High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Haydn1971]

And that last sentance there Haydn is why HS2 is a gamble, just one i think we should take because if we dont and it goes wrong, it will be far worse!

Yes, indeed, It's a matter of perspective - I don't see £32Bn as a huge amount over the construction period when compared with current big projects like Crossrail and Thameslink - I'm not much of a betting man, but would wager passenger numbers increasing on rail much more than I would people taking more holidays on budget airlines.

As for travelling to Europe on HS2/1, that's more of an unknown.

 

[Holly]

My prediction is zero through services per day. But excellent interchange facilities in London.

Yes.
It is more a matter of extending HS1 to OOC than any form of through services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Who would have imagine the smartphone tsunami we have today 20 years ago, that we would run out of IP addresses 30 years ago, or indeed, having lower speed limits on motorways at peak times.

No market now, sure, but in 20-30 years, who knows for sure

This being so, I can see this thread rivalling "Stagecoach North West fleet changes" on this website in its future numbers of both postings and views..:roll:

 

[JohnB57]

This being so, I can see this thread rivalling "Stagecoach North West fleet changes" on this website in its future numbers of both postings and views..:roll:

That's a good thing, isn't it? And what you'd expect from a project of its size and importance - which is what even the most agnostic of contributor has to agree HS2 is.

Should we be worried or relieved that in thirty years time, medium haul European travel may be either far more costly or much slower, depending on our pockets? Do we see that as a step backwards or maybe a much needed calming effect? Because if rail becomes the primary modal choice for such journeys on cost grounds, that has to happen. Apart from journeys between the South East and northern France and Belgium, the train cannot and will never be able to compete with flying.

Just to give a personal example, I recently had to travel to Vienna for a short meeting and flew there with Swissair from Manchester via Zurich, which in itself was not particularly quick but doable with one overnight stay. As an academic exercise I looked at taking trains but once I got beyond the third day, I gave it up. Business can't afford those timescales these days.

 

[HSTEd]

....

I am almost certain it is possible to cover Manchester to Zurich in one day now.

Since it is possible to cover Grantham to St Anton am Arlberg in one day (and has been even before the latest tranche of LGV openings), I've done it.

Even Vienna shows as a single overnight journey, and that is before we get LGV almost all the way to Zurich.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just to give a personal example, I recently had to travel to Vienna for a short meeting and flew there with Swissair from Manchester via Zurich, which in itself was not particularly quick but doable with one overnight stay. As an academic exercise I looked at taking trains but once I got beyond the third day, I gave it up. Business can't afford those timescales these days.

When considering such a business journey as you have stated, it is interesting to note that business travel and time scheduling go hand in hand and seek the optimum method from travelling from one place to another in the EC area. I have flown to a number of European destinations from Manchester Airport in the past on business travel for our Consultancy prior to my retirement.

 

[JohnB57]

....

I am almost certain it is possible to cover Manchester to Zurich in one day now.

Since it is possible to cover Grantham to St Anton am Arlberg in one day (and has been even before the latest tranche of LGV openings), I've done it.

Even Vienna shows as a single overnight journey, and that is before we get LGV almost all the way to Zurich.

I was looking at the return trip, which together with the purpose of my visit went into a fourth day.

However tight the rail schedule could have been made though, it's difficult to see how it can compete on time in real terms and for most peoples' purposes on journeys like this. Cost is a whole 'nother topic of course.

 

[steamdrivenand]

I was looking at the return trip, which together with the purpose of my visit went into a fourth day.

However tight the rail schedule could have been made though, it's difficult to see how it can compete on time in real terms and for most peoples' purposes on journeys like this. Cost is a whole 'nother topic of course.

John, Are you related to a Jeremy Clarkson by any chance?

 

[JohnB57]

John, Are you related to a Jeremy Clarkson by any chance?

Not that I know of - both Yorkshiremen but that's where the similarity ends.

