High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[WatcherZero]

Government is caving and suggesting a £500m 1.5mile tunneled connection between two already proposed tunnels so that the Chilterns would be even less touched. Course the money would have to come from savings elsewhere which means despeccing some other piece of infrastructure.

 

[Badger]

Does this 500m include the general cost of 1.5 miles of track, or is it on top of that?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Government is caving and suggesting a £500m 1.5mile tunneled connection between two already proposed tunnels so that the Chilterns would be even less touched. Course the money would have to come from savings elsewhere which means despeccing some other piece of infrastructure.

And quite rightly so. In my opinion the tunnel should have been there when the original plans were drawn up. Finally someone has seen sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does this 500m include the general cost of 1.5 miles of track, or is it on top of that?

Surely its the additional cost of the tunnelling operation given that the track was already going to be there?

 

[radamfi]

How long is this proposed tunnel compared to ones recently built or being constructed in Italy and Switzerland?

 

[HSTEd]

I assume this is the gap at Amersham?

Would have been nice to put an interchange on it with a few hundred metres of extension to the Metropolitan line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How long is this proposed tunnel compared to ones recently built or being constructed in Italy and Switzerland?

I think we are talking about linking two tunnels of 9.6km (M25 to Amersham) and 1.6km (Little Missenden), separated by 3km of railway mostly in cutting.
On the map it's just NW of Amersham where HS2 briefly comes to the surface to cross the Chiltern line.

The alpine tunnels are about 35km (Channel Tunnel 50km), so this is peanuts really.

Trouble with this concession is that if we are not careful there will be a postcode row about why Bucks scenery is more important than Oxon/Warks etc.
And from a passenger perspective, it's another minute or two of black tunnel rather than views.

It also must mean that Justine is sticking with the general plan/route which must be a good thing.

 

[LE Greys]

I hope they leave space for one or two additional bores so that they can quadruple the line at some point in the future.

 

[HSTEd]

Quadroupling the line would be pointless, you could never fit enough platforms into Euston to support all that traffic on top of the existing WCML traffic.

A second pair of tracks to the North would have to be built along a different alignment out of King's Cross.

 

[Nym]

HSTEd, or use it to run services via OOC to the continent, or services on 'slow' lines for higher gauge freight, or HGV Piggy back services...?

 

[LE Greys]

Quadroupling the line would be pointless, you could never fit enough platforms into Euston to support all that traffic on top of the existing WCML traffic.

A second pair of tracks to the North would have to be built along a different alignment out of King's Cross.

Assuming that some traffic works out of St Pancras (I'd prefer King's Cross, but never mind) and some comes through from the Continent, I reckon there's just about enough room. Otherwise, it would be possible to free between two and four platforms by diverting the d.c. lines underground and some of the a.c. suburban traffic into Crossrail. Ideally, the d.c. lines would run to the old Thameslink platforms at Moorgate, but that's probably impossible.

Either way, there needs to be enough room to fit in all the traffic from the north-east as well as the north-west whilst still leaving room for growth.

 

[Nym]

Well, if theres only two types of stock running in and out of Euston HS then it could be wholey possible to run on a fast turnround FIFO system, rather than tight diagramming, you have a que of services to go out for each type of stock, and the next unit to pull in, runs that, regardless of where it's just come from, you could end up with each platform on a 10 - 12min turnround, with all the cleaning etc done between OOC and Euston by a gang of cleaners. And the major cleaning and re-stocking done at termini.

 

[HSTEd]

In order to have High Gauge Freight on HS2 at Amersham..... you would have to use the North London Line to reach HS1 right?

Isnt that an engineering nightmare?

Although they seem to be messing about with the Euston plans more than the plans for everything else

 

[Nym]

HSTEd, the're planning on knitting OOC - St Pancras in at EU gauge, so it could be sent that way, would just need to shove aside at Stratford though.

This will be via the NLL, but the engineering pains have been sorted to clear it for EU gauge. (According to ARUP, and anyone who knows me knows I won't say anything bad about them for at least a few months)

 

[HSTEd]

Well if they've finally worked out a way to get a clear path to the north from the CTRL then that makes me happier.... although I cant help feeling that Berne gauge is cutting corners itself, especially with the size of the gauge on the Channel Tunnel.

Build a container terminal in Calais and then run doublestacks via some sort of specialist freight line to some terminal north of London would be teh ultimate endgame I think.

Did they finally decide if they were going to massively rebuild Euston or not? everytime I try to check I found the answer is different.

