High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[JohnB57]

When you take into account inflation I think you find it was on budget.

I don't want to labour the point but I'm afraid inflation between 1992 and 2007 was slightly under 50%, accounting for £1.3bn. An overspend versus the original budget (although I haven't checked the quoted figures) of £1.9bn or 48.7% in real terms.

 

[tbtc]

No it wasn't - BR quoted £2.6 billion in 1990 I think. It cost £5.8 billion in the end. People claim HS1 was on budget just like the politicians claim that the Olympics was on budget.

Surely a better benchmark would be what the project was costed for when work commenced.

 

[jon0844]

It didnt it was on time on budget

That's what I thought, yet I am always hearing that it's inevitable that it will overspend by <insert random> amounts.

No it wasn't - BR quoted £2.6 billion in 1990 I think. It cost £5.8 billion in the end. People claim HS1 was on budget just like the politicians claim that the Olympics was on budget.

They didn't start building it in 1990 though (and, as an aside, I do think it was highly embarrassing that we didn't build a high-speed line for so long after the tunnel opened in 1994) so as said after, what was the cost before construction went ahead?

Perhaps HS2 will be costed higher if there are more and more delays, but the important thing will be that whatever is costed at day one of building starting remains the same at the end.

 

[JohnB57]

Which is why I didn't say it would run over budget, merely that...

The £33bn will, naturally, increase significantly, as will the cost of borrowing it.

 

[The Ham]

1. The only significant income it will make is from the extortionate fares that will be charged. In effect the only economic benefit will be the people that will have the cheaper fares in the areas that HS2 bypasses on the southern WCML.

Rail fares will not be extortionate on HS2 and as cheap as chips on the WCLM, as if the WCML makes their fares too cheap then they will not have the space on their trains and so they will put their prices up. Likewise if HS2 is too expensive no one will use it and the train fares will fall.

2. I never said it would be easy to upgrade a route with extra lines or high speed running, but it would be quicker to upgrade an existing route as there wouldn't be 10 years of planning plus a further 10 of building, and there would be nearly no opposition, and nowhere would be noticeably affected in the ways the NIMBYs are saying. A line visible on the level won't seem any closer than the existing alignment did. And the most that people would lose, is a bit of their garden, which is better then their home.

If I had to sell a bit of my garden or my whole house for above the market rate I know which I would prefer.

3. The majority of people travel in the week, there is nowhere near as many people travelling on a Saturday than there is on any given weekday. Having a bus replacing services for half a year at will still happen if HS2 is built. The line has to pass over the WCML, and bridges will have to be built. This takes several possessions as a bridge reconstruction near me has demonstrated. Not to mention the disruption at Euston because of the complete reconstruction of the station. It doesn't take a few months to re construct a station, as St P. demonstrated and New St. will demonstrate. What's wrong with a blockade? Stopping trains over a period of reduced travel has happened and is still happening (Nottingham this summer). And for the most part, again from my own experience, the updating of a lesser used track, or the addition of an extra track on the outside on ex railway land isn't as disruptive as it is made out to be. PW have been replacing a freight line outside my house and it has taken them a week to re-lay the line (still waiting for tamping, that's being used where they're lowering the line for W10).

There may well be less people on a weekend, but depending on the line it can be not that much less, I've been on trains on both Saturdays and Sundays which have been full and standing (both commuter and intercity services).

4. Birmingham to Leeds is very possible at the present time... Every route (London - Birmingham, Sheffield, *Manchester, Leeds etc) are already *possible. And they're not exactly long journeys either.

It is possible to drive between Kent & Essex, but there is talk of another Datford crossing. Why, because there is problems with capacity, which is the reason for HS2.

5. Again, closing and rebuilding will cost enough money and delays, possessions and blockades that will disrupt the WCML. The WCML will then be further disrupted with the construction works for HS2 and will be left with fewer platforms.

