High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[DarloRich]

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.

It isnt the people being paid for the total loss of their property who are the problem. The worst will be those claiming for loss of amenity for their property who will try to extract the most!

 

[Buttsy]

Despite all the moaning by Home Counties Tories, there is one street that is welcoming HS2 with open arms:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-21251417
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Nothing has changed since the original building of the railways, those who 'own' land trying to get the highest price for it.

 

[brianthegiant]

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.

Interesting to note the efforts of Boeing & Airbus to cut energy consumption & hence CO2 emissions in aircraft. Better aerodynamic modelling, lighter materials, etc, etc. I don't quite think aviation will achieve the 50% C02 cut they touted (includes traffic control improvements), but they are working on it. Hopefully some of the better ideas can be replicated in train design (except the exploding batteries of course..).

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

Lets not forget that HS2 was conceived around the time that the Heathrow 3rd runway was killed off. Building HS2 reduces the need for more airport runways, as demand for travel continues to grow.

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.

Hmm, I think comparing HS2 with the Severn Barrage is stretching things a lot. The Severn Barrage has never got beyond a feasibility study. Whereas HS2 has already had some very costly public consultations & a lot of design work. HS2 has cross party support thanks to Adonis. Make no mistake, HS2 is for real.

 

[DarloRich]

I think I have solved all of the problems:

1) For any house declared a total loss the Government pays market value + all fees, costs, incidentals etc associated with moving the occupier to a home of roughly similar standard.

2) For any loss of amenity requests you have two choices:
a) Assessed compensation in full and final settlement of your claim for loss of amenity
b) The government buys your home for market value but pays no costs associated with your move. A 6 month period from offer acceptance to moving before eviction will apply.

3) Any homes purchased under 2b are then rented (with a suitable reduction for noise etc) by a government agency to those in need of housing. The tenants should to be offered the right to buy in due course. The profits are then reinvested by the government agency into funding more house building.

4) Clearly any vast houses may need to be subdivided into smaller units or if this is not practical used for some other governmental purpose. Any such work to be contracted to local tradesmen.

So today I have solved two government problems. This is easy. Now for the economy!

 

[Jatos]

Firstly, I don't know if this hasn't already been suggested as there are over 100 page to this thread not all of which I have read but this is what I think.

Scrap the Brum to Leeds spur completely

Then perhaps build an HS3 in the middle of the ECML, with the HS3 line going underneath the ECML at certain section, such as for example at Newark and where the ECML crosses the Lincoln Line, standard trains can then go over what is effect now a 250mph part of the ECML, meaning a lack of unnecessary points on this 'HS3', and doing this you can also fix a lot of ECML bottlenecks.

Would seem a lot more sensible, for more reason than I care to go into.

Then also build some lines for higher speed Crosscountry routes - I think the value of CrossCountry is been heavily underestimated in all these London centric plans.

 

[si404]

Then perhaps build an HS3 in the middle of the ECML, with the HS3 line going underneath the ECML at certain section, such as for example at Newark and where the ECML crosses the Lincoln Line, standard trains can then go over what is effect now a 250mph part of the ECML, meaning a lack of unnecessary points on this 'HS3', and doing this you can also fix a lot of ECML bottlenecks.

And that (as well as costing lots due to having to do work on the ECML) serves the East Midlands and Sheffield areas how well?

Then also build some lines for higher speed Crosscountry routes - I think the value of CrossCountry is been heavily underestimated in all these London centric plans.

If so, why was the NE branch via Leicester option dismissed early on for the simple reason that it didn't allow for NE - Birmingham services?

Cross country type journeys gain a lot from HS2 - or in the north at least! The non-London South doesn't gain much (as always) - though the South coast is getting the electric spine at least.

 

[Jatos]

Well HS2 runs via Sheffield then to Toton and Brum.

To me this means a lot lost out on CrossCountry journeys, because well in my case, I live in Derby.

Do I really want to goto Toton to get a CrossCountry train? No! To me, unless I am missing something, and I don't think I am... the people who mainly use the CrossCountry to/from places other than Leeds and Sheffield lose out, and badly.

Also, has anyone ever considered also some upgrades to the MML as well?

Even partial upgrades to both the ECML and the MML to me seem to provide comparable benefits to that of the HS2 spur to Leeds.

I think it would also require a lot less planning, and would not mean Euston getting overloaded as it would under current plans.

I also think a lot more is to be gained by creating a diverse range of high speed services (above 125) than routing all the very high speed traffic via HS2.

Especially as like I say, upgrades can be done incrementally, so you would start seeing the benefits of the upgrades far sooner! For example, consider putting a highspeed section of railway starting just North of the section where the ECML goes under the Lincoln line, have it go on a downwards gradient from the river then under the Lincoln line, and run the highspeed section direct to Peterborough.

By my calculations, that alone could cut about 20 minutes of the journey coming from stations north of Newark if trains ran at 250mph on this section, and benefit a far wider range of people than HS2 can, and if you did similar upgrades along the ECML, in such a fashion as to specifically targeting ECML bottlenecks first, from I can see you can end with some far shorter journey times than what is delivered by routing everything highspeed by HS2!

