High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Well anyway, abandoning all the political bits and pieces. ( I was saying that Scotland would have to join the EU to avoid the VAT issues, and since you don't seen to be disagreeing with this, I have nothing else to say).

How much space does a station at Leeds require anyway?

I assume we could simply cut and cover the platforms and put the concourse above them, so the limiting factor on the size of the station is the number of platforms required right?

Let's assume a through station:
We will end up with a maximum of 5-6 terminating trains per hour and ~10 through trains per hour, perhaps 5-6 of which would stop.

So we need to platform 6 terminating and 6 through services per hour.

Additionally if we are willing to move any international sets north of Leeds after arrival to get them out of the station they could stop at the regular platforms while heading north, meaning we only need one secured platform on the southbound side of the station.

SO we need 6tph stopping terminating, 6tph stopping through, through lines and a secured international platform on the southbound side of the station.

How much space does this take up?
Three/four bays and four through platforms or something? Plus two through lines and the international platform in my opinion, the bays would be in the centre and the through platforms on each side of them and the through lines outermost of all, perhaps with the secure platform on the far side of that., to enable the bay trains to reverse without unduly obstructing the through lines.

This also means that much of the length on the north end of the station could be dispensed with, since there is no reason a twin bore set of tunnels could not start some distance from each other.

Ofcourse going for seven or nine through platforms would be the optimum choice, but we are rather space constrained.

 

[DXMachina]

Oh and Reverse Charge VAT is a similar (but different mechanism) which only applies to supplies of services - not goods. (With the exception of the measures brought in to counteract Carousel Fraud).

Sorry thats just plain incorrect. All VAT registered UK businesses importing goods from VAT registered suppliers in the EU are required to account for reverse charge VAT on all imports

I should know, my last employers got fined a six figure sum for failing to do so ! this is on physical products, not services, although services are also included.

 

[transmanche]

Sorry thats just plain incorrect. All VAT registered UK businesses importing goods from VAT registered suppliers in the EU are required to account for reverse charge VAT on all imports

No like I said, Reverse Charge VAT is for services and is a relatively new system. The procedure for goods is older and is similar, but there are significant differences in how the two are reported on the VAT return. (See VAT Notice 725 for goods and VAT Notice 741A for services and contrast the two processes.)

I should know, my last employers got fined a six figure sum for failing to do so !

I can well understand that, if they have been operating VAT as you described and mixing up the reporting of goods and services!

Honestly, when it comes to VAT I do know what I'm talking about (I speccd and built the first system for filing VAT3 forms electronically in Ireland and the first system for calculating Flat Rate VAT in the UK.)

Anyway we're seriously off-topic now, so if you want to continue the discussion we can do so offline - as I said, my consultancy rates are quite reasonable!

 

[Philip Elliott]

Leeds is to be a terminating station.

 

[HSTEd]

Leeds is to be a terminating station.

I thought information like that was still contained in a series of black boxes deep in the DfT or HS2 Ltd. HQ somewhere.

If it isn't, do we have any information as to the proposed site?

 

[Batman]

Leeds is to be a terminating station.

I bet people in North Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland are going to love that. NOT!

 

[ainsworth74]

I bet people in North Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland are going to love that. NOT!

Nah we're used to be ignored. You only need to look at the rolling stock and infrastructure in our area to see that.

 

[Batman]

Nah we're used to be ignored. You only need to look at the rolling stock and infrastructure in our area to see that.

Is this another case of people in the North East becoming more aware of their own victimhood?

But on a more serious note, a short connection line from Leeds city centre to the ECML at York would do wonders for the NE.

 

[tbtc]

I doubt that we know whether Leeds will be a "terminus" style station or a through station yet (and this is just speculation), but even if it were there'd surely be nothing stopping trains reversing there and continuing to Newcastle etc?

 

[joeykins82]

The design spec has both Leeds and Manchester as terminus stations: http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hs2-economic-case.pdf page 9

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt that we know whether Leeds will be a "terminus" style station or a through station yet (and this is just speculation), but even if it were there'd surely be nothing stopping trains reversing there and continuing to Newcastle etc?

Reversing a 400m train takes quite a while, you have to get the driver out, have him walk the length of the train, reboard and a do a brake test before he can continue.

It loses too much time.

