High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[WatcherZero]

I've listed mainly ECML projects as it's the area I know best. I'm sure there is plenty of other projects in other parts of the country that are equally worthy of consideration.

Also, Birmingham, and to a lesser extent, Manchester are well served from London already, with 3 VT services an hour from both, plus between Birmingham and London, 3 LM services and 2 Chiltern services as well. Do those cities really need the extra services a High Speed line will provide?

Yay, another anti HS2 who hasnt taken the trouble to actually read what problems the line is fixing and assumes its just about speed. The WCML has plenty of spare capacity?

 

[Ascot]

It's just a bit of salt on the chips. It's like buying a brochure for a £1 before buying a £2k holiday.

If only it was just as cheap and simple as that.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, welcome to the forum. An interesting first day of posting.

 

[PR1Berske]

I am grateful for the responses from the No camp, for it makes their position even less credible.

Yes motorways can be expanded, but what happens when you build extra lanes? They get filled.

Yes airports can be expanded (and great cost, over decades of wrangling). And what happens? There's calls for further and greater expansion often at the cost of villages and green spaces.

Both WC and ECML are close to full capacity, and that's after multi-million pound expansion programmes. Now you COULD decide to start all that again, from Carlisle to Crewe and beyond, adding and increasing and improving as you go like some causing delay and inconvenience to existing passengers, companies and the wider network....or you build a new line.

The NO camp clearly don't like the idea of Britain joining the 21st century. I can't think of any other credible reason for their objection. You can't want the country drowning in concrete with millions of more cars, you can't want the country drowning in concrete with thousands of new planes, so you must be left wanting to grind the rail network to a complete halt (which isn't that hard a task, tbf) just to make real the grand plans you've got in your head from playing too long in the attic with your Hornby's

 

[RichmondCommu]

They couldn't give a proverbial monkeys about the existing rail infrastructure because, as others have pointed out, most of the individuals populating the anti-HS2 camp don't have any use for railservices in the first place - the aim of the NO merchants is resolutely focused on a single outcome - removing the threat posed to their immediate environment by the approved Route3 pathway, nothing else matters!

In all fairness if you were in their shoes you'd feel the same. Let’s face it; no one wants a noisy railway at the end of their garden.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The NO camp clearly don't like the idea of Britain joining the 21st century. I can't think of any other credible reason for their objection. You can't want the country drowning in concrete with millions of more cars, you can't want the country drowning in concrete with thousands of new planes, so you must be left wanting to grind the rail network to a complete halt (which isn't that hard a task, tbf) just to make real the grand plans you've got in your head from playing too long in the attic with your Hornby's

Oh please! It’s just a railway for goodness sake! If we're going to commit ourselves to a £32billion project we need to absolutely certain that the benefits out way costs and I've seen no concrete evidence to support this. And we need to be able to afford it; at the moment we can't.

 

[stockport1]

hs2 - im ok with that.

but how much would it cost to electrify the rest of the network?
replace the pacers with 350's?
fix wakefield,salford central?
reintate some curves and redoubling?
reopen the 26 miles from buxton to matlock? - another mainline to access
london and the east midlands from manchester suddenly appears like magic?
(bit flippant :P )

to most people going to work everyday on a pacer HS2 is meaningless.

that said...im not against it...it would obviopusly have benefits

 

[Donny Dave]

I am grateful for the responses from the No camp, for it makes their position even less credible.

Yes motorways can be expanded, but what happens when you build extra lanes? They get filled.

Yes airports can be expanded (and great cost, over decades of wrangling). And what happens? There's calls for further and greater expansion often at the cost of villages and green spaces.

Both WC and ECML are close to full capacity, and that's after multi-million pound expansion programmes. Now you COULD decide to start all that again, from Carlisle to Crewe and beyond, adding and increasing and improving as you go like some causing delay and inconvenience to existing passengers, companies and the wider network....or you build a new line.