I think this could deliver greater benefits than HS2 to those in the Northeast, and somewhat sooner because of the lower planning needs and the incremental upgrade ability!

Also there is very specific reason why I suggest running this high speed part below the rest of the ECML, if you got a downwards gradient onto the point free high speed sections (upwards coming off), it means trains can accelerate/decelerate faster going onto the higher speed sections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Then here is another idea, once you got high speed trains running on the ECML, you can when those trains reach KGX send them onto Stratford and onto the central part of Crossrail, I can see that benefits a lot of people! Just allow some time at KGX in the timetable for people to get on/off before you goto Stratford and Crossrail.

 

[Chris125]

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.

- The Heathrow link has been kicked into the long grass, ostensibly due to the Airport capacity review but the limited benefits versus the considerable cost probably pay a part too.

- Old Oak Common connects HS2 with Crossrail, HS1, Thames Valley commuter services, probably London Overground and HEx while relieving the terminus at Euston. While some long distance services may stop i doubt it will be many given that the time penalty of going via London for journey's between Birmingham/Manchester/Bristol etc. This connectivity, plus the regeneration benefits for the area, easily justify it's construction.

- Comparing the WCML, often said to be the busiest mixed-use railway in Europe, with the predominantly commuter lines out of Waterloo and Victoria and the relatively under-utilised GWML is really comparing apples and oranges.

The Great Western still has potential for better utilisation of/extra capacity through electrification, IEP and ERTMS while the greatest issue facing the SWML/BML in the medium term is conflicts with suburban services into London for which Crossrail solutions are likely to be the best solution - an issue already addressed on the WCML through the construction of the DC Lines.

As for extending HS2 to Heathrow, it already tunnels east into Euston - the cost of then tunnelling back towards Old Oak Common and onto Heathrow would cost a vast and completely unjustifiable amount. Changing at OOC for Heathrow Express would cost a fraction of such a scheme and would probably be quicker too.

Chris

 

[Ironside]

I think the removal of the heathrow section makes hs2 simpler to get through parliament to start with and gets Cameron of the hook for south east airport politics for this parliament. There will still be considerable pressure from the air industry to build at heathrow so it will still be possible for whoever wins the next election ( or the one after that) to put a high speed connection in for heathrow if it remains the most important airport.

 

[The Decapod]

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.

Good luck to them, I say! But they probably won't get any compensation because HS2 will probably never be built.

 

[Geezertronic]

Good luck to them, I say! But they probably won't get any compensation because HS2 will probably never be built.

Just like CrossRail, the M40, the M6 Toll etc.... :roll:

 

[The Decapod]

Just like CrossRail, the M40, the M6 Toll etc....

...Or the Severn Barrage or London (Maplin Sands) Airport or Ringway 1 and Ringway 2

I'm an HS2 skeptic, but one thing that I feel is very important before construction starts, is that all the major planning and other legal issues are sorted for the entire route, not just Phase 1 - otherwise we might end up with just Phase 1, with Phase 2 never being built.

 

[Dave1987]

I thought that program by Evan Davis called "Built in Britain" was the best example of what HS2 could turn out like. When he asked people who campaigned furiously about the M25 not being built yet years on asked them whether they would like it to be demolished. They said no and that they couldn't live without it now. I truely hope that the project does go ahead so the country can at least gain some ground on our rivals that have had high speed rail for years.

 

[The Decapod]

I truely hope that the project does go ahead so the country can at least gain some ground on our rivals that have had high speed rail for years.

Most of the equipment and know-how will be bought in from our rivals anyway.

 

[Chris125]

I'm an HS2 skeptic, but one thing that I feel is very important before construction starts, is that all the major planning and other legal issues are sorted for the entire route, not just Phase 1 - otherwise we might end up with just Phase 1, with Phase 2 never being built.

All that would do is delay the construction by years - as the second phase has a better cost:benefit than the first and actually improves the viability of the overall project, a financial case for not proceeding with the full scheme is hard to see let alone a political one.

Chris

 

[steamdrivenand]

And HS1 seems to be settling into the landscape now and whilst I'm sure you can find an anti HS1 person still, I believe the great majority of people near it no longer notice its presence.

 

[Dave1987]

And HS1 seems to be settling into the landscape now and whilst I'm sure you can find an anti HS1 person still, I believe the great majority of people near it no longer notice its presence.

Indeed in fact Im sure a lot of them see it as a crucial link now. Im sure that when/if HS2 gets built 40 years down the line people wont question why it was built and will prob just see it as an essential piece of infrastructure. Just like the M25.

 

[The Decapod]

Out of interest, I've just found this - UK Ultraspeed -an alternative to HS2 using Transrapid Maglev system, as in Shanghai. http://www.500kmh.com/ and for map see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Ultraspeed
It appears that this proposal has been rejected but that might not be the end of the story.