There have been suggestions that some of the commuter services into Euston could become extensions of Crossrail, which removes the need for them to call at Euston, it also frees up some of the demand for tube services. As such the rebuilding of Euston may not be such as big cause of disruption as it could be.

 

[Metrailway]

Surely a better benchmark would be what the project was costed for when work commenced.

I guess it depends on how you define "when work commenced". I believe BR already bought a lot of housing by 1990 - a further stage than HS2 Ltd are now.

In 1996, when the CTRL Act was passed, the link was costed at around £3 billion. In 1998 it became £5.2 billion.

 

[The Ham]

One thing I find interesting about the HS2 debate is one minute folks are saying that the existing ECML services will just carry on then the next that HS2 will free up spaces for slower services on the ECML. Some contradiction there I think.

In reality, it is likely to be a bit of both.

There will still be some demand from passengers travelling between two points on the ECML which are not on HS2, so there will remain some semi-fast services which run almost as fast as they do at the moment. Along with that the ECML will want to retain some of their existing passengers so will price their tickets competitively for those for whom the cost is of greater importance than time.

However, because there will be a number of people who no longer use the ECML because they use HS2, there will be less of the very fast services enabling a more frequent (slower) service to be run to more of the stations along the line

 

[jon0844]

Which is why I didn't say it would run over budget, merely that...

If it is unnecessarily delayed by the anti-HS2 brigade, costs will go up simply because of inflation and the money wasted on fighting them.. so they should perhaps consider this, but obviously won't.

While there will be disruption during construction, which I can accept people won't like (yet that would be worse trying to upgrade existing lines), once finished the impact on the environment would be quite minimal. Even new roads usually blend in very well these days.

 

[The Ham]

I guess it depends on how you define "when work commenced". I believe BR already bought a lot of housing by 1990 - a further stage than HS2 Ltd are now.

In 1996, when the CTRL Act was passed, the link was costed at around £3 billion. In 1998 it became £5.2 billion.

Which is why there is something like 65% of the budget is listed as contingencies (as is the case for all large projects), as until the design is finalised and work starts there are a lot of unknowns.

For instance, something as simple as how firm the underlying ground is can make a significant difference to how much work and material is needed. However without testing, can be more costly to do before works start on site or just before works start on site (especially in cuttings) than it costs in the extra labour and materials. Therefore the testing is only done when its needed and assumptions are made until that point.

 

[Dave1987]

If it is unnecessarily delayed by the anti-HS2 brigade, costs will go up simply because of inflation and the money wasted on fighting them.. so they should perhaps consider this, but obviously won't.

While there will be disruption during construction, which I can accept people won't like (yet that would be worse trying to upgrade existing lines), once finished the impact on the environment would be quite minimal. Even new roads usually blend in very well these days.

I totally agree. The 51M group seem determined to mount as many legal challenges as possible. The the people who think that those of us that advocate HS2 would be NIMBYs is an airport or footbal stadium was built next to our homes, I wouldnt no. If I could see the proposal was in the national interest and would provide a boost to the UK I would gladly sell my house at the inflated rate that the HS2 people are being offered. I believe they will be offered the market price without the line there! The benefits of HS2 are soo massive I really cant see any valid arguments against it. Upgrading the current infrastructure simply isnt viable and would create more chaos of bus replacements (ow how people moan about having to take a bus while NR maintain the line)

 

[JohnCarlson]

In reality, it is likely to be a bit of both.

There will still be some demand from passengers travelling between two points on the ECML which are not on HS2, so there will remain some semi-fast services which run almost as fast as they do at the moment. Along with that the ECML will want to retain some of their existing passengers so will price their tickets competitively for those for whom the cost is of greater importance than time.

However, because there will be a number of people who no longer use the ECML because they use HS2, there will be less of the very fast services enabling a more frequent (slower) service to be run to more of the stations along the line

It can't be a bit of both. Either things carry on as before or they dont.