The NO camp clearly don't like the idea of Britain joining the 21st century. I can't think of any other credible reason for their objection. You can't want the country drowning in concrete with millions of more cars, you can't want the country drowning in concrete with thousands of new planes, so you must be left wanting to grind the rail network to a complete halt (which isn't that hard a task, tbf) just to make real the grand plans you've got in your head from playing too long in the attic with your Hornby's

I'm not against the UK joining the 21st century, I just think there are other railway projects that will provide better value for money in the long run. With the current plans, you will still have nearly as many trains on the Southern half of the WCML, which many people are claiming is close to capacity (granted, that is a good point), but instead they will be slower, with more station stops, so is anything being gained?

In the post I mad over a 2 years ago, and to which I linked to again the other day, I said that Britain doesn't need a high speed network beyond HS1 because the country is too small as a whole. Japan's high speed network is in essence a 1000 mile long line with Tokyo in the middle and spurs branching off to cities that are off the main route. France, Italy and Spain have enough room to build a dedicated network of high speed lines.

If plans suggested by others come to fruition, namely, HS2 reaches Leeds in roughly 1 hour 30 minutes, then cities further North still don't benefit from reduced journey times to London, as it's a further 25 minutes to York from there on the classic line, which makes the timings comparable to now.

My suggestion above where a new alignment between Edinburgh and Northallerton (via Newcastle) is built, even at "only" 125mph will still produce a significant time saving for people from Newcastle and beyond travelling to London and will make rail travel more attractive for those people who "have to get to London as quick/early as possible". The added benefit is then is that a York/Newcastle - Edinburgh stopping service can then be added on the old route (something else I have seen suggested more than once on this forum).

As I said in my previous post in this topic, I've concentrated mainly on ECML projects simply because it is the area of the railway network as a whole I know best. It's no use for me to suggest large projects for other parts of the country of which my knowledge isn't as good only for everyone to point out how useless those plans are. I'll leave it to others to make plans for the parts of the country they know best (such as Nym for the North West and Trans Pennine area).

PS. Shouldn't that be a thankyou to most of the No camp? As far as I can see it is others who are suggesting extra roads and or airports, or expanding existing airports ....

PPS. How much extra energy is needed to propel a train at 155mph compared to one travelling at 125mph?

 

[stockport1]

liverpool - mcr - leeds electrification is a massive massive thing for the north west. IMHO. this will be as big a boost to the local economy as HS2 would to the area.

seeing pacers and sprinters spill open at lime street chock full is a disgrace.
some of these services were served by long loco hauled trains back in the day.
now a 2 car sprinter is par for the course.

commuters are the bread and butter of rail passenger transport .

lorries on trains and better freight would be great. i liked central railways proposal a few years back

 

[JamesRowden]

PPS. How much extra energy is needed to propel a train at 155mph compared to one travelling at 125mph?

From F = D V^2 and dW/ds = F, W = D V^2 ds

The answer to your question is that the required energy would increase by a factor of:

(155/125)^2 = 1.5376

 

[Ascot]

Why is everyone quoting £32bn? Phase 1 is £17bn (give or take £1bn). It's only when you talk about Phase 2 (which is a very long way away) that you talk about the full £32bn.

Chilterns & Birmingham = £17bn
Northerners & ECML/MML = £32bn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zoe]

I'm not against the UK joining the 21st century, I just think there are other railway projects that will provide better value for money in the long run. With the current plans, you will still have nearly as many trains on the Southern half of the WCML, which many people are claiming is close to capacity (granted, that is a good point), but instead they will be slower, with more station stops, so is anything being gained?

By having more stopping trains south of Birmingham with paths freed by HS2 it will take cars off the M1 and M40 leaving more room on the motorways for freight and so removing the need for road improvements and helping with modal shift from car to rail.

 

[Rhydgaled]

From F = D V^2 and dW/ds = F, W = D V^2 ds

The answer to your question is that the required energy would increase by a factor of:

(155/125)^2 = 1.5376

The question is, what is the difference in energy use between 125mph and 250mph or 200mph (the quoted speeds for HS2). In my opinion, there does need to be a new line parralel to the WCML for capacity reasons, but on enviromental grounds I do not consider the additional energy use necessary for faster running justifyable for London - Birmingham services. Hence my suggestion that HS2 be a London - Manchester - Glasgow line only or that it has four tracks south of Birmingham International Airport with all London - Birmingham services put on the slow lines and limited to 125/140mph. Even for Manchester and Scotland services, is the small time saving of 250mph compared to 200mph worth the extra energy use?