 

[Nym]

Well, if they want HS2 to go there, they need to ^o)

 

[swt_passenger]

I am glad someone else expects it will work like this.

Also for trains north of Rugby or Rugely or wherever it is Rugley is, then I am not sure Manchester is at capacity, especially when the Ordsall Chord moves trains over to 13/14 and frees paths back out of the terminating platforms by not crossing them?

I think the earlier poster meant Rugeley - which is towards the north end of the Trent Valley route. Most of the DFT's earlier reports only refer to the HS2/WCML junction as being 'near Lichfield', though I think this may have been repositioned slightly in the latest plans...

 

[alanf]

The government have postponed a decision till January to assess the enviromental impact according to BBC news. I'l leave it to someone cleverer than me to put a link on.

Alan

 

[RichmondCommu]

Quadroupling the line would be pointless, you could never fit enough platforms into Euston to support all that traffic on top of the existing WCML traffic.

A second pair of tracks to the North would have to be built along a different alignment out of King's Cross.

I think too many people are over estimating how popular HS2 will be. I think a lot of passengers will baulk at the cost of tickets on HS2 and will continue to use the WCML. Thats why in my opinion its vital that the WCML is not allowed to wither as has happened to SNCF classic lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Build a container terminal in Calais and then run doublestacks via some sort of specialist freight line to some terminal north of London would be teh ultimate endgame I think

In all honesty I think the vast majority if not all container traffic will continue to go through Rotterdam and Hamburg. DBS have shown with their new service from Poland that there is interest in running freight through the tunnel but in terms of containers its more cost effective to go port to port.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that the politicians do not understand the huge inefficiencies of High Speed Rail at the speeds that are being proposed. Due to the fact that air resistance squares with speed, doubling the speed of intercity trains from 125mph to 250mph will lead to the output force of the train needing to increase by a factor of four. Because power equals force times verlocity, output power increases by a factor of eight. This also means that the energy cost of each journey increases by a factor of four. As a result HS2 might only be affordable for the wealthy.

F=D*V^2
P=D*V^3
E=D*V^2*s

If block signalling is used, the trains are going at a reasonable speed (faster than 50mph) and there is a high frequency of signals, line capacity is inversely proportional to the speed of the line. This means that doubling the line speed halves the capacity of the line (this is because trains need to leave enough distance in order to stop before it enters a zone that is currently red signalled and braking distance squares with velocity).

With another form of signalling, trains maintain a certain gap behind the train in front (as cars do on a motorway). If time were used as the gap between trains, capacity would be independent of line speed. If distance were used as the gap, capacity would be directly proportional to line speed (double the speed, double the capacity). However, if this system were to fail (which is more likely than with block signalling) it is very likely that an accident would occur and that is why it is not used.

One argument for HS2 is the need for more capacity. After travelling through Birmingham recently I noticed that the Birmingham branch of WCML is only double track. This means that slow and fast services must share the common paths along the line and this must greatly reduce capacity. I wonder if the solution would be to build a new double tracked line for intercity trains under Birminham that would surface on the outskirts of Birmingham and run in parallel as far as is needed to relieve congestion. If there is a congestion problem on the whole of the WCML between Euston and Birmingham, why not build a new intercity line in parrallel with the present line that could increase capacity, serve the areas that it passes through and be a lot cheaper than HS2. The money saved could be invested to improve the rail network throughout the country.

 

[Martin222002]

I think too many people are over estimating how popular HS2 will be. I think a lot of passengers will baulk at the cost of tickets on HS2 and will continue to use the WCML. Thats why in my opinion its vital that the WCML is not allowed to wither as has happened to SNCF classic lines.

To my knowledge there are no plans to have a premium on tickets (as you do with HS1) to travel on HS2. So in my understanding a Birmingham-London Anytime would be just as valid on HS2 as it is valid on the WCML with LM and VT, and with Chiltern on the Chiltern Main Line to London.

 

[LE Greys]

To my knowledge there are no plans to have a premium on tickets (as you do with HS1) to travel on HS2. So in my understanding a Birmingham-London Anytime would be just as valid on HS2 as it is valid on the WCML with LM and VT, and with Chiltern on the Chiltern Main Line to London.

Let's hope so. If they did that with the Javelin, they might actually get some passengers!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that the politicians do not understand the huge inefficiencies of High Speed Rail at the speeds that are being proposed. Due to the fact that air resistance squares with speed, doubling the speed of intercity trains from 125mph to 250mph will lead to the output force of the train needing to increase by a factor of four. Because power equals force times verlocity, output power increases by a factor of eight. This also means that the energy cost of each journey increases by a factor of four. As a result HS2 might only be affordable for the wealthy.