The three and a half/four days was a theoretical rail journey to Vienna and back by the way. Not a non-stop journey by Bugatti Veyron...

 

[Haydn1971]

john, are you related to a jeremy clarkson by any chance?

more power !!!

 

[steamdrivenand]

Not that I know of - both Yorkshiremen but that's where the similarity ends.

The three and a half/four days was a theoretical rail journey to Vienna and back by the way. Not a non-stop journey by Bugatti Veyron...

 

[AndyLandy]

So France isn't serious about building a meaningful HS network? They didn't even tweak it to make TGV Nord and TGV Est terminate in the same station, but instead two near each other...

If people are expected to make cross-Paris Intercity journeys by carting their luggage across on the Paris Metro, then yes, France isn't doing it properly either.

As for excuses, how about:
1)a single London terminus for High Speed trains to all over the country (including the South Coast as well as Kent, Europe, North and West) will feed too much traffic onto the tube network for adequate dispersal of traffic through central London (even if each line had their own OOC-style 'get a third of the traffic off' station).
2)a single London terminus for High Speed trains would have too many platforms.
3)security checks for the Channel Tunnel puts paid to easily and practically having a through station with through running and no/few terminal platforms.
4)the geography and demand patterns likewise prevent that sort of set up
5)huge expense for little gain

1) I'll concede that point, but I don't think it's insoluble, it would just require some serious thought about how and where to put tube entrances. Paddington has two separate tube stations, a similar arrangement might work for an HS terminal.
2) How do you justify "too many" platforms? Grand Central, NY has 44. Is that "too many"?
3) That depends on whether we're talking domestic or international HS travel. I'm largely looking at domestic travel here.
4/5) On what do you base these claims?

Sure, 45 minute journeys on the tube (is there even one inter-terminus journey in London that takes that long?) is not good, but a couple of minutes on the tube, or a 10 minute walk, or a 5 minute travelator journey isn't really a hardship - the latter two transfer times could well exist in the same station (and certainly do in airports) - especially if the station had most of the capital's intercity trains serve it!As long as 19 minutes? Heathrow Express takes 15 minutes between Paddington and Central today. Take 4 minutes off for Paddington-OOC, and wack it back on for being on the slows and stopping at Ealing Broadway and Hayes & Harlington if (when) HEx is taken over by Crossrail. That gives 15 minutes.

Last time I checked the National Rail journey planner, every inter-terminus tube journey takes 45+ minutes. I've had tickets issued with up to 70 minutes to make a connection between Euston and Waterloo.

Connection times in airports are less of a fair comparison, as you don't have to cart your hold luggage between terminals.

Anyway, all that said, I realise that it's not so much about requiring a single terminus station, but more about removing the need to cart heavy bags on to the tube, or for the NR journey planner to have to build in whacking great amounts of contingency time. Solutions to that, such as a travelator between stations are perfectly acceptable as a compromise.

 

[JohnB57]

There seems to be something of an assumption that HS2 will significantly increase tourist traffic to and from HS1 and at the risk of being boring, I don't see it. The only thing that HS2 will improve is the time taken to get into London. It adds no new journey possibilities at all and even after construction, I believe the majority of connecting journeys to and from the continent will still be on classic services.

However, easy interchange is vital in terms of HS2 achieving its main purpose of relieving capacity elsewhere. Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross can really be viewed as single terminus - they are separated by only 650 metres. To put that in perspective, it's a 700 metre walk from Manchester Airport terminal 1 to terminal 2.

The point that Andy makes about airport baggage transfer is only valid if you are able to book through with partner airlines otherwise you're on your own. But even for those who are carrying heavy baggage, easy, segregated transfer between the three stations should be fairly straightforward to design.

There are and always will be major differences between rail and air operations, but the most successful airports have to blend transport modes or they wouldn't succeed. The same has to apply to rail, especially when long, fast journeys are possible.