 

[Zoe]

Hence my suggestion that HS2 be a London - Manchester - Glasgow line only or that it has four tracks south of Birmingham International Airport with all London - Birmingham services put on the slow lines and limited to 125/140mph. Even for Manchester and Scotland services, is the small time saving of 250mph compared to 200mph worth the extra energy use?

Birmingham though isn't on a direct route from London to Manchester so if you limit the speed then time savings compared to the exixting WCML route will not be as significant due to the longer route.

 

[Badger]

Hence my suggestion that HS2 be a London - Manchester - Glasgow line only or that it has four tracks south of Birmingham International Airport with all London - Birmingham services put on the slow lines and limited to 125/140mph. Even for Manchester and Scotland services, is the small time saving of 250mph compared to 200mph worth the extra energy use?

HS2 is a direct route from London to Manchester. Birmingham is on a branch line.

ETA: misread the posts above, sorry.

Anyway, I'm pro HS2, even though it isn't going to offer me any benefits at all - I already find good capacity on the routes I use, and my journey time to London is staying exactly the same even if I change at Birmingham for HS2. But I still recognise the impact it will have on places that aren't me. Someone said the No group only care about what happens on their doorstep, but I'd go further, since how many of these people is it actually on their doorstep? And not in the general area? It would be like me complaining about the M6 Toll because it runs through rural Staffordshire and I live near Staffordshire.

The thing is the WCML has been here so long that industry and housing has built up around it - expanding it to four tracks the entire length would have a negative impact on thousands of people, whereas a new line will impact relatively few.

Although as the Olympic opening ceremony is showing, people only see countryside dwellers as England, even though the majority live in the cities. Bah.

 

[Zoe]

HS2 is a direct route from London to Manchester. Birmingham is on a branch line.

I'm not sure it's the most direct route as it heads for Birmingham first where there is a station on the edge of the urban area and a branch into the centre. This adds some miles compared to a direct route to Manchester/Leeds and so high speed is needed to remove any time penalty of this route.

 

[Badger]

I may be wrong but going by the maps available it's actually a pretty straight line straight to Manchester. Not so to Leeds, but then no line can go direct to Leeds and Manchester, as the area inbetween the two is mountainous and they're a fair distance apart.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/pictures/384xAny/8/8/6/1284886_HS2-map.jpg

The edge station would have flyovers and such like Ashford.

 

[Zoe]

I may be wrong but going by the maps available it's actually a pretty straight line straight to Manchester. Not so to Leeds, but then no line can go direct to Leeds and Manchester, as the area inbetween the two is mountainous and they're a fair distance apart.

Yes sorry, the point was that there is going to be a time penalty on one of the routes due to the need for all trains to head to Birmingham first and so the line needs to be high speed or you lose the benefits of the Leeds branch. They could have elected to have the main line follow the M1 route and split further south for Manchester and Leeds but then you wouldn't have a Birmingham to Leeds route.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure it's the most direct route as it heads for Birmingham first where there is a station on the edge of the urban area and a branch into the centre. This adds some miles compared to a direct route to Manchester/Leeds and so high speed is needed to remove any time penalty of this route.

I make an approximate route via Birmingham airport at ~270km and a direct route as ~255km, so thats 15km.

At 320kph (the highest reasonable operational speed, as determined in Germany, France, China and Japan) this extra 15km will cause a delay equivalent to roughly 2 minutes and 48 seconds.

If laying the line out for 360-400kph is costing more it is frankly a bad investment.
This is like the argument saying that we must have seperate spurs to Newcastle and Scotland because Glasgow can't bear having an eleven minute longer journey (on one that is already several hours long)

 

[Nym]

Yes sorry, the point was that there is going to be a time penalty on one of the routes due to the need for all trains to head to Birmingham first and so the line needs to be high speed or you lose the benefits of the Leeds branch. They could have elected to have the main line follow the M1 route and split further south for Manchester and Leeds but then you wouldn't have a Birmingham to Leeds route.