 

[Jatos]

Heard of that, I think you will find that unfortunately has other (major) drawbacks

 

[Geezertronic]

The main one is that it is not compatible with any other part of the existing UK or European network and would be totally isolated, whereas the current plans would at least integrate with the current rail network

 

[The Decapod]

The main one is that it is not compatible with any other part of the existing UK or European network and would be totally isolated, whereas the current plans would at least integrate with the current rail network

But if you've got trains running at up to 250 mph with a fairly tight headway, HS2 isn't going to be operationally compatible with the rest of the rail network, apart from HS1, anyway. It might be physically compatible, e.g. track gauge, loading gauge, power supply etc., But you won't exactly be able to send a Class 66 hauling a container train onto HS2 without causing major disruption! Conventional HS2 trains would be able to leave the HS2 line and travel on the normal 25KV network, yes, but would they actually do that very often?

On balance, though, I agree that conventional rail seems a more sensible option at the moment. But the next few years could see advances in maglev and the option to use it shouldn't be closed off completely until it absolutely has to be, presumably just prior to the design process of HS2 beginning for real.

 

[HSTEd]

The main one is that it is not compatible with any other part of the existing UK or European network and would be totally isolated, whereas the current plans would at least integrate with the current rail network

There will be no significant through traffic to the "European network" anyway.
There is a reason why the connecting to HS1 will only be a single track, it is a box ticking exercise that is not expected to have any significant traffic.

As to the problem of there being no "compatible" services.... they reduce the capacity of the existing HS2 route and are primarily a box ticking exercise.

And when you could traverse London-Manchester in something on order of 36-37 minutes I don't think anyone would really care.

The one thing that reallyworries me (about building such a system) is that there was no demonstration that Transrapid trains could be doubledeck (although they are Shinkansen width) which leads me to be concerned about total route capacity.

This is one of the reasons I favour conventional Shinkansen type routes with double deck trains.

 

[AndyLandy]

Conventional HS2 trains would be able to leave the HS2 line and travel on the normal 25KV network, yes, but would they actually do that very often?

In a word: Yes.

As I understand it, there are two kinds of train proposed for HS2. Firstly there are "captive" trains which will utilise the full HS2 capacity, but will only run on HS2 metals.

The other type of train will be the "classic compatible" stock, which (as the name suggests) will be compatible on the rest* of the rail network. These trains won't be as capacious as a captive HS2 train, but they'll be able to take advantage of HS2 speeds, whilst still being able to travel beyond the end of HS2 to other destinations.

*Subject to electrification and possibly some gauge clearance works as necessary

 

[steamdrivenand]

As I understand it, there are two kinds of train proposed for HS2. Firstly there are "captive" trains which will utilise the full HS2 capacity, but will only run on HS2 metals.

The other type of train will be the "classic compatible" stock, which (as the name suggests) will be compatible on the rest* of the rail network. These trains won't be as capacious as a captive HS2 train, but they'll be able to take advantage of HS2 speeds, whilst still being able to travel beyond the end of HS2 to other destinations.

Absolutely Andy.

They'll certainly intended for use via Crewe to Merseyside and off the two northerly ends of HS2 to Scotland and points in between. As currently planned I don't think there are any other relevant access points for them. However when you think of all the other lines that flow out of Crewe, the rest of WCMl northwards and ECML northwards too, then I suspect, as things develop, there'll be quite a bit of use for them (subject to electrification).

I wonder who'll set up the first railtour to come from a far flung point for a blast down HS2?

 

[jon0844]

Is there a specific term for mentioning 'Maglev' in a thread about high speed rail, like there is for mentioning Hitler or Nazis?!

Something like Magnet's Law?

 

[Chris125]

A key concept of HS2 has always been that certain services will use both the existing network and HS2, which (along with other issues) rules out the use of Maglev.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there a specific term for mentioning 'Maglev' in a thread about high speed rail, like there is for mentioning Hitler or Nazis?!

Something like Magnet's Law?

It's not really my field, but people mentioning Maglev do seem to be poles apart...

 

[dggar]

It's not really my field, but people mentioning Maglev do seem to be poles apart...

who's field is it then and if they weren't apart how would it move?

 

[tbtc]

Is there a specific term for mentioning 'Maglev' in a thread about high speed rail, like there is for mentioning Hitler or Nazis?!

Something like Magnet's Law?

It's not really my field, but people mentioning Maglev do seem to be poles apart...

Well, if this new route is intended to link North and South...

 

[HSTEd]

Unfortunately the fact remains that the "compatible" trainsets envisaged are equivalent to ten-car IEPs.... which means they waste an awful lot of capacity.... Which puts them in the vicinity of ~715 seats.
Compared to 1352 for my proposed 400m TGV Duplex "captive" set.

Unfortunately those "compatible" trains come out at 250m long and thus waste 150m of train length for no purpose.

If you want compatibles they either have to be 8 or 16 cars, anything else just wastes space that has been purchased at great expense. (And for the record two 8-car IEPs coupled comes out at a capacity of something like 1078 seats.... at higher density than my proposed sets though)