High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Tiny Tim]

Good point, but it doesn't change the fact that we have made non-compatible changes to our railways before. Perhaps it's time to make the next BIG step.

 

[Nym]

The last comparable step was changing the Great Western from Broad to Standard Gauge

 

[Tiny Tim]

And the last of the broad gauge went in the 1890s. Maybe it's about time we tried something else?

 

[Nym]

From the immortal words of REME, if it aint broke don't fix it! Whats wrong with Standard Gauge?

 

[Tiny Tim]

Because it's 'standard'. Think out of the box. Those rails aren't there to hold us in. And why should they be rails?

 

[NSEFAN]

Because it's 'standard'. Think out of the box. Those rails aren't there to hold us in. And why should they be rails?

Good luck in replacing the lines around Clapham Junction with monorail or maglev.

We probably could do something different, but the cost of it would be astronomical. The current system is so well established that you'd effectively be replacing everything on the railways: the track, the trains, the stations, the signalling, etc. Even if we could find that much money from somewhere, you're still going to end up with years of major disruption to the service; we don't need a nation-wide equivalent of the WCML upgrade fiasco thankyou very much.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think that historically we should expect the next big change of direction in the dominant form of transport in the not too distant future. However if it is to happen, then I would expect it to be something far more radical than sticking to fixed guided path systems such as railways or maglevs. The "why should they be rails" comment is very apt.

Converting the nations' railways to maglevs or monorails would be phenomenally expensive and completely superfluous.

 

[Nym]

How about, we fit these trains with tyres, make them much much smaller, and then lay this thing called tarmac all over the country, and you don't have a conductor or driver costing wages, you just have the passengers drive these baby trains on tyres wherever they want to go...

 

[Geezertronic]

Because it's 'standard'. Think out of the box. Those rails aren't there to hold us in. And why should they be rails?

Since HS2 is also supposed to be able to link locations north of location with Europe, what would be the point of making HS2 a completely different system compared to HS1 and Europe? That would definitely be the white elephant that the anti brigade always go on about. At least if it is built to the same gauge as HS1, then trains can go from (example) Birmingham to European destinations if there is a market for it.

Also, HS2 is supposed to ease congestion on the WCML so what would be the point of changing the system as trains from London to Glasgow wouldn't be able to make use of HS2 from Day One if that was the case

 

[sprinterguy]

How about, we fit these trains with tyres, make them much much smaller, and then lay this thing called tarmac all over the country, and you don't have a conductor or driver costing wages, you just have the passengers drive these baby trains on tyres wherever they want to go...

Now that's just crazy talk, who would go for such a crackpot idea? Putting general members of the public in charge of these personal motor carriages with no fixed guidance system...

 

[TSR :D]

I support HS2 as it helps economy, but there's one thing I want to know... Why HS2's terminal station have to be separate? After HS2 finishes, BMO will have a new neighbour, and that is HS2's station. Why can't they merge it but still add new lines so there won't be a capacity problems. Also, it may increase chances of getting approval for Bordseley's viaduct for BMO as it is getting more attention.

 

[Nym]

Because the approaches are in the wrong direction, and it's very hard to pick a route into somewhere like Birmingham that means you can get to London, Manchester and Leeds on a fast alignment.

 

[TSR :D]

Because the approaches are in the wrong direction, and it's very hard to pick a route into somewhere like Birmingham that means you can get to London, Manchester and Leeds on a fast alignment.

Yeah, I didn't think of that, but couldn't BMO's roof to be extended to cover new HS2 lines with different line approachs? It would reduce the building costs.

Also, I remember reading somewhere that BMO-BSW's tunnel cannot be enlarged to accommodate 4 lines due to difficulty of tunneling under the Bullring and BHM. Wouldn't that apply to HS2 as well even though they have different approach because it still requires them to go under the bullring.

Or I'm just missing something there.

 

[sprinterguy]

I strongly suspect that I've already said it before on this thread, but I can't see why Moor Street and HS2 Curzon Street can't be joined by a single concourse. All the artists' impressions that I've seen suggest that the relative heights of the two stations would be about right for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, I remember reading somewhere that BMO-BSW's tunnel cannot be enlarged to accommodate 4 lines due to difficulty of tunneling under the Bullring and BHM. Wouldn't that apply to HS2 as well even though they have different approach because it still requires them to go under the bullring.

