgh and stations south of Newcastle is going to be tiny and not worth running any sort of through service, let alone a whole intercity train.

In all likelyhood Newcastle to Edinburgh will be handled by an extension of the existing Edinburgh commuter workings, picking up all the intermediate stations (Berwick, Alnmouth et al).

If ECML Intercity journeys continue to Newcastle at all they will run all 'EC' stops (and I mean all of them) on a clockface timetable.
In all likelyhood it would be cheaper to axe the services north of york and run the York-Newcastle service using the existing XC and TPE services, as well as the Newcastle HS2 workings, suitably strenghtened.

then I suppose you've got the option for services from Edinburgh to Metro Centre/ Hull/ Bradford, and the option for (more) services from London to Sunderland/ Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Harrogate etc.

Perhaps you will get more destinations like Hull and so on, but I doubt Harrogate would be able to justify a journey that is over an hour slower than simply changing at Leeds from HS2.
We saw how well GC did on that score and the answer was "not well".
Add in the lower cost of running the HS2 service and I doubt even the 'cheap advance' market will remain with the ECML.

I could see some justification for some alternative routes, like some kind of Hull - Newcastle service though, if the focus on the ECML isn't just about getting from London to Edinburgh in around four hours (once the fast services move to HS2 and up the WCML).

Would anyone use such a service?
I suppose if ERTMS roll-out goes well we can have 190kph 'Desiro Express' units with only 3 carriages, so we can have all these minor flows.

I know many people live in some fantasy-land where nothing negative will happen to the classic express services that parallel HS2, but that is a ridiculous set of assumptions.

If we are building HS2 we have to get the most use out of as possible which means that all intercity journeys that can reasonably use it will.
We can't afford to waste vast sums of taxpayer's money maintaining a museum of classic express trains that pointlessly duplicate HS2 traffic.

 

[AndyLandy]

The number of people that want to travel between Edinburgh and stations south of Newcastle is going to be tiny and not worth running any sort of through service, let alone a whole intercity train.

True, but there'll be people who want to travel between Newcastle and York or Doncaster, and there'll be people who want to travel from Doncaster to London. If you can run them all as a through service, you increase the number journey opportunities.

I don't see the WCML or the ECML having much in the way of a traditional Intercity service post-HS2, but I do see them hosting some semi-fast services that call at principal stations along the route.

Indeed, I can quite easily imagine the WCML having 1tph EUS-MAN and 1tph EUS-BHM with 350/1s running at 110mph and with a calling pattern not all that dissimilar from the pre-VHF timetable. I would expect the ECML could probably justify something similar.

 

[HowardGWR]

The number of people that want to travel between Edinburgh and stations south of Newcastle is going to be tiny and not worth running any sort of through service, let alone a whole intercity train.

In all likelyhood Newcastle to Edinburgh will be handled by an extension of the existing Edinburgh commuter workings, picking up all the intermediate stations (Berwick, Alnmouth et al).

May I ask, do you have the data to support the first paragraph?

Second, I hope you do not mind me pointing this out but your spelling checker probably has a false entry in the personal override section. It's 'likelihood', not 'likelyhood'.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I have to disagree with you HSTEd, i think that having these services will increase regional travel adding additional elements of benefit to the railway network from HS2. There are lots of random journeys up and down the ECML, i know because i make them all the time!

 

[tbtc]

There is no reason for them to exist in the post HS2-2 scenario?
2tph Compatible to Newcastle via HS2 with journey times the ECML can only dream of, then the trains to Edinburgh via the WCML.

The number of people that want to travel between Edinburgh and stations south of Newcastle is going to be tiny and not worth running any sort of through service, let alone a whole intercity train.

In all likelyhood Newcastle to Edinburgh will be handled by an extension of the existing Edinburgh commuter workings, picking up all the intermediate stations (Berwick, Alnmouth et al).

If ECML Intercity journeys continue to Newcastle at all they will run all 'EC' stops (and I mean all of them) on a clockface timetable.
In all likelyhood it would be cheaper to axe the services north of york and run the York-Newcastle service using the existing XC and TPE services, as well as the Newcastle HS2 workings, suitably strenghtened.



