High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Eurostars are almost certainly too slow to operate on HS2, which will be extremely heavily stressed as it is, trains need to have as uniform performance characteristics as possible.

 

[LE Greys]

Eurostars are almost certainly too slow to operate on HS2, which will be extremely heavily stressed as it is, trains need to have as uniform performance characteristics as possible.

Is that really necessary? I happen to believe that we can see more benefit from a mixed-traffic railway than an attempt to build an inter-urban metro. It would be a trade-off, since it would reduce total capacity, but I believe it would work better, since it would make it possible to serve more places and more people. It would also open up the possibility of a second, or even a third, north-south link in the future, serving yet more places.

 

[SS4]

Of course we could rename the WCML as HS2 (does it ever go along the coast?) and redefine High Speed to mean 125mph

I don't think Birmingham needs a High Speed line to London - 1h24 is not that long in the great scheme of things and I fear that prices will be far too high for anyone not on expenses to travel by anyway. The shift from road to rail will push up prices and moreso if the political will remains that the passenger pays a greater share.
This country needs some HS rail, preferably similar to Japan or Germany but it also needs guarantees that pricing will be fair (and FWIW HS2 will pass relatively close to me)

edit: instead of a fixation with speed I think we should be looking at the most fuel-efficient speed.

 

[HSTEd]

Is that really necessary? I happen to believe that we can see more benefit from a mixed-traffic railway than an attempt to build an inter-urban metro. It would be a trade-off, since it would reduce total capacity, but I believe it would work better, since it would make it possible to serve more places and more people. It would also open up the possibility of a second, or even a third, north-south link in the future, serving yet more places.

Well the more capacity the better in my opinion, 18 400m trainsets with ~1300+ seats each every hour (I calculate 1352 using a ~400m TGV Duplex derivative) sounds like a great way to slash the cost of tickets to the marginal cost of running the trains, rather than the drastically inflated fares we have now to reduce demand.

EDIT:

The most fuel efficient speed under electric traction is the lowest speed.

So who wants a walking pace network?

 

[Deerfold]

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.

It can manage faster so long as you don't stop much - there's the 0700 from Leeds, due into KGX at 0859 - though with no stops after Wakefield.

 

[HSTEd]

It can manage faster so long as you don't stop much - there's the 0700 from Leeds, due into KGX at 0859 - though with no stops after Wakefield.

As BR found out after the WCML electrification project, what caused InterCity passenger numbers to explode was not that a crack express managed never before seen travel times, but that every train would do it.

If you were going to go non stop 320kph could manage it in probably something like 66 minutes.

 

[caliwag]

Does anyone recall, back around late 90s, GNER floated the idea of P+R stations on ECML: East of Edinburgh, South of Doncaster (conjuntion of motorways) and Hadley Wood (M25) running dedicated trains, sweeping up car drivers as it were...no doubt from South yorkshire.
Stations were designed, including infrastructure and no doubt timetable slots were found.
GNER were told by, I assume, the regulator, maybe DaFT to forget all that, just run trains boys. A classic case of pathetic short-term thinking from a go-ahead outfit.
Why are such initiatives squashed, interestingly without publicity?

 

[LE Greys]

OK, this is going to be a long one, but here's why I think we should re-think where we are going with HS2. I have already outlined my reasoning in deciding on the German model, and will clarify slightly by saying we already have enough main lines, we just need to speed them up in the most cost-effective way possible. It would probably be better to start with the line most in need first.

The current HS2, as in HS2a (the original London-Rugeley with a branch to Birmingham, later the 'Y' system to Manchester and Leeds)

• Speeds up journey times to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham and stations north to Edinburgh and Glasgow
• Vastly increases capacity on the WCML, with some on the ECML and MML
• Zooms past many medium-sized communities
• Has huge costs building new stations and urban sections of line
• Has some stations on the outskirts of major cities instead of the centre
• Is likely to be premium-fare, book-ahead only
• Is so crammed that any minor disruption will cause a house-of-cards effect on the timetable
• Is double-track for most sections
• Cannot start operations until the whole line to Birmingham is built

My version, London-Sheffield, later extending to Manchester and Leeds, heavily connected with the rest of the network