And this "design specification" also includes a spur to Heathrow which is almost certainly never going to be built as there is insufficient demand for it so it appears to be one of those early documents saying "we should build it and it might look like this", rather than one that actually says "it will look like this".

Ideally both manchester and Leeds would be configured to enable them to be rigged as through stations, because even with a HSL to scotland via Newcastle, there might be a possible case to extend the Manchester spur to the sea at Liverpool at some point in the future. (This would enable all Manchester trains to be extended through to Liverpool, giving a reduction in travel times for Liverpool compared to CC services and enabling both Mancheste rand Liverpool to recieve a turn-up-and-ride frequency of up to 6tph potentially).

 

[transmanche]

Reversing a 400m train takes quite a while, you have to get the driver out, have him walk the length of the train, reboard and a do a brake test before he can continue.

It loses too much time.

Although such stations might make convenient crew changeover points - with drivers 'stepping back'.

(I don't know if this happens anywhere on NR, but it's fairly common on some tube lines.)

 

[HSTEd]

Although such stations might make convenient crew changeover points - with drivers 'stepping back'.

(I don't know if this happens anywhere on NR, but it's fairly common on some tube lines.)

Ideally, thanks to the relatively short journey time on High Speed lines, crew changeovers would occur mostly at one end of the route if possible, potentially all in London or whatever.

The journey time from Amersham to Aldgate on the Met will be similar to the journey time from London to Manchester.

 

[ainsworth74]

Reversing a 400m train takes quite a while, you have to get the driver out, have him walk the length of the train, reboard and a do a brake test before he can continue.

Really? I swear when I've been on 158s that reverse at Hull they don't do a break test, just change ends and go.

 

[Stats]

And this "design specification" also includes a spur to Heathrow which is almost certainly never going to be built as there is insufficient demand for it so it appears to be one of those early documents saying "we should build it and it might look like this", rather than one that actually says "it will look like this".

Somebody better tell the DfT then, before they waste money building the Heathrow Spur Delta junction during construction of Phase 1.

 

[HSTEd]

Somebody better tell the DfT then, before they waste money building the Heathrow Spur Delta junction during construction of Phase 1.

Build the delta junction without actually building the spur means nothing, it essentially means they buy a little extra land and make sure there is room to put in the extra tracks, but they won't ever actually put them in.

HS2 has enough enemies without adding more by not atleast planning to connect to Heathrow.

Oh and this document doesn't incldue the same estimates for rolling stock requirements as those listed elsewhere.

For instance it does not mention the production of 250m CC sets for use in the North East services, only a uniform fleet of 200m sets.
It also does not take account of the apparently proposed realignment of the route to better serve Liverpool at the expense of Manchester.

So basing assumptions about Manchester and LEeds being termini and not through stations is a shakey proposition at best.

 

[Rational Plan]

So basing assumptions about Manchester and LEeds being termini and not through stations is a shakey proposition at best.

Now come on. How is that a shaky proposition, just because you'd prefer through stations does not make it the most obvious solution. All the documents released so far all say terminal station for Leeds and Manchester and Birmingham.

Only two cities will have through stations, and as a result neither of those are in their city centres.

It all may change, but there is absolutely no indication that through stations are going to be built.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Only two cities will have through stations, and as a result neither of those are in their city centres.

Or even in the cities at all!

 

[Snapper]

Here's some stunning examples of he level of deceit practised by the anti Hs2 mob, specifically the Hs2 Action Alliance.

They've been rapped over the knuckles once this past week for misleading adverts by the ASA:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/9/HS2-Action-Alliance-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_191577.aspx

Today they've put out this:

http://www.hs2actionalliance.com/in...services-to-save-77-billion-26-september-2012

Now for the reality. The info is available on the Hs2ltd website, you don't need a FOI request to find it. It's here:

http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/85308

Section 2.4.2 say this:

"This is an indicative outline of the possible service specification for the purposes of the
demand model, to allow the development of the business case. It is a credible service plan
tested against the capacity of HS2 and the West Coast Mainline (WCML) on which some
classic compatible trains would run. It also includes an assessment of the potential for
released capacity. However, it has not been subject to any degree of timetable validation or
optimisation, and there is the potential for further iterations as the project develops. In
addition it should be noted that this specification has been developed specifically for
modelling purposes and any actual service specification introduced following the opening of
HS2 would be a matter for the operator and would need to respond to prevailing patterns of
demand at the time; as such, this should not be used to infer any final service specification"

Either they managed to miss that bit, or they're deliberately choosing to deceive. I suspect we know the answer to that one...