Perhaps you will get more destinations like Hull and so on, but I doubt Harrogate would be able to justify a journey that is over an hour slower than simply changing at Leeds from HS2.
We saw how well GC did on that score and the answer was "not well".
Add in the lower cost of running the HS2 service and I doubt even the 'cheap advance' market will remain with the ECML.



Would anyone use such a service?
I suppose if ERTMS roll-out goes well we can have 190kph 'Desiro Express' units with only 3 carriages, so we can have all these minor flows.

I know many people live in some fantasy-land where nothing negative will happen to the classic express services that parallel HS2, but that is a ridiculous set of assumptions.

If we are building HS2 we have to get the most use out of as possible which means that all intercity journeys that can reasonably use it will.
We can't afford to waste vast sums of taxpayer's money maintaining a museum of classic express trains that pointlessly duplicate HS2 traffic.

As a Scot who uses the ECML to get from Sheffield to get back north of the border, there's plenty of |intermediate" demand.

And if there's a good chunk of such demand today then there's going to be a lot more in twenty years time (when HS2 is going to be completed as far as Leeds/ Wigan).

There's still slow services from London to Birmingham or London to Peterborough, despite the Intercity alternative, due to the intermediate demand. Similarly, I expect there'll be some service from London to Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle etc post HS2.

 

[The Ham]

I have to disagree with you HSTEd, i think that having these services will increase regional travel adding additional elements of benefit to the railway network from HS2. There are lots of random journeys up and down the ECML, i know because i make them all the time!

You just need to look at the Birmingham to Glasgow services to see that running between 2 major cities without going to London can be viable. Yes there isn't going to be the need for the number of IC services that there currently are, but then there is still likely to be the need for some.

For instance, although it maybe quicker to run York to London via HS2, however there comes a point not that far south of York where a direct train to London will be faster than changing at York (or at least so marginal in time differance that it's hardly makes a difference to most people) such a point would change depending on how close the timetabling got the change time at York. Likewise there will be those who would rather just get on a train and stay on it until London, yes it'll take longer and yes it would proberbly cost more*, but there will still be people who do it.

* although if it is the turn up and go fare there is unlikely to be that much difference as it would just be from X to London on any valid route.

Of course the other possibility is that post HS2 there would be services which ran fast to a point along the line and then became stoppers (either for a time or for the rest of the way), with a service patten that meant that some stations which were further form London had a faster journey time than the next few closer to London than them. By doing so there would be still some fairly fast services.

Of course post HS2 service pattens also depend on how passenger growth pans out, if we have 4% growth from now until HS2 phase 2 opens, even with a 70% fall in the number of passengers using ECML we could still end up with more people using the ECML than there were in 2004. Yes they are likely to be shorter journies, but a lot of short journies can make a long journey (well at least in terms of TOC's needing to run trains over a long distance). Just look at the length some XC services run and whilst very few people (if any on services) travel end to end they can be busy all the way along the route..

As such the frequency of services may remain broadly the same, but the calling patterns will change and the length of the train is likely to fall.

 

[6Gman]

As such the frequency of services may remain broadly the same, but the calling patterns will change and the length of the train is likely to fall.

That would be my hope for a post-HS2 WCML. Better links such as Rugby-Liverpool, Nuneaton-Manchester, Watford Jn to most places (!), Stafford to Preston etc.

 

[HSTEd]

You just need to look at the Birmingham to Glasgow services to see that running between 2 major cities without going to London can be viable. Yes there isn't going to be the need for the number of IC services that there currently are, but then there is still likely to be the need for some.

And where are these major cities in the ECML corridor?
There really isn't any major conurbation that can generate large numbers of 'non' London journeys south of York on the ECML.

For instance, although it maybe quicker to run York to London via HS2, however there comes a point not that far south of York where a direct train to London will be faster than changing at York (or at least so marginal in time differance that it's hardly makes a difference to most people) such a point would change depending on how close the timetabling got the change time at York. Likewise there will be those who would rather just get on a train and stay on it until London, yes it'll take longer and yes it would proberbly cost more*, but there will still be people who do it.