• Speeds up journey times to Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and stations to Edinburgh and Glasgow
• Increases capacity on the MML corridor, plus a lot on the ECML and WCML
• Provides Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire with a very fast suburban network
• Electrifies the whole of Chiltern
• Speeds up XC between Sheffield and Reading
• Means that XC no longer has to reverse at New Street
• Gives South TPX an option to use a different route
• Same for Norwich-Liverpool
• Serves medium-sized communities en-route, including some such as Lutterworth and Brackley which have had no rail service for years (but only with semi-fasts)
• Uses existing stock, so cheaper and quicker to get going
• Uses existing stations, some upgraded, so no need for all the additional costs of building new ones
• If there are new stations, they will be in city centres on the sites of closed ones
• Is fully incorporated with ATOC ticketing systems
• Must charge fares competitive with other lines (i.e. the same price as the MML alternative)
• Has enough flexibility in the timetable to cope with disruption
• Is mostly four-track (with some existing lines incorporated)
• Can start operations when the first (outer-suburban) section is built (trains run from Marylebone until the connection from St Pancras is finished)
• Doesn't give so much increased capacity (about half that proposed for HS2)
• Is a bit slower
• Has major problems getting through Nottingham and Sheffield
• Probably costs more

On balance, HS2 gives a smaller number of people an extremely good service, while my alternative gives a lot of people a good service, many of whom currently have to make do with a poor or non-existent (as opposed to good) service, and will still have to once HS2 is finished. This bears some resemblance to the ECML streamliners. Yes, they were swift and glorious, but they only served a few people who paid supplementary fares. A4s only really came into their own under BR, when they hauled heavy expresses open to anyone with a ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course we could rename the WCML as HS2 (does it ever go along the coast?) and redefine High Speed to mean 125mph

If you count a few glimpses of Morecambe Bay and the Solway Firth 'the coast', then yes it does, but briefly.

 

[tbtc]

Does anyone recall, back around late 90s, GNER floated the idea of P+R stations on ECML: East of Edinburgh, South of Doncaster (conjuntion of motorways) and Hadley Wood (M25) running dedicated trains, sweeping up car drivers as it were...no doubt from South yorkshire.
Stations were designed, including infrastructure and no doubt timetable slots were found.
GNER were told by, I assume, the regulator, maybe DaFT to forget all that, just run trains boys. A classic case of pathetic short-term thinking from a go-ahead outfit.
Why are such initiatives squashed, interestingly without publicity?

Yes, I remember it well. A good idea (although it was GNER"s style to concentrate on filling their own trains rather than connecting with the "network" - they'd obviously prefer people from Sheffield to drive to a Doncaster car park to use GNER rather than use the Midland Mainline services for the same reason that they had connecting buses from Lincoln/ Hull/ Barnsley etc instead of getting people to use "local" trains).

I still think that the parkway stations would work (but I'd prefer them to integrate with other services)

 

[Chris125]

I don't think Birmingham needs a High Speed line to London - 1h24 is not that long in the great scheme of things and I fear that prices will be far too high for anyone not on expenses to travel by anyway. The shift from road to rail will push up prices and moreso if the political will remains that the passenger pays a greater share.
This country needs some HS rail, preferably similar to Japan or Germany but it also needs guarantees that pricing will be fair (and FWIW HS2 will pass relatively close to me)

I dont understand why people are so fixated with the price issue - fares will reflect demand, its as simple as that.

It makes far more sense to worry about being priced off increasingly congested WCML services, with no more capacity prices wil go up and up. If you dont need the journey time benefit HS2 provides, no doubt you'll be able to save some money using slower services.

Chris

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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?

Out of interest, has anyone ever tried putting together a list of other useful railway projects that could be implemented for the same amount of money, to get an idea of whether the potential benefits of diverting the money would be as great? (Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm new to this thread and with 1200 odd posts already in the thread, there's no reasonable way to wade through all of them before posting).

 

[Nym]

Oh there are plenty of other projects, but at the moment they all seem to have too much of an effect on the timetables by causing massess of disruption to implement.

The're also very difficult to gift wrap into one major step forwards package that can be sold to investors and then leased back in a PPP or whatever it's called nowadays scheme to make the money back over the next 30 - 50 years. Because of this return that is of a reasonably low risk, and also being a single project that can be colatarolised as it's not part of existing infrastructure, the risks are all much lower, thus attracting private investment or easier to justify to the treasury.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Neither are on the size of the WCML upgrade though, so neither will require months/years of replacement bus services (which upgrading the ECML as was suggested would require).

Thameslink is £5.5bn vs £8.6bn and 10 years vs. 8 years. Thameslink has seen a line through the centre of London closed at weekends for over 2 years. It is a pretty big project.

Thanks for highlighting a couple of big infrastructure projects that are taking place despite the money being found for HS2 (to dispel the myth that HS2 is stopping such investment).