 

[glbotu]

Last time I checked the National Rail journey planner, every inter-terminus tube journey takes 45+ minutes. I've had tickets issued with up to 70 minutes to make a connection between Euston and Waterloo.

The same National Rail journey planner that has suggested 30 min changeover from King's Cross to St Pancras - a 2 minute walk, or for Glasgow Central - Queen Street, a 5 min walk. The National Rail journey planner is a bit thick/pessimistic, when it comes to the tube/OSIs. Euston-Waterloo is about 20 mins on the Northern line, not 70 mins. The hardest inter-terminal tube journey I guess would be Paddinton - Fenchurch Street. That might hit 45 mins. I reckon they may improve the reliability of such things were the need there. At the moment, it makes more sense to play it safe (very very safe), than be accurate to prevent missing trains etc.

 

[LE Greys]

The same National Rail journey planner that has suggested 30 min changeover from King's Cross to St Pancras - a 2 minute walk, or for Glasgow Central - Queen Street, a 5 min walk. The National Rail journey planner is a bit thick/pessimistic, when it comes to the tube/OSIs. Euston-Waterloo is about 20 mins on the Northern line, not 70 mins. The hardest inter-terminal tube journey I guess would be Paddinton - Fenchurch Street. That might hit 45 mins. I reckon they may improve the reliability of such things were the need there. At the moment, it makes more sense to play it safe (very very safe), than be accurate to prevent missing trains etc.

I take it they're assuming a mobility-impaired passenger at a busy time with heavy luggage. The website does have a 'reduce journey times through London' option (I always tick it). However, it makes sense to play it with care, just in case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The point that Andy makes about airport baggage transfer is only valid if you are able to book through with partner airlines otherwise you're on your own. But even for those who are carrying heavy baggage, easy, segregated transfer between the three stations should be fairly straightforward to design.

You'd've thought so, wouldn't you? A combination of the Circle Line, the British Library and significant London traffic makes it decidedly difficult. Still, Euston itself needs major work on Underground access. A new ticket hall with exits onto Euston Road and a passageway to Euston Square would be a good idea.

 

[nick.c]

Probably just a crazy thought - but could Manchester be in line for 3 HS2 stations?

The Phase 2 map published in the Sunday Times showed a short spur to the airport with the line into Manchester going a little further to the west. Some people think this could be a miss-print - and that could well be the case.

The "obvious" route to serve Manchester would be a line going through the airport and upto Man Picc. Although ideal it would be hugely expensive requiring either major tunnelling or a massive upgrade (4-track) to the existing infrastructural. However there is an alternative.

Perhaps half of the services could be sent to the Airport and then on the existing line to Picc. It might just be possible to fit this volume (2tph from London plus 1tph from Birm) onto the existing route with minimal changes required except for lengthening some platforms at Picc. The other 3tph (from London / Birm) would use a new / upgraded line on the surface and terminate at a new HS2 station at Salford Quays. This station would also serve all Man to Scot services.

Hopefully not too long before we find out for sure.

 

[rebmcr]

Probably just a crazy thought - but could Manchester be in line for 3 HS2 stations?

The Phase 2 map published in the Sunday Times showed a short spur to the airport with the line into Manchester going a little further to the west. Some people think this could be a miss-print - and that could well be the case.

The "obvious" route to serve Manchester would be a line going through the airport and upto Man Picc. Although ideal it would be hugely expensive requiring either major tunnelling or a massive upgrade (4-track) to the existing infrastructural. However there is an alternative.

Perhaps half of the services could be sent to the Airport and then on the existing line to Picc. It might just be possible to fit this volume (2tph from London plus 1tph from Birm) onto the existing route with minimal changes required except for lengthening some platforms at Picc. The other 3tph (from London / Birm) would use a new / upgraded line on the surface and terminate at a new HS2 station at Salford Quays. This station would also serve all Man to Scot services.

Hopefully not too long before we find out for sure.