F=D*V^2
P=D*V^3
E=D*V^2*s

If block signalling is used, the trains are going at a reasonable speed (faster than 50mph) and there is a high frequency of signals, line capacity is inversely proportional to the speed of the line. This means that doubling the line speed halves the capacity of the line (this is because trains need to leave enough distance in order to stop before it enters a zone that is currently red signalled and braking distance squares with velocity).

With another form of signalling, trains maintain a certain gap behind the train in front (as cars do on a motorway). If time were used as the gap between trains, capacity would be independent of line speed. If distance were used as the gap, capacity would be directly proportional to line speed (double the speed, double the capacity). However, if this system were to fail (which is more likely than with block signalling) it is very likely that an accident would occur and that is why it is not used.

Well, that is a consideration. I'd peg the maximum speed at 200 mph (324 km/h - which might mean the trains will be InterCity 325), although leave options to increase to 250 mph as some point in the future. This seems like a nice round number and a reasonable compromise in speed, so that the line could be worked by cascaded Eurostars if need be (their replacement should be ready by the time it opens). I imagine the signalling will be similar to the TVM-430 system in use on HS1, so block sections every 0.5 km and speed signalling. Not sure what the capacity is, but it's quite high.

One argument for HS2 is the need for more capacity. After travelling through Birmingham recently I noticed that the Birmingham branch of WCML is only double track. This means that slow and fast services must share the common paths along the line and this must greatly reduce capacity. I wonder if the solution would be to build a new double tracked line for intercity trains under Birminham that would surface on the outskirts of Birmingham and run in parallel as far as is needed to relieve congestion. If there is a congestion problem on the whole of the WCML between Euston and Birmingham, why not build a new intercity line in parrallel with the present line that could increase capacity, serve the areas that it passes through and be a lot cheaper than HS2. The money saved could be invested to improve the rail network throughout the country.

Or indeed reopen the Great Central Main Line as a 125 mph conventional railway, thus abstracting Manchester and Leeds traffic. It's a possible alternative, but neither version is necessarily cheaper. For instance, I reckon that Coventry-Grand Junction should be quadrupled anyway. However, sextupling the WCML would require a lot of station rebuilding and cause a lot of service disruption. Remember what happened last time? It would also mean a lot of housing demolition in London, which would be far worse than anything HS2 will do to the Chilterns, affecting far more people. The GCR option causes less disruption, but would still have high costs, because the earthworks are in a parlous state. The route has been built on in some places as well.

 

[Chris125]

I imagine the signalling will be similar to the TVM-430 system in use on HS1, so block sections every 0.5 km and speed signalling. Not sure what the capacity is, but it's quite high.

I expect it will be a moving block variation of ERTMS (level 3?).

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

To my knowledge there are no plans to have a premium on tickets (as you do with HS1) to travel on HS2. So in my understanding a Birmingham-London Anytime would be just as valid on HS2 as it is valid on the WCML with LM and VT, and with Chiltern on the Chiltern Main Line to London.

Will anyone be available to afford a Birmingham-London Anytime by the time the line opens though?

 

[Greenback]

Will anyone be available to afford a Birmingham-London Anytime by the time the line opens though?

Yes = premiership footballers, Lord Sugar, and high level bankers. Unfortunately, there are likely to have chaffeur driven limo's and/or private aircraft!

 

[tbtc]

Will anyone be available to afford a Birmingham-London Anytime by the time the line opens though?

The prices aren't exactly cheap in 2011 (especially in the current economic climate) yet the trains seem busy enough...

 

[HSTEd]

The prices aren't exactly cheap in 2011 (especially in the current economic climate) yet the trains seem busy enough...

Most people use advance tickets (atleast in standard anyway) as I understand it, and we can pretty much guarantee there will be a price differential between High Speed and conventional rail operations for advance tickets.

 

[Nym]

May well be lower, HS2 trains could technically cost less per passenger than a 390.

Thinking about it for a moment, how many passengers can you fit in a double decker EU gauge carriage?

With 3+2 on the lower deck and 2+2 on the upper deck, you've got about 18 - 20m of usable seat space (Note that this is 19" seating, not the usual 17" used on 3+2, wider trains you see...)
So say, 100 on the lower deck and 70 on the upper deck, for a 23m carriage, or, 90 and 60 for a 20m.