 

[tbtc]

it should be noted that this specification has been developed specifically for modelling purposes and any actual service specification introduced following the opening of HS2 would be a matter for the operator

...and yet I keep hearing about some of the suggestions as "fact" (especially the proposals for the remaining WCML services, like diverting all Liverpool services through New Street, slowing them down considerably).

 

[The Ham]

Here's some stunning examples of he level of deceit practised by the anti Hs2 mob, specifically the Hs2 Action Alliance.

They've been rapped over the knuckles once this past week for misleading adverts by the ASA:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/9/HS2-Action-Alliance-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_191577.aspx

Today they've put out this:

http://www.hs2actionalliance.com/in...services-to-save-77-billion-26-september-2012

Now for the reality. The info is available on the Hs2ltd website, you don't need a FOI request to find it. It's here:

http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/85308

Section 2.4.2 say this:

"This is an indicative outline of the possible service specification for the purposes of the
demand model, to allow the development of the business case. It is a credible service plan
tested against the capacity of HS2 and the West Coast Mainline (WCML) on which some
classic compatible trains would run. It also includes an assessment of the potential for
released capacity. However, it has not been subject to any degree of timetable validation or
optimisation, and there is the potential for further iterations as the project develops. In
addition it should be noted that this specification has been developed specifically for
modelling purposes and any actual service specification introduced following the opening of
HS2 would be a matter for the operator and would need to respond to prevailing patterns of
demand at the time; as such, this should not be used to infer any final service specification"

Either they managed to miss that bit, or they're deliberately choosing to deceive. I suspect we know the answer to that one...

Interestingly Peterborough GAINS 1 train per hour according to them under HS2:
Peterborough
Currently: 3 trains per hour (2 non-stop)
after HS2: 4 trains per hour, but only 1 non-stop

taken from page 4:
http://www.hs2actionalliance.com/in...nald-report-analysis-incl-tables-26-sept-2012

If I lived in Peterborough I would be livid that I was gaining extra services under HS2, how dare they provide me with a better service when HS2 isn't even calling at Peterborough!

 

[Stats]

Now for the reality. The info is available on the Hs2ltd website, you don't need a FOI request to find it. It's here:

http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/85308

Section 2.4.2 say this:

"This is an indicative outline of the possible service specification for the purposes of the
demand model, to allow the development of the business case. It is a credible service plan
tested against the capacity of HS2 and the West Coast Mainline (WCML) on which some
classic compatible trains would run. It also includes an assessment of the potential for
released capacity. However, it has not been subject to any degree of timetable validation or
optimisation, and there is the potential for further iterations as the project develops. In
addition it should be noted that this specification has been developed specifically for
modelling purposes and any actual service specification introduced following the opening of
HS2 would be a matter for the operator and would need to respond to prevailing patterns of
demand at the time; as such, this should not be used to infer any final service specification"

Either they managed to miss that bit, or they're deliberately choosing to deceive. I suspect we know the answer to that one...

Indeed, and section 2.5.2 in the document states

For the Y network, an initial view was developed on the possible changes to services across
the WCML, MML and ECML (see Annex A). This view was the best available at the time when
assumptions on modelling had to be finalised. However substantial further work has been
conducted in parallel to the work reported in this document. This parallel work has indicated
there are several opportunities to improve the service specification modelled here, offering
further benefits and improving connectivity between different locations, particularly for
shorter distance trips. Work will continue on refining the service pattern for both released
capacity and HS2 services for HS2 Ltd’s as part of the continuing development of proposals
for the Y network.

So already indicating that further work has been done to improve the service specification.

And the latest Economic Case updated August 2012 says that refinements have been made to the service specification for both HS2 services and usage of freed up capacity on the classic lines.

But I'd like to thank them for bringing that document to my attention. I wasn't aware it existed and I'm sure it is going to make interesting reading.