I dont buy this reduced speed argument at all. There are not many places I can think of South of Doncatser where extra stations could be added. I can imagine the reaction in Grantham etc if they were told their journies to London will take longer.

 

[Haydn1971]

In 1996, when the CTRL Act was passed, the link was costed at around £3 billion. In 1998 it became £5.2 billion.

The concept of "optimum bias" wasn't used back in the 90's, today when talking about finance on major projects, a factor is included in the cost estimate - for "standard civil engineering" which would be building railways and roads etc, a factor of 44% is applied - which kinda matches the original £3bn vs the final £5Bn for CTRL

 

[The Ham]

It can't be a bit of both. Either things carry on as before or they dont.

I dont buy this reduced speed argument at all. There are not many places I can think of South of Doncatser where extra stations could be added. I can imagine the reaction in Grantham etc if they were told their journies to London will take longer.

Obviously there will be changes, but mostly on the frequency of the very fast trains such as the withdrawal of the Flying Scotsman and services which run fast to York (from London) from the southern ECML, which for most people will cause them no problems.

The paths of those services could then be used to increase the frequency of other slower trains. However a) not all the fast and semi fast trains will run slower b) most of the services which call at the less major stations (like Grantham) will not be reduced in speed, however there may well be more services for them to travel on.

How much more useful is a train that takes 2 hours to get to London which runs every 3 hours over a train that takes 2 and a half hours but runs hourly? Time saving for passengers in the real world tends to include how long they have to wait before when they want to go and the next train and/or how early they arrive at where they are going.

 

[HSTEd]

There are something like 18 trains per day that do not stop south of Doncaster on the ECML currently.
If they are all withdrawn you might get something like another hourly all stopper to Newark/York in their place.

The question is whether this can be done without leading to the inevitable elimination of all faster trains. (Hopefully the temptation to put more calls in south of Peterborough can be avoided as they will have the all singing all dancing Thameslink programme).


And the HS2 capacity estimates are based on service friction braking only with top speed in the range of 360kph.

I am attempting to modify teh study to account for 320kph and possibly for an increased braking factor from the eddy current brakes that we can fit now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have just come up with the reason why trains couldn't always virtually run nose to tail even if the speed of the one in front was known to the one behind. When the paths diverge the points will need to change between the trains and the train behind has to be at least its braking distance behind incase there is a points failure.

Points failing to interlock is a proper emergeancy however, so simply using service friction braking rates to stop to avoid overrunning is unneccesarily conservative.

You can reasonably authorise the use of full emergency braking, friction and otherwise in that situation.

 

[Nym]

Dynamic brakes cannot be taken into account for emergency braking profiles, same as the pre westcode EP brakes couldn't. They're not failsafe...

 

[HSTEd]

Dynamic brakes cannot be taken into account for emergency braking profiles, same as the pre westcode EP brakes couldn't. They're not failsafe...

This would not be dynamic brakes, this would brakes like linear Eddy Current Brakes.
Those are massively redundant within the trainset in these days of distributed traction so I believe that a proportion of them could be declared to always be functional in an accident.

But even so, the Japanese managed to stop a trainset from 320kph using only friction brakes within just 4000m in actual wet rail conditions (as it appears that the water/ice and railhead is gone completely by the fifth vehicle which means that a 400m train has little to fear from it).
And that was without the esoteric braking technology they applied in the project to enable 4000m stopping distances from 360kph (air brakes)

 

[JamesRowden]

I have found a document with data for a 9-car pendolino at http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollection.../T712_anxE.pdf.

The formula is:

Resistance (N) = 5311 + 21.696 v + 0.9097 v2

Resistance in N, V in km/h

This means that to run at a constant speed of 200 km/h (~125mph) the output energy per km would need to be: 46.0 MJ/km (12.8 kWh/km)

At 400 km/h (~250mph) it would be: 160 MJ/km (44.4 kWh/km)

If I use an 18 car pendolino to model your 400m train, I guess that the linear and constant forces will be directly proportional to the train lenght while the square component will remain constant (since it represents the air resistance, although it in reality it would incresase because their is a square component to friction force (High speeds are required to make it signinicant).