The year is currently 2012, a project due to start i 2017/2018 can't have any affect on the finances now - no government department can 'bank' money - money has to come out of the annual budget and ones of the reasons for the construction period for being so long - to spread the money out to reduce the annual cost.

Once all the current projects finish around the time HS2 starts construction what other major projects are planned...? Other than a bit of electrification it is precisely zero.

 

[ainsworth74]

The year is currently 2012, a project due to start i 2017/2018 can't have any affect on the finances now - no government department can 'bank' money - money has to come out of the annual budget and ones of the reasons for the construction period for being so long - to spread the money out to reduce the annual cost.

As I pointed out above we already know the source of money for HS2 the same place as it currently comes from for Crossrail. The plan is to simply shift from funding Crossrail construction to funding HS2 construction.

Once all the current projects finish around the time HS2 starts construction what other major projects are planned...? Other than a bit of electrification it is precisely zero.

Well that probably has more to do with the fact that the HLOS for that period has been published yet than HS2 eating all the money for the existing railway. We'll know what's planned for the 2019-2024 in the near future once it gets published.

 

[Philip Elliott]

The next HLOS is actually for 2015-2019.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Let's get one thing straight, HS2 will not use the same funding model as Crossrail:

When the funding arrangements for Crossrail were announced in October 2007 it was agreed that the Government, the former Mayor and London businesses would each contribute approximately one third of the expected cost

The BRS [Business Rate Supplement] will be used to finance and repay £3.5 billion debt raised to help fund Crossrail's construction. Surplus funds from the BRS, estimated to be approximately £600 million, will be used to fund Crossrail's construction directly. The debt will begin to be repaid once Crossrail is operational. See Appendix 1 for the detailed breakdown of funding sources for Crossrail

New powers given to the Mayor under the 2008 Planning Act allow him to use the planning system to raise money for infrastructure improvements needed to develop an area through the setting of a ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’. It will be collected on new developments which are approved from the Spring of 2012 aiming to raise £300 million

The DfT's contribution will be circa £5bn over 8 years or about £620-650m per annum not £2bn.

 

[Chris125]

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?

HS2 has never been about reducing the number of trains on the southern WCML, but allowing them to better serve intermediate stops.

Moving long distance passengers onto a seperate pair of lines allows the WCML fast lines to become more like semi-fast lines - giving large traffic generators like MK more stopping trains with faster journey times, and at the same time freeing up capacity on the slow lines.

That's no to say every single person will be better off, but the vast majority will benefit to some extent.

Chris

 

[WatcherZero]

The DfT's contribution will be circa £5bn over 8 years or about £620-650m per annum not £2bn.

The Dft is providing the initial borrowing for the project, its all well saying they will pay 1/3rd the money back through a business tax of 2% per annum over 31 years and fare contribution but the Dft is providing the money up front before the taxes and extra fare revenue starts and getting it repaid over time. Its on record the amount the Dft provides for Crossrail construction is £2bn per year.

The same system will operate with HS2, the Government will spend £2bn per year on construction and get most of the £32bn back over 30 years after opening through fare revenue and extra economic activity.

 

[ainsworth74]

The next HLOS is actually for 2015-2019.

Apologies I got my dates wrong. However, it doesn't change the fact that we don't know what going to be happening out towards the end of the decade and beyond because it hasn't been released yet (beyond the already confirmed programs).

 

[WatcherZero]

NR have just finished the second round of RUS 5 year strategy inputs but they are changing the RUS system for the next set, instead of the current system where they look at the existing system capacity on a line and its usage then forecast demand in 5/10 years and say where is their going to be overcrowded trains, a shortfall in line capacity? And work out how to plug the gap. The new system they basically do market research and ask where do people want to go and how can they get there? Say their research finds theres a suppressed demand for Cambridge to Bristol passengers they would then ask how could they satisfy that demand what new infrastructure needs to be built or new services created to get people travelling by rail between those two points.

 

[caliwag]

Possibly another nail...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/17/hs2-homes-compensation-row

 

[PR1Berske]

If you check this link, YouGov has asked what people think about HS2

Pretty much evenly split across the board!


http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ql7jtsp04v/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-15-170612.pdf

 

[RobShipway]

With any major project like this, there is also going to be rows about compensation or what rate should be used to buy peoples homes from them. If you look at any of the details for the Crossrail project, it has been the same there with the buying of the property so that they project can go ahead.

 

[WatcherZero]

Manchester Airport is still paying compensation claims to houses for the second runway completed a decade ago!

 

[northwichcat]

Manchester Airport is still paying compensation claims to houses for the second runway completed a decade ago!