I think the Birmingham-Euston plans have shown that a relatively huge amount of tunnelling is par for HS2's course.

 

[JohnB57]

But even for those who are carrying heavy baggage, easy, segregated transfer between the three stations should be fairly straightforward to design.

You'd've thought so, wouldn't you? A combination of the Circle Line, the British Library and significant London traffic makes it decidedly difficult. Still, Euston itself needs major work on Underground access. A new ticket hall with exits onto Euston Road and a passageway to Euston Square would be a good idea.

A quick look at the area (which I know quite well anyway) doesn't make an elevated walkway, maybe on the line of Brill Place, look like too much of a problem.

If there's a will - and a business case - I guess...

 

[HSTEd]

If people are expected to make cross-Paris Intercity journeys by carting their luggage across on the Paris Metro, then yes, France isn't doing it properly either.

Gare de L'Est and Gare du Nord are hardly a Paris Metro journey apart.
They are more like King's Cross and St Pancras.
And I believe you can get to Gare de Lyon from the Nord-Est complex using only the RER, which outside peak hours is far less cramped and is faster.

1) I'll concede that point, but I don't think it's insoluble, it would just require some serious thought about how and where to put tube entrances. Paddington has two separate tube stations, a similar arrangement might work for an HS terminal.

Being as the Crossrail stations apparently cost on order of a billion pounds each, at least in the case of Tottenham Court, having a second tube station (presumably each would be on several lines) to spread the load is almost unthinkably expensive.
A far better use of resources would be providing an orbital High speed route around london linking all the routes together and then either running obvious cross country journeys or simply having sets that arrive on one route then reverse and run out to the orbital and loop around to another route and either return to London via that line or simply head out to wherever.

For instance: Edinburgh-Euston-Penzance or Edinburgh-Euston-Paddington.

2) How do you justify "too many" platforms? Grand Central, NY has 44. Is that "too many"?

American Railroads, commuter ones especially (which is what serves Grand Central now that Amtrak has entirely decamped to Penn Station) are apparently very fond of using platforms in stations to stock equipment.
Its part of the madness that leads to the LIRR running peak trains in one direction.... on its two track main line.

The actual number of trains arriving and departing is more like one of the larger London termini.

Anyway, all that said, I realise that it's not so much about requiring a single terminus station, but more about removing the need to cart heavy bags on to the tube, or for the NR journey planner to have to build in whacking great amounts of contingency time. Solutions to that, such as a travelator between stations are perfectly acceptable as a compromise.

Travelators might be adequate between Euston and KGX/St Pancras.... but I would like to see a travelator go all the way to Paddington, let alone one of the South London stations.

 

[AndyLandy]

Gare de L'Est and Gare du Nord are hardly a Paris Metro journey apart.
They are more like King's Cross and St Pancras.
And I believe you can get to Gare de Lyon from the Nord-Est complex using only the RER, which outside peak hours is far less cramped and is faster.




Being as the Crossrail stations apparently cost on order of a billion pounds each, at least in the case of Tottenham Court, having a second tube station (presumably each would be on several lines) to spread the load is almost unthinkably expensive.
A far better use of resources would be providing an orbital High speed route around london linking all the routes together and then either running obvious cross country journeys or simply having sets that arrive on one route then reverse and run out to the orbital and loop around to another route and either return to London via that line or simply head out to wherever.

For instance: Edinburgh-Euston-Penzance or Edinburgh-Euston-Paddington.



American Railroads, commuter ones especially (which is what serves Grand Central now that Amtrak has entirely decamped to Penn Station) are apparently very fond of using platforms in stations to stock equipment.
Its part of the madness that leads to the LIRR running peak trains in one direction.... on its two track main line.

The actual number of trains arriving and departing is more like one of the larger London termini.



Travelators might be adequate between Euston and KGX/St Pancras.... but I would like to see a travelator go all the way to Paddington, let alone one of the South London stations.