So, 150 passengers per car, on a 10 car long (200m) unit... Add in some first class that would be lower density at 80 - 100/car. with a 3:7 split, thats about 1,300pax, and of course, you could run it doubled up to 400m, so 2,700pax/service.

Compared with a 390 at maximum or 350 at maximum (260m long) with 2+2 19" seating in standard, thats errr, don't know exact numbers, if someone would care to provide these.
I get about 750 for a 12 car 350, and 600 for a 11 car 390...

So working from a single unit length on HS2, so a single on board crew, and a single driver, will cost the same to crew as a normal WCML service.

So, if we're working on the assumption that crewing costs are the same for HS2 per unit set as per a WCML service, then you just have the base running and engineering costs to take into account.

Either way, you can carry twice as many passengers on the same service, or doubled up, four times as many, so roughly speaking, it can cost twice as much to run, but still have the same price per seat.

But the price for captive HS2 stock will be lower than most other UK rolling stock, thanks to it being an off the shelf design from Europe. Put this to thought when thinking of price...

 

[stockport1]

I think that the politicians do not understand the huge inefficiencies of High Speed Rail at the speeds that are being proposed. Due to the fact that air resistance squares with speed, doubling the speed of intercity trains from 125mph to 250mph will lead to the output force of the train needing to increase by a factor of four. Because power equals force times verlocity, output power increases by a factor of eight. This also means that the energy cost of each journey increases by a factor of four. As a result HS2 might only be affordable for the wealthy.

F=D*V^2
P=D*V^3
E=D*V^2*s

If block signalling is used, the trains are going at a reasonable speed (faster than 50mph) and there is a high frequency of signals, line capacity is inversely proportional to the speed of the line. This means that doubling the line speed halves the capacity of the line (this is because trains need to leave enough distance in order to stop before it enters a zone that is currently red signalled and braking distance squares with velocity).

With another form of signalling, trains maintain a certain gap behind the train in front (as cars do on a motorway). If time were used as the gap between trains, capacity would be independent of line speed. If distance were used as the gap, capacity would be directly proportional to line speed (double the speed, double the capacity). However, if this system were to fail (which is more likely than with block signalling) it is very likely that an accident would occur and that is why it is not used.

One argument for HS2 is the need for more capacity. After travelling through Birmingham recently I noticed that the Birmingham branch of WCML is only double track. This means that slow and fast services must share the common paths along the line and this must greatly reduce capacity. I wonder if the solution would be to build a new double tracked line for intercity trains under Birminham that would surface on the outskirts of Birmingham and run in parallel as far as is needed to relieve congestion. If there is a congestion problem on the whole of the WCML between Euston and Birmingham, why not build a new intercity line in parrallel with the present line that could increase capacity, serve the areas that it passes through and be a lot cheaper than HS2. The money saved could be invested to improve the rail network throughout the country.

do we really need a dedicated HS2 line north of birmingham for manchester?

If speed and capacity is needed 4 tracking winsford-warrington would surely be a good option. the line is quite straight. Manchester and liverpool services could join the chat moss. there is lots of brown belt land around manchester victoria and salford for a dedicated station there and would allow journeys to continue furthur north - leeds etc. A drawback with piccadilly is that it is a terminus.

 

[sprinterguy]

May well be lower, HS2 trains could technically cost less per passenger than a 390.

Thinking about it for a moment, how many passengers can you fit in a double decker EU gauge carriage?

The standard class carriages of a TGV Duplex can accomodate 80 passengers (Except for the end carriage, R8, which seats 92), although each carriage is only 18.7 metres long.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Compared with a 390 at maximum or 350 at maximum (260m long) with 2+2 19" seating in standard, thats errr, don't know exact numbers, if someone would care to provide these.
I get about 750 for a 12 car 350, and 600 for a 11 car 390...

An 11 carriage 390 will have 444 standard class seats (plus 6 tip-up) and 145 first class seats, so a total of 589 seats.

A 12-car 350/1 formation would have 606 standard class seats (plus 27 tip-up) and 72 first class seats.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Yes = premiership footballers, Lord Sugar, and high level bankers. Unfortunately, there are likely to have chaffeur driven limo's and/or private aircraft!

Recently travelled on the Chiltern railway service from Marylebone to Birmingham Moor St. Both stations are more pleasant to use than their respect Euston and New St counterparts. Chiltern train seating has less of the toast rack feel of the pendolinos. The journey was 20 minutes longer than VT and the fare was £7.50 one way.

Chiltern Railways is the way to go from London to Brum !