Yes but to be clear this is for people in Mobberley and Knutsford who owned homes under the new flight path and still do. I presume the people from Styal who had their property knocked down or relocated were compensated a long time ago. The compensation value is £1500, this is around 1% of the current value of the cheaper houses under the flight path so not a huge amount in proportion.

Back to HS2 people are saying about it being needed because the WCML is full, what about we build more local lines and bringing under used lines in to regular use instead to keep for WCML for Intercity services?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Back to HS2 people are saying about it being needed because the WCML is full, what about we build more local lines and bringing under used lines in to regular use instead to keep for WCML for Intercity services?

I am looking at the picture of the WCML from Crewe to Carlisle. Would you say there is enough demand for passenger traffic on the intermediate lines areas there are not already served by existing services, as there are feeder services to Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western and Preston stations. Lancaster has a connection to the West Yorkshire area.

I note that on the onwards continuation through Clitheroe to Hellifield, the use of the Settle to Carlisle railway in a northerly direction to Carlisle is an option that has been discussed for many years and I ask if there are enough spare pathways available to make this a viable regular service pattern.

With regard to the other point that you made, could you give some examples of where local lines would be built?

 

[northwichcat]

With regard to the other point that you made, could you give some examples of where local lines would be built?

A new line between Liverpool and Crewe, for instance, leaving the existing line for Virgin and freight. There's then a possibly of having a proper interchange station between Chester-Altrincham services and Liverpool-Crewe services improving local/regional connections as well as increasing capacity at a lower cost than HS2.

 

[PR1Berske]

Greening - HS2 will be built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18548678

 

[Waverley125]

What about eventual alignments beyond Manchester? I would have thought the most sensible way to do it would be to split at Manchester Airport, carry on west past Manchester to Preston, then on to Carlisle on Glasgow. This would give easy north & southbound connections out of Manchester, and the inclusion of a triangle junction at Manchester Airport would allow northbound trains to run out of a south-facing Piccadilly station.

 

[LE Greys]

What about eventual alignments beyond Manchester? I would have thought the most sensible way to do it would be to split at Manchester Airport, carry on west past Manchester to Preston, then on to Carlisle on Glasgow. This would give easy north & southbound connections out of Manchester, and the inclusion of a triangle junction at Manchester Airport would allow northbound trains to run out of a south-facing Piccadilly station.

I guess part of that depends on whther you want the trains to make intermediate stops (which I do) and how much of the Lake District National Park you can cut through. I have absolutely no idea what to do between Manchester and Preston, but north of there, the M6 provides a useful alternative corridor to follow. It would require some awkward and expensive short-cuts to avoid major curves by cutting though hillsides and building viaducts. The line would follow the M6 around Lancaster and Carnforth (where hopefully the WCML platforms come back into use) and probably follow the M6 to the Lune Gorge, but with access to the WCML somewhere for permanent way trains. The Lune Gorge should ideally be avoided by cutting a massive tunnel, but if that's impossible, some major engineering to avoid a speed restriction is needed. From Tebay to Penrith (again, possibly reopen Tebay station) a massive tunnel is one option, following the M6 is another. Skirt round Penrith following the M6, then follow all the way to Carlisle. This should get a major remodelling with the freight avoiding line coming back into use, HS2 trains can join the WCML to serve the station, and clearance issues need to be sorted before they do.

North of Carlisle, you have multiple options. The various routes rejoin at Kingmoor. Firstly, an all-new line from Gretna onwards. Secondly, turn right at Gretna and head for Edinburgh. Thirdly, do roughly what I suggested before, only using the M74 rather than the M6 (same road anyway). There are nasty curves south of Lockerbie, major problems at Beattock, which again might call for a massive tunnel, and the question of what to go about Carstairs (link to Edinburgh or not?). I'd rejoin the WCML at Motherwell for the final run into Glasgow Central, unless there is a plan for a new station and a through line towards Stirling for North of Scotland services.

 

[HSTEd]

What about eventual alignments beyond Manchester? I would have thought the most sensible way to do it would be to split at Manchester Airport, carry on west past Manchester to Preston, then on to Carlisle on Glasgow. This would give easy north & southbound connections out of Manchester, and the inclusion of a triangle junction at Manchester Airport would allow northbound trains to run out of a south-facing Piccadilly station.

The most sensible way to reach Scotland has to be via Leeds and Newcastle, that way you connect the largest possible population with the minimum track required and thus minimum cost. (You also get a new high speed Edinburgh-Glasgow line for free with possible 19 minute journey times centre-to-centre)

The extra distance to Glasgow calculates as roughly 11 minutes extra on a journey of 2hr30 or more.