Or I'm just missing something there.

The Moor Street to Snow Hill tunnel doesn't travel under the Bullring, or New Street station. It's the approach lines to New Street station that tunnel under the Bullring, and are restricted to their current four track alignment. HS2 Curzon Street is, of course, going to be a terminal station, so doesn't tunnel under anything.

 

[Nym]

Nor do the approaches tunnel under anything, there are some bridges over it for a road, and a bit of viaduct, but no real tunnels.

 

[sprinterguy]

While we're on the topic of HS2s' Birmingham terminus, a new artists' impression of the proposed Curzon Street station and its' approaches has been published:
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...link-could-look-in-birmingham-97319-30102253/

It's satisfied my curiosity as to how HS2 is going to get over the Cross-City line, which is on quite a high flyover to begin with at Proof House Junction. I'd had difficulty picturing it precisely from the diagrammatic maps.

 

[Nym]

While we're on the topic of HS2s' Birmingham terminus, a new artists' impression of the proposed Curzon Street station and its' approaches has been published:
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...link-could-look-in-birmingham-97319-30102253/

It's satisfied my curiosity as to how HS2 is going to get over the Cross-City line, which is on quite a high flyover to begin with at Proof House Junction. I'd had difficulty picturing it precisely from the diagrammatic maps.

The usual idiots posting comments on there as can be seen...

One must also notice that the way this is layed out doesn't exclude the line being able to link into the XC Route for a line down to Bristol from here, there is space to have a junction off the HS2 route down through onto the route with no stations I forgot the name of

 

[sprinterguy]

The usual idiots posting comments on there as can be seen...

It doesn't help when a lot of the media use the £32 billion/£33 billion cost quote when talking about just the London to Birmingham section of HS2, which is "only" going to cost £17 billion. The higher figure is, as we know, for both currently proposed stages of HS2. A lot of people also don't realise that there's only a pretty small fraction of that total cost earmarked for use in HS2 development during the term of the current Government, up to 2015. I can't remember what the figure was, but I'm sure it was only in the millions.

 

[Geezertronic]

It doesn't help when a lot of the media use the £32 billion/£33 billion cost quote when talking about just the London to Birmingham section of HS2, which is "only" going to cost £17 billion. The higher figure is, as we know, for both currently proposed stages of HS2. A lot of people also don't realise that there's only a pretty small fraction of that total cost earmarked for use in HS2 development during the term of the current Government, up to 2015. I can't remember what the figure was, but I'm sure it was only in the millions.

Yeah I noticed that, doesn't help at all.... the artists impression is nice, where is Moor Street in comparison?

 

[sprinterguy]

the artists impression is nice, where is Moor Street in comparison?

Just above the big silvery mass that is the Bullring in the bottom right hand corner.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One must also notice that the way this is layed out doesn't exclude the line being able to link into the XC Route for a line down to Bristol from here, there is space to have a junction off the HS2 route down through onto the route with no stations I forgot the name of

Camp Hill line?

 

[TSR :D]

I've checked on the map, oops, looks like I'm wrong again.

I thought that, as for "Y" shaped for Leeds and Manchester, the HS2 station needs to be tunnelled for that job.

 

[sprinterguy]

I thought that, as for "Y" shaped for Leeds and Manchester, the HS2 station needs to be tunnelled for that job.

Nope, Leeds and Manchester bound HS2 trains will depart Curzon Street towards Lichfield, using the same route as London bound trains as far as a triangular junction in the vicinity of the planned Birmingham International station if/when the full Y network gets up and running.

 

[Nym]

Camp Hill line?

Yep, thats the one...

Did some geometry on the alignment when I first saw it ages ago and it is do-able to form a junction from both directions onto the Camp Hill Line, so if ERTMS brings 140mph running to other mainlines, or for when HS3, 4, and 5 get built (or high speed track sections to reduce journey times) then the XC Network can use this section.