I was suggesting that a break at York was likely for this very reason.
There will be still be a clockface 'all EC' stations service from London to York but it is probably unreasonable to suggest that this will continue any further north simply because the destinations south of York on the ECML (Doncaster, Newark, Grantham and Peterborough chief among them) can't really justify the through custom for anything more than a connection onto the HS2 classic services at York (or onto TPE/XC as the situation requires)

As a Scot who uses the ECML to get from Sheffield to get back north of the border, there's plenty of |intermediate" demand.

And if there's a good chunk of such demand today then there's going to be a lot more in twenty years time (when HS2 is going to be completed as far as Leeds/ Wigan).

Yes, and Sheffield to Scotland services will continue as they do now, in the form of XC trains.
The only load centres sufficient to justify cross border traffic are served by XC, not by East Coast. (I understand the Leeds-Scotland HSTs have been discontinued now?).

The 'through' ECML services will simply cease to exist and be replaced by two or probably three interconnecting short-distance services with break points at York and Newcastle as those are the logical places to break such services.

There's still slow services from London to Birmingham or London to Peterborough, despite the Intercity alternative, due to the intermediate demand. Similarly, I expect there'll be some service from London to Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle etc post HS2.

Yes, but there aren't slow trains from London-Preston are there?
There will still be conventional trains to York to serve places south of there, probably also to Leeds, but they won't continue on as they do now as HS2 will have ripped the supporting London through market out of them.

True, but there'll be people who want to travel between Newcastle and York or Doncaster, and there'll be people who want to travel from Doncaster to London. If you can run them all as a through service, you increase the number journey opportunities.

In Recent years the trend has to be to break up such long through journeys rather than to join them up for reasons of ensuring 'reliability'.
I see no reason why the ECML mainline services will be treated differently.

May I ask, do you have the data to support the first paragraph?

I should have clarified. Number of people who want to travel between Edinburgh and EC-only stations south of Newcastle will be tiny.
Since that basically means Doncaster (to a degree) and points south, which can be derived by a simple demographic model showing how small a population that is.

XC and TPE will be able to handle the other through traffic with ease.

Second, I hope you do not mind me pointing this out but your spelling checker probably has a false entry in the personal override section. It's 'likelihood', not 'likelyhood'.

Actually I didn't use a spell checker
I apologise for the error in my touch-typing.

 

[The Ham]

And where are these major cities in the ECML corridor?
There really isn't any major conurbation that can generate large numbers of 'non' London journeys south of York on the ECML.

Yes, there are no major cities on the ECML, however that doesn't meant that the towns which are there couldn't justify a fairly regular service. Doncaster and Darlington both have a population of between 100,000 and 130,000, which is not an insignificant population, as such there could well be enough passenger travel between the two to justify running direct services between the two (given that you'd be running a level of service to them anyway) rather than making everyone change at York.

Such a service may only run hourly or half hourly, but having a semi fast service all the way along the ECML would proberbly still find passengers use it to make it worth running. Espicially if the time saving for running Newcastle to York by HS2 stock is not much faster than the ECML stock.

Yes, such a service, isn't going to justify a 10 or 12 coach train, but could justify a 5 coach EMU, either something akin to a 444 or possibly more likely uterlising the 5 coach IEP's. It may however be that ti runs as a 10 coach train to, say, Doncaster where it then splits so as to cope with the levels of London bound traffic on stations south of that point with the possibility that the other half goes to another destination (i.e. Hull).

Of course there may be other services which run on a similar pattern, but only as far as York (having split somewhere further south with a service to another location). Post HS2 there may well be justification for a lot more direct services to London to places such as Grimsby via the ECML as the ECML will not be full of trains racing to Scotland.

 

[ainsworth74]

(I understand the Leeds-Scotland HSTs have been discontinued now?).

One per day each way with East Coast.