And that would then start to eat away at the business case as Newcastle - Birmingham is a reasonably large flow, and space is provided to accommodate integration into New Street, or reversals out of the HS2 station at Birmingham onto the classic network to make both HS2 upper branches part of the XC Network, provided these reaches of the XC network are of course electrified, this would be a use for the classic compatible stock made redundant by additional captive UIC-GC lines to Leeds and Manchester.

The timetabling also fits having 6 platforms IMO, 4tph North from Birmingham, 4tph to London (Max), 1tph to Europe, 1tph to Heathrow makes 10tph, 6 platforms. Add in another 2tph to say, Bristol (and beyond) and thats 6 platforms nicely taken, could possibly even take that up to 2tph Reading (and beyond) too.

As an alternative, if these off HS2 services were picking up the same stopping pattern of current XC services south of Birmingham, then one could send these via New Street in lieu of the current XC services, and terminate the 'new' picking up the old stops between Leeds & Birmingham services on the HS2 station to save space at New Street, the Manchester services posing more of a challenge as they come via Wolverhampton.

This does kind of rely on the common sense thinking I'd be applying to the HS2 Classic Compatible and Captive Rolling stock, that being it comes with a Diesel Locomotive to haul it off wires and in cases of failure.

 

[Zoe]

I make an approximate route via Birmingham airport at ~270km and a direct route as ~255km, so thats 15km.

What about Leeds/Newcastle though? Journey times are going to need to be at least as fast if not faster than the ECML services so that the paths can be freed for other services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This does kind of rely on the common sense thinking I'd be applying to the HS2 Classic Compatible and Captive Rolling stock, that being it comes with a Diesel Locomotive to haul it off wires and in cases of failure.

Or you could just have an emergency underfloor diesel engine.

 

[HSTEd]

What about Leeds/Newcastle though? Journey times are going to need to be at least as fast if not faster than the ECML services so that the paths can be freed for other services.

I make a route via Birmingham, Nottingham/Derby and Sheffield at roughly ~310-320km.

With 320kph running over the entire length of the route beyond OOC, and 250kph to there, there should be little trouble making the 1hr20 journey time that is expected even with an intermediate stop or even two.

Its certainly far faster than the 2hr20 the ECML can manage.

 

[Nym]

Or you could just have an emergency underfloor diesel engine.

Not for off wires extensions to Holyhead, the Highlands and southern XC destinations.

 

[Zoe]

Not for off wires extensions to Holyhead, the Highlands and southern XC destinations.

Sorry I was only referring to failures, as for extensions to the above destinations, do these locations really need direct services to London via HS2 when it would be easy to change onto a train running via HS2 at an electrified location?

 

[Nym]

Yet one wants the likes of a bi-mode IEP to keep off wires destinations lugging round the diesel rather than simply attaching it?

 

[Zoe]

Yet one wants the likes of a bi-mode IEP to keep off wires destinations lugging round the diesel rather than simply attaching it?

HS2 though is primarly to provide a high speed service between the major connurbations. The time savings resulting from this should negate any time penalty that results in changing trains. There are no plans for a new high speed line to Swansea so if you forced everyone to change at Cardiff then you would extend journey times.

 

[LE Greys]

I've gone on record a few times saying that I would run somewhat closer to the original GCR route, bypassing Birmingham for now, concentrating instead on relieving the East Midlands, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester with a 'Y' route splitting at Sheffield and the two arms reaching to Manchester and Leeds, extending along the 'classic' lines to Edinburgh and Glasgow. This would be a 6tph, 200mph service (somewhat more reasonable, I don't think that anything beyond that is even possible); backed up by an additional 6tph, 140mph service that would use parts of the current Chiltern route to Aylesbury, a reopened Brackley Central (to placate Chiltern opposition and provide a big commuter area with a link to London sixty years after it lost one) and then fanning out to Oxford, Stratford and Birmingham Moor Street. New Street would get some extra services, diverted from Manchester, while Hull would get an hourly service, diverted from Leeds. North of Brackley, XC would be able to use the route as a short-cut from Banbury to Sheffield, potentially saving an hour. There could also be links right through London to Kent. Finally, Chiltern could extend up the slow lines (i.e. the GCR trackbed) as far as Rugby. The idea is to concentrate on sorting out the MML corridor, which is still dependent on HSTs at 110.