What you say makes a lot of sense. Having HS terminals at EUS and STP is perfectly reasonable if we can facilitate getting between the two. But if we add an HS line to Bristol/the West Country, the London end should really be easily accessible from the existing HS terminals.

 

[brianthegiant]

Being as the Crossrail stations apparently cost on order of a billion pounds each, at least in the case of Tottenham Court, having a second tube station (presumably each would be on several lines) to spread the load is almost unthinkably expensive.

Not sure if Tottenham Court Road is necessarily representative of Crossrail station costs, since costs increase the closer to the centre you get.

What you say makes a lot of sense. Having HS terminals at EUS and STP is perfectly reasonable if we can facilitate getting between the two. But if we add an HS line to Bristol/the West Country, the London end should really be easily accessible from the existing HS terminals.

Indeed HS3 West could connect with HS2(+HS1) at Old Oak Common.

One would hope that E* & DB will run some European services up HS2, otherwise the NLL HS2- HS1 link will be a waste of money.
Some will point to the previous E* North of London debacle. but that was on classic lines which are a different story on reliability (as E* well know...).

But I suppose only a limited number of Europe services will go HS1-HS2, since they won't stop anywhere in Central London. So inevitably some people will want to go from EUS - STP.

Thankfully the distance between the 2 is about the same as Gare de L'est to Gare du Nord. But like Paris there would be no provision to take a luggage trolley between the 2, a subterranean travelator would be a big advantage in that regard, more like changing terminals than battling London streets.

 

[billio]

Thankfully the distance between the 2 [Euston = St Pancras] is about the same as Gare de L'est to Gare du Nord. But like Paris there would be no provision to take a luggage trolley between the 2, a subterranean travelator would be a big advantage in that regard, more like changing terminals than battling London streets.

Except there's a large building next to St Pancras that in total descends over 100 feet below ground (basements + undercroft + piling) .

Why not an above ground travelator running along Euston Road perhaps with above-street entrances into the numerous hotels in that area ?.

 

[AndyLandy]

Except there's a large building next to St Pancras that in total descends over 100 feet below ground (basements + undercroft + piling) .

Why not an above ground travelator running along Euston Road perhaps with above-street entrances into the numerous hotels in that area ?.

What's the underground footprint of the British Library though? Does it extend under Euston Road? You might not be able to go under the Library, but you might be able to go round it!

On the other hand, I love the idea of an elevated moving walkway in a glass tube, that would look awesome!

 

[PR1Berske]

Futurama style sky-tubes?

 

[AndyLandy]

Futurama style sky-tubes?

So long as I don't get whacked on the head by my own luggage, I'd be up for that!

 

[Geezertronic]

So long as I don't get whacked on the head by my own luggage, I'd be up for that!

You might end up going up someone elses "luggage" if you're not careful

 

[rebmcr]

Why not an above ground travelator running along Euston Road perhaps with above-street entrances into the numerous hotels in that area ?.

That's exactly what they have at Manchester Airport (amongst many others), it would be ideal, methinks.

 

[Dave1987]

I know there are quite a few threads on HS2 but in this one I wanted to discuss whether people think it will actually get built. From reading the comments on the BBC news site it seems there are quite a lot of anti's and I fear that the coalition will not hold their nerve and build it. I really want them to build it as I can see how much it will benefit the north. It seems a lot of the anti's arguments re about their lives being disrupted and the "I'm alright Jack" attitude and not thinking about the economic benefits it would bring the north. Incidentally I do not live in the north. I feel that HS2 will be a project the country will be proud of.

 

[Lampshade]

Possibly, after 10 years of talking about it, 5 years to build it and 5 years to put it right when it inevitably goes balls up.

 

[Harbon 1]

Possibly, after 10 years of talking about it, 5 years to build it and 5 years to put it right when it inevitably goes balls up.

And the correct answer goes to!

Exactly what will happen, not to mention it arriving late and waaaaay over budget