Using the 18-car pendolino model:

200 km/h (~125mph): 55.7 MJ/km (15.5 kWh/km)
400 km/h (~250mph): 174 MJ/km(48.2 kWh/km)

I could not find the price per kWh that the rail industry gets but I saw that the Manufacturing industry has to pay about 8p/kwh.

This means that for the distance from London to Birmingham (163km), ignroing acceleration and deccaleration, the energy costs are:

200 km/h (~125mph): £202 (881 seats and so 22.9p per passenger, assuming all seats used) (ignores motor inefficieny)
400 km/h (~250mph): £629 (881 seats and so 71.4p per passenger, assuming all seats used) (ignores motor inefficiency

People are welcome to check my figures to see if I have made a mistake somewhere. But figures appear to confirm that energy usage is not presently a financial issue with high speed rail (I have forggotton to include electric motor and electrical tranmission losses these will increase the required input energy). Tempting people out of their cars would probably save more energy than the additional energy that the line would use. An issue left is how much will the 250mph stock cost?

 

[WatcherZero]

The other thing is what degree of aerodynamic shaping they will use. The A4 quite famously performed better when the aerodynamic cladding dead weight was removed during WWII. For a Pendolino the current shaping is probably just right for the speed it travels. Faster trains for HS2 would likely consider the weight penalty of extra aero-dynamics justified with longer noses producing compartively less friction than a Pendolino at the same speed but probably weaker efficency caused by extra weight when travelling at a Pendolinos speed.

 

[HSTEd]

Long formed TGV Duplexes are probably optimum really.
V150 demonstrated that you can get enough power and tractive effort into Duplex equipment to support a 400m set in principle.

 

[Chris125]

An update in the TfL Commissioner's Report

HS2

TfL is reviewing the initial preliminary designs (designated B1) along the Phase 1 line
of route in London, in particular the new stations at Euston and Old Oak Common.
The designs incorporate a number of TfL requirements including the need to ensure
that any designs meet or exceed TfL standards such as step-free access throughout
the LU station at Euston station. The designs are being reviewed by staff across TfL
with the expectation of submitting further comments to HS2 Ltd by the end of
January.

Work is progressing on the feasibility of an Overground station at Old Oak Common
jointly with HS2 Ltd, National Rail and the DfT. The feasibility will consider the
engineering / constructability, operational and economic / business case impacts.
The assessment is planned to conclude by the end of February 2013 after which the
DfT will discuss with the Mayor the most appropriate route forward.

Chris

 

[TGV]

But even so, the Japanese managed to stop a trainset from 320kph using only friction brakes within just 4000m in actual wet rail conditions (as it appears that the water/ice and railhead is gone completely by the fifth vehicle which means that a 400m train has little to fear from it).
And that was without the esoteric braking technology they applied in the project to enable 4000m stopping distances from 360kph (air brakes)

Using only friction brakes would not necessarily be a limiting factor in minimum braking distance performance. It may be that even if you had dynamic braking on top of that (excluding eddy current devices) that the distance wouldn't be reduced any further. If the friction brakes are capable of locking an axle (and they invariably are, especially in wet conditions) then they already possess more than enough retardation force than is needed and dynamic braking wouldn't improve the situation.

This is based on the assumptions that all axles have friction brakes and not all are powered (i.e. have dynamic brake).

 

[Rhydgaled]

The people against it have some very odd reasons... and being bad for the environment certainly seems the weirdest one of all. Compared to what? Flying, cars?

Compared to cars, maybe HighSpeed rail isn't great for the enviroment, but compared to air travel HighSpeed rail is almost certainly 'greener'.