Heathrow would be the next priority, although the line would be intended to go right through to Reading, Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea, possibly with a southern arm to Exeter and Plymouth, including wires to Penzance. This would be plugged into the GW lines at Old Oak, Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Wooton Bassatt, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Exeter, Cardiff, Plymouth and Swansea so effectively that it would have the same effect as quadrupling/sextupling the old line, thus spreading the benefits to Worcester, Hereford, Cheltenham, Newbury, Fishguard and all sorts of other off-route places.

Eventually, all the major routes out of London would receive the same treatment. This allows trains to use the old stations and spreads the benefit much more effectively, with the added benefit that infrastructure trains can run via the old lines worksites along the route. However, by running alongside rather than on top of the old line, there is no need to shut down for upgrading.

 

[HSTEd]

Unfortunately the fastest active-tilting trains available are only capable of 155mph at the present time (Pendolinos in Italy) and thus running at 200mph causes problems if you then attempt to run on the classic WCML to Scotland (ie. you gain no time overall).

Making such heavy use of classic lines also gives us a disadvantage relative to the Germans or wherever.... it precludes the use of the double decker trains which are a massive success on the continent.

 

[jon0844]

I am grateful for the responses from the No camp, for it makes their position even less credible.

Yes motorways can be expanded, but what happens when you build extra lanes? They get filled.

Yes airports can be expanded (and great cost, over decades of wrangling). And what happens? There's calls for further and greater expansion often at the cost of villages and green spaces.

I'm actually not against road expansion (as well as rail expansion) but the problem in the future will be increased fuel costs that make people drive less. Likewise, it will impact on air travel.

So, in 10, 20 or 30 years. It will be so expensive to get around that many will consider driving to be something to do only when you have to. People will have to think harder about taking a job that requires driving, unless the company pays for it or the Government gives some form of tax relief for commuting - as against charging more for use in the rush hours!

Air travel will also be more costly.

So, where will people turn to so they can still go out and about? Hmmm... how about trains, which would be powered by renewable/green energy solutions?

Just imagine if more and more car owners decided to give up driving and take to the trains (as has been happening for years)? The existing infrastructure would collapse. Far from not building HS2, we also need to come up with many more projects to build new lines, upgrade signalling to allow more paths and allow for freight.

Or put our heads in the sand.

 

[LE Greys]

Unfortunately the fastest active-tilting trains available are only capable of 155mph at the present time (Pendolinos in Italy) and thus running at 200mph causes problems if you then attempt to run on the classic WCML to Scotland (ie. you gain no time overall).

Making such heavy use of classic lines also gives us a disadvantage relative to the Germans or wherever.... it precludes the use of the double decker trains which are a massive success on the continent.

The counter-argument for that is that using double-deckers precludes the trains serving current stations, thus meaning that infrastructure costs are much higher, since you either have to expand loading gauges or build new stations and approaches. While the latter might work for big cities such as London or Sheffield, places such as Bradford and Stratford-on-Avon (included in my ideas) or Glasgow and Liverpool (included in HS2) require classic-compatible stock anyway. My version would use cascaded Eurostars (shortened if necessary) and 395s until the expanded-gauge routes reach Leeds and Manchester, which would reduce initial costs considerably. This also presumes that Eurostars have a double-deck replacement by then, but still have plenty of life left in them.

 

[Badger]

Sorry if I misunderstand you, but why would HS2, or cascaded Eurostars, ever serve Stratford Upon Avon? It's a tiny town in comparison.

 

[LE Greys]

Sorry if I misunderstand you, but why would HS2, or cascaded Eurostars, ever serve Stratford Upon Avon? It's a tiny town in comparison.

395s would serve Stratford-on-Avon, for the same reason that they serve Shepherdswell, Canterbury, etc. It's convenient to clear the Stratford paths off the lines south of Banbury (where they would leave the current network for HS2). The pattern would be:

• All stations Stratford-on-Avon - Banbury (current line)
• Brackley Central (new connecting line)
• Aylesbury Town (off HS2 on a loop)
• Old Oak Common
• London St Pancras (reverse)
• Stratford (Essex)
• Ebbsfleet
• Whichever route seems most convenient in Kent