I still maintain, Manchester's approach is going to be a damn sight more difficult than Leeds or Birmingham

Birmingam was easy on both accounts (ish)

Manchester has a fantastic area available for the station (Baring St) but is a pain to build the approaches, either needs about 50 - 60 private houses and 10 or so businesses to go (Following the Styal Branch), or tunnels. And for a similar setup as Birmingham, 22km of tunneling (Tunnel from Manchester S Parkway to Longsight), you can strike a balance by loosing about 12 businesses (industry) and about 4 - 5 private homes (Surface through industrial estates, following the line of the origonal M60, then tunnel under Didsbury, Fallowfeild and S Longsight, immerge at Manchester Intl. Depot to form the tunnel portal, and then dedicated lines on the viaduct to Baring St), and needing about 12 - 14km of tunneling.

Leeds is the other way round, approach is easy through Strouton Ind Areas, cut off a freightliner depot (or cut it in half) and run as a four track route into the Leeds City area, but then there's nowhere, short of the station car park, to put the platforms.

 

[Tiny Tim]

I think that historically we should expect the next big change of direction in the dominant form of transport in the not too distant future. However if it is to happen, then I would expect it to be something far more radical than sticking to fixed guided path systems such as railways or maglevs. The "why should they be rails" comment is very apt.

Converting the nations' railways to maglevs or monorails would be phenomenally expensive and completely superfluous.

We presently rely on two steel rails 4'8" apart (other gauges are available). Will we continue to do so forever? Can anyone see the time when our 19th century technology is deemed no longer fit for purpose? There's no immediate prospect of a monorail or maglev line being built, but one day.........

 

[Badger]

Maybe a daft idea, but if the borsersley junction was built, then there could be a short train going from Five Ways - New Street - St Andrews - Bordersley - Moor Street - Snow Hill - Jewellery Quarter, creating a sort of tube-style city route joining everything together. Could that work?

This would provide a link from New Street to Curzon Street (Moor Street entrance).

 

[DXMachina]

Every year the amount of interconnected, global, 4ft8.5 increases

It will never be converted. There is no possible reason good enough to justify the cost

 

[Tiny Tim]

Every year the amount of interconnected, global, 4ft8.5 increases

It will never be converted. There is no possible reason good enough to justify the cost

I'm old enough to remember these three predictions (All from well-informed sources.)

1. A computer will never be able to play chess.

2. Man will never walk on the moon.

3. There will never be a need for home computers.

Care to add to these?

 

[Geezertronic]

I'm old enough to remember these three predictions (All from well-informed sources.)

1. A computer will never be able to play chess.

2. Man will never walk on the moon.

3. There will never be a need for home computers.

Care to add to these?

I don't see how they compare to converting 10,000s of 1000s of miles of rail to a different gauge in the UK and Europe

 

[Greenback]

I don't see how they compare to converting 10,000s of 1000s of miles of rail to a different gauge in the UK and Europe

Neither do I, if I'm honest. There are plenty of things that some were convinced would be the future, that disappeared into the dustbin of history instead. Atmospheric railway anyone?

 

[Chris125]

There's no immediate prospect of a monorail or maglev line being built, but one day.........

Rail might be a 200 year old technology, but its widespread, proven, and is extremely flexible - as suitable for slow, heavy freight as it is for 200mph+ passenger trains. Maglevs and Monorails can fulfill a certain niche, but a replacement for conventional railways they arent and never will be.

Chris
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm old enough to remember these three predictions (All from well-informed sources.)

1. A computer will never be able to play chess.

2. Man will never walk on the moon.

3. There will never be a need for home computers.

Care to add to these?

....but we arent talking about technology - Brunel tried it back in the mid 1800's! Its really about cost vs benefit.

When the GWR tried a wider gauge back when the railway network was a fraction of the size it now is the benefits still didnt outweigh the disadvantages of having two seperate networks, and certainly not the expense of widening existing, narrower lines.

Its the same reason why existing lines arent rebuilt to HSL standards and new lines are usually built on seperate alignments - the disruption and cost of altering the existing network is simply too high.

Chris