I'm not anti HS2, I'm just anti HS2's current form...

As am I, partly because of my above enviromental comment. 250mph London - Birmingham services is not a good idea in my opinion, since it is only competing against road travel not aviation. My opinion is that either Birmingham should be just an intermediate station on a through route to Manchester with through running (over classic lines) from Crewe to Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow, or the London - Birmingham route should be run using 125/140mph trains (which probably would need 4-track to London from the proposed HS2 station near Birmingham Internation, with the fast lines for 200+mph trains to Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland and the slow lines for 125/140mph passenger trains and perhaps some freight). At the very least there should be no notion of Birmingham as 'phase one' and Manchester/Leeds as 'phase two', if and when works starts it must not break before reaching Manchester, Leeds could perhaps be a phase two though.

The other reasons I'm anti-HS2 are the proposed Heathrow spur (though I haven't been following developments so not sure if that's still the plan), the Old Oak Common station (I'm not sure adding a stop between Reading and PAD on GWML Intercity services from Bristol and Wales is a good idea) and the fact the WCML doesn't seem to be as full as the GWML and lines out of London to Southampton/Portsmouth/Brighton etc. If capacity case for HS2 is so compelling, then shouldn't new lines (not necessarily HighSpeed) also be built between London and Reading and towards the south? I would propose, instead of the Heathrow spur make the HS2 platforms at Euston through platforms, with a tunnel under London to Heathrow, requiring fewer HS2 platforms at Euston due to not terminating trains there. You could then later extend from Heathrow to Reading, providing a GWML relief route, and perhaps before Heathrow have a branch turn off to Portsmouth or Southampton.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Compared to cars, maybe HighSpeed rail isn't great for the enviroment, but compared to air travel HighSpeed rail is almost certainly 'greener'.

As am I, partly because of my above enviromental comment. 250mph London - Birmingham services is not a good idea in my opinion, since it is only competing against road travel not aviation. My opinion is that either Birmingham should be just an intermediate station on a through route to Manchester with through running (over classic lines) from Crewe to Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow, or the London - Birmingham route should be run using 125/140mph trains (which probably would need 4-track to London from the proposed HS2 station near Birmingham Internation, with the fast lines for 200+mph trains to Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland and the slow lines for 125/140mph passenger trains and perhaps some freight). At the very least there should be no notion of Birmingham as 'phase one' and Manchester/Leeds as 'phase two', if and when works starts it must not break before reaching Manchester, Leeds could perhaps be a phase two though.

The other reasons I'm anti-HS2 are the proposed Heathrow spur (though I haven't been following developments so not sure if that's still the plan), the Old Oak Common station (I'm not sure adding a stop between Reading and PAD on GWML Intercity services from Bristol and Wales is a good idea) and the fact the WCML doesn't seem to be as full as the GWML and lines out of London to Southampton/Portsmouth/Brighton etc. If capacity case for HS2 is so compelling, then shouldn't new lines (not necessarily HighSpeed) also be built between London and Reading and towards the south? I would propose, instead of the Heathrow spur make the HS2 platforms at Euston through platforms, with a tunnel under London to Heathrow, requiring fewer HS2 platforms at Euston due to not terminating trains there. You could then later extend from Heathrow to Reading, providing a GWML relief route, and perhaps before Heathrow have a branch turn off to Portsmouth or Southampton.

I heard an anti HS2 guy on Radio 4 say that because any slots at Heathrow will be filled by aircraft going elsewhere then the green argument that HS2 will be greener because it replaces some domestic flights doesn't hold water. I haven't really been able to think that one through yet

I've not been able to get my head round all your other suggestions, but to update you the Heathrow Spur has been kicked into the long grass and is dependent upon the results of a review of Airport Strategy which won't report 'til after the next election. However HS2 at present runs past Heathrow at about 8 miles distant. It would surely be v odd to then bend it round once it reaches central London to run it back to Heathrow again?