 

[Domeyhead]

Just to answer my own previous query regarding the "spiralling costs" of HS2 I found this original baseline document which sets out the business case. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/3651/hs2-economic-case-value-for-money.pdf . I doubt whether 1% of the those opposing it "at any cost" have even bothered to read it. However the following figures emerge.
1) In January 2012 the costs were estimated at around £27bn with a c/b ratio of around 1.6 (about medium in Government capital project terms)
2) If the line was built for conventional speeds (125mph) rather than 200mph+ it would only reduce the capex by around £1.6bn
This and the rest of the document suggests the following to me
Costs today are quoted as spiralling out of control towards £70bn, but no mainstream journalism outside the railway press has even bothered to examine how much of this is direct expansion of that original SoW and how much is down to scope creep (some of which is frankly ludicrous). I suspect the original £27.2bn scope has not risen anywhere near as much.
It also suggests that opponents of HS2 focus almost exclusively on the "fat cats" in their high speed trains though this "only" accounts for 6% of the total cost. The rest of the cost - 94% - is simply to expand capacity on the national network buy building a new line, and specifically to relieve capacity where it is most needed - between London, the west midlands and the north west.
The report suggests that the business case sits in a sweet spot of ROI - and any tinkering, either to change the route (say to the old Great Central) or the proposal (say to upgrade the WCML in situ) reduces the CBR and therefore the ROI. The figures and the working are there in black and white.

 

[Geezertronic]

It also suggests that opponents of HS2 focus almost exclusively on the "fat cats" in their high speed trains though this "only" accounts for 6% of the total cost. The rest of the cost - 94% - is simply to expand capacity on the national network buy building a new line, and specifically to relieve capacity where it is most needed - between London, the west midlands and the north west.

Don't know about anyone else but comments like that from the Anti-HS2 brigade just prove either a lack of understanding or a persistence for emotive nonsense

 

[AndyLandy]

I don't see the WCML or the ECML having much in the way of a traditional Intercity service post-HS2, but I do see them hosting some semi-fast services that call at principal stations along the route.

Actually, one thing I've never really put together is the relationship between HS2 and IEP. By 2033, we should have the full 'Y' route, with captive services between London and Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester.

At this point, the majority of the Pendolinos will be 30 years old and it wouldn't be unrealistic to start looking at withdrawing them from service. With a combination of HS2 CC services and some semi-fast WCML services operated with 110mph trains, we should be able to provide appropriate levels of service for the majority of calling points along the WCML.

But the ECML will have a fleet of IEPs that will be less than 15 years old by that point. So, the only way I see long distance EC services being migrated to HS2 is if there's already a long-term plan for the existing fleet of IEPs. This is particularly exacerbated by the IC225 replacement orderm we'll have a lot of IEPs to find new homes for.

 

[Muzer]

Imagine the anti-HS2 brigade eventually win, though (not a thought I want to entertain, given the situation it would likely leave us in, but always possible, if unlikely). Then we'd have no rolling stock to replace what will by then already be life-expired stuff on ECML.

IEP might just be the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, or it might be more along the lines of "better safe than sorry"

 

[Deerfold]

But the ECML will have a fleet of IEPs that will be less than 15 years old by that point. So, the only way I see long distance EC services being migrated to HS2 is if there's already a long-term plan for the existing fleet of IEPs. This is particularly exacerbated by the IC225 replacement orderm we'll have a lot of IEPs to find new homes for.

Pacer replacement?

 

[HSTEd]

I assume the ECML IEP fleet will end up primarily on XC, supplementing the EMUs they have for Manchester-South Coast trains.

Running 1tph York, 1tph Leeds, 1tph Hull (or similar) is not going to use the entire fleet.

 

[The Ham]

Pacer replacement?

Now that's just a silly suggestion, Pacers are never going to be replaced!!!

 

[jon0844]

Imagine the anti-HS2 brigade eventually win, though (not a thought I want to entertain, given the situation it would likely leave us in, but always possible, if unlikely). Then we'd have no rolling stock to replace what will by then already be life-expired stuff on ECML.

IEP might just be the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, or it might be more along the lines of "better safe than sorry"

The anti-HS2 won't succeed. At best, they'll secure themselves some more compensation, which I'd be for a lot of them is all they ever wanted.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The anti-HS2 won't succeed. At best, they'll secure themselves some more compensation, which I'd be for a lot of them is all they ever wanted.

Not all, there is a hard-core group who determined to try and stop Hs2 at any cost. You only have to go on the Stop HS2 website and see some of the comments to realise what a bubble of unreality some people live in. :roll:

 

[jon0844]

I did say 'a lot of them' as I can well believe some people are totally against anything being built.. People like Stanley Johnson who argued for no upgrades of anything, although I then looked him up to see that his house is just a few metres outside the area that qualifies for compensation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHZlcKWmS2Q

 

[WatcherZero]

Rugby MP today was similar, voted no to HS2 and said he wouldnt support any alternative scheme either as it was 'destroying the countryside'.

 

[HowardGWR]

Rugby MP today was similar, voted no to HS2 and said he wouldnt support any alternative scheme either as it was 'destroying the countryside'.

You'll probably find he didn't give a fig when someone else's countryside was being destroyed. This is the weak position of local action groups. I saw it all in the 90s with the then road building programme (which thankfully fizzled to a dribble of present schemes). On each occasion a bunch of amateurs spent a frantic few months trying to gen up on planning policies and COBA stuff and were made mincemeat of by slick DfT (Highway Agency) QC lawyers at Inquiries. The one advantage that the DfT have even more this time is that there will be no Public Inquiries, although brave Inspectors were very thin on the ground then. The one exception I can remember was the one that recommended against the Hereford bypass, although I see that idea are being resurrected again.

 

[Gareth Marston]

You'll probably find he didn't give a fig when someone else's countryside was being destroyed. This is the weak position of local action groups. I saw it all in the 90s with the then road building programme (which thankfully fizzled to a dribble of present schemes). On each occasion a bunch of amateurs spent a frantic few months trying to gen up on planning policies and COBA stuff and were made mincemeat of by slick DfT (Highway Agency) QC lawyers at Inquiries. The one advantage that the DfT have even more this time is that there will be no Public Inquiries, although brave Inspectors were very thin on the ground then. The one exception I can remember was the one that recommended against the Hereford bypass, although I see that idea are being resurrected again.

Theres No "swampy" in the stop HS2 camp, the road protest movement in the 90's did put forward credible alternatives unlike the Stop HS2 at all costs crowd.

 

[HowardGWR]

Theres No "swampy" in the stop HS2 camp, the road protest movement in the 90's did put forward credible alternatives unlike the Stop HS2 at all costs crowd.

Indeed. Swampy achieved nothing in itself (the white elephant of the road was built - it really was an OTT scheme) but that effort and the other demos did alter public opinion and that did help to change government policy (and they ran out of money).

As you indicate, this anti HS2 movement is not exactly ' a peasants' revolt' is it?

 

[IKBrunel]

Agreed, there is some opposition to HS rail in the environmental movement, but there isn't the consensus against it like there is for new roads / runways / fracking / coal fired power stations. A lot of people who were active in the 80s road protest movement have said they would get out and protest if a similar mass road building programme started, some consider that it already has. I'm not hearing the same noises about HS2. I think a lot of pragmatic greens see HS2 as an alternative to more roads & runways.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed, there is some opposition to HS rail in the environmental movement, but there isn't the consensus against it like there is for new roads / runways / fracking / coal fired power stations. A lot of people who were active in the 80s road protest movement have said they would get out and protest if a similar mass road building programme started, some consider that it already has. I'm not hearing the same noises about HS2. I think a lot of pragmatic greens see HS2 as an alternative to more roads & runways.

.. and most of the "green" arguments against HS2 are just to do with the very high speeds (i.e. 250mph running) which would, even if it happened, not be the norm as otherwise there's no slack in the timetable if a service is running a little late.

 

[Metrailway]

You'll probably find he didn't give a fig when someone else's countryside was being destroyed.

You're probably incorrect as HS2 doesn't go through his constituency so 'his countryside' is not being 'destroyed'!

I believe the main reason he voted against HS2 was that the scheme would mean that Rugby has slower trains to London and fewer connections to other major cities in the UK.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You're probably incorrect as HS2 doesn't go through his constituency so 'his countryside' is not being 'destroyed'!

I believe the main reason he voted against HS2 was that the scheme would mean that Rugby has slower trains to London and fewer connections to other major cities in the UK.

From what i can see rugby only has services to London Birmingham and Crewe. So actually HS2 may allow semi fast services to Manchester to call, giving them better city connections, slower London trains, well unfortunately... That is an occupational hazard but i can't imagine they will be that much slower and they will certainly be more frequent.