Also if you're going to run high speed trains but not stop them at Birmingham you're probably missing out on one of the biggest sources of paying passengers and not making use of extra capacity over the part of the route where it's needed most. Adding two slower lines to add capacity for that part of the route adds substantial cost and is just perverse.

 

[WatcherZero]

I heard an anti HS2 guy on Radio 4 say that because any slots at Heathrow will be filled by aircraft going elsewhere then the green argument that HS2 will be greener because it replaces some domestic flights doesn't hold water. I haven't really been able to think that one through yet

There was an objection by somebody to the Metrolink 2CC route public hearing that the route was a plan to bring in congestion charging for motorists by the back door as the electricity used is produced by burning oil in power stations and hence produces carbon which is taxed and so if motorists switch from cars to trams their paying a carbon tax.

Try to get your head round that one! Incidentally they have a 100% renewable energy contract with EDF and its powered by Scottish hydro.

I've not been able to get my head round all your other suggestions, but to update you the Heathrow Spur has been kicked into the long grass and is dependent upon the results of a review of Airport Strategy which won't report 'til after the next election. However HS2 at present runs past Heathrow at about 8 miles distant. It would surely be v odd to then bend it round once it reaches central London to run it back to Heathrow again?

The link is indeed on hiatus until the review of Airport strategy takes place as the status of the airport is up in the air (under some options it may even be closed and moved) so its a risk to public finance to build a multi billion line there if the airport closes shortly after.

 

[HSTEd]

It would be better to build a new two track high speed line to the North via a second route than to four track HS2.

Could go via Leicester or somesuch and join up with HS2 near NOttingham.

 

[steamdrivenand]

It would be better to build a new two track high speed line to the North via a second route than to four track HS2.

Could go via Leicester or somesuch and join up with HS2 near NOttingham.

And maybe, just maybe that's what they should've done in the first place.:roll:

 

[HowardGWR]

It would be better to build a new two track high speed line to the North via a second route than to four track HS2.

Could go via Leicester or somesuch and join up with HS2 near NOttingham.

I think that was called the Great Central Railway.

 

[The Decapod]

I think the most likely outcome for HS2 is that it will be cancelled before construction starts.

The second most likely outcome is that only part of the route will ever be built, and in watered-down form with lower speeds and more stations.

Perhaps HS2 is more of a political device than a railway project. At the moment it serves to 'talk up' economic recovery, in the future it could serve as a way of finding £46 billion of 'savings' that were possibly never going to be spent in the first place!

At the moment the fate of the HS2 project is entirely in the hands of politicians and civil servants and is in danger of going the same way as the Severn Barrage and biometric ID cards.

 

[DarloRich]

I am sick and tired of the constant wibbling, especailly from rich idiots in the Cotswolds.

Just get on and build the chuffer now! If HS2 was running through Middlesbrough or Gateshead or any former Northern industrial town the bulldozers would have been and gone and the track laying trains would be fired up!

All of this rubbish simply to buy off southern based Tory voters obsessed with their house price. They might dress it up as saving this green and pleasant land guff but house prices are the bottom line in all the complaints. We wouldn’t get this much consideration in the North.

We need this line ASAP not in 40 years time. Argh!

 

[NSEFAN]

I am sick and tired of the constant wibbling, especailly from rich idiots in the Cotswolds.

Just get on and build the chuffer now! If HS2 was running through Middlesbrough or Gateshead or any former Northern industrial town the bulldozers would have been and gone and the track laying trains would be fired up!

All of this rubbish simply to buy off southern based Tory voters obsessed with their house price. They might dress it up as saving this green and pleasant land guff but house prices are the bottom line in all the complaints. We wouldn’t get this much consideration in the North.

We need this line ASAP not in 40 years time. Argh!

The more they whinge, the more compensation they'll get for the loss of their properties. I suppose if you know you're going to lose, you might as well make the best of the situation.