 

[HSTEd]

Now come on. How is that a shaky proposition, just because you'd prefer through stations does not make it the most obvious solution. All the documents released so far all say terminal station for Leeds and Manchester and Birmingham.

Only two cities will have through stations, and as a result neither of those are in their city centres.

It all may change, but there is absolutely no indication that through stations are going to be built.

This pokes at a heart of the problem with HS2 as it is currently concieved.

They have designed a network revolving around a bunch of terminal stations as the dominant destinations connected to a "spinal" route via a series of delta and triangle junctions.

The problem with this, while it leads to increased average speeds due to few or no intermediate stops, it wastes paths as we must provide a train to Leeds and then a seperate train to the North East, rather than running two trains to the north east via Leeds, which when you note that we are primarily limited by core paths, is a rather suboptimal solution.

They claim that the system is around capacity and produce one designed to produce the lowest possible journey times at any cost.

If they were about capacity they would engineer the system to allow the longest possible tarins to be used to make the most use of the limited number of paths available, this means through stations in Leeds and probably in Manchester.

And isn't the consensus that a Sheffield station would be at Meadowhall, which while not in the centre of Sheffield is still well within what is conventionally considered to be the "city"?

 

[Waverley125]

Meadowhall is nearer to Rotherham town Centre than it is to Sheffield City Centre.

Personally I think the design as outlined above is misguided. Sheffield & Leeds are big places, so I don't see a problem with trains running through them either at lower speeds, or all being stopping trains.

In the case of Leeds, the likely additional track mileage to build an 'avoider', which is probably from Methley Junction to Scholes, is maybe 3-4 miles? With Sheffield it's much longer, and requires building in hillier terrain, but for Leeds I don't see it being an issue, given that a through station would effectively be on a 'C loop' through the city centre.

 

[nerd]

This pokes at a heart of the problem with HS2 as it is currently concieved.

They have designed a network revolving around a bunch of terminal stations as the dominant destinations connected to a "spinal" route via a series of delta and triangle junctions.

The problem with this, while it leads to increased average speeds due to few or no intermediate stops, it wastes paths as we must provide a train to Leeds and then a seperate train to the North East, rather than running two trains to the north east via Leeds, which when you note that we are primarily limited by core paths, is a rather suboptimal solution.

They claim that the system is around capacity and produce one designed to produce the lowest possible journey times at any cost.

If they were about capacity they would engineer the system to allow the longest possible tarins to be used to make the most use of the limited number of paths available, this means through stations in Leeds and probably in Manchester.

And isn't the consensus that a Sheffield station would be at Meadowhall, which while not in the centre of Sheffield is still well within what is conventionally considered to be the "city"?

Jouney times and capacity are one and the same; the faster the trainsets run, and the faster they turn round, the more trips each trainset can make in any given time, so the greater the capacity of the system.

As you say, this leads to each major destination having one or more dedicated paths, but then that is no different from currently; you don't go through Brum to get from Euston to Liverpool, or through Leeds to get from Kings Cross to Newcastle.

If HS2 can fill the trains at the terminus; there is no point in stopping on the way - as there will be no seats free to be used.

 

[HSTEd]

Jouney times and capacity are one and the same; the faster the trainsets run, and the faster they turn round, the more trips each trainset can make in any given time, so the greater the capacity of the system.

But the number of trainsets required to run the service is reduced by having the smallest possible number of turnarounds, as in a 20 minute turnaround a train can cover over 100km at 320kph.
Running seperate trains to these places will just increase the number of turnarounds neccesary and thus the number of trainsets required and this effect is likely to swamp the tiny marginal gains you get from travel times. You can tie up one 1 set for 1hr20+turnaround (LeedS) and another for 1hr50(Newcastle)+turnaround or 1 longer set for 2hr+turnaround.

Remember spare seats can just be dumped as marginal-cost advances, which are sure to sell very well in almost all circumstances.

As you say, this leads to each major destination having one or more dedicated paths, but then that is no different from currently; you don't go through Brum to get from Euston to Liverpool, or through Leeds to get from Kings Cross to Newcastle.

No you don't, because the alternative route that is used has major benefits in terms of travel times, but diverting via Leeds instead of simply proceeding straight to Newcastle, if a through station is used, is on the order of 6-7 minutes thanks to the very rapidly accelerating trainsets we have at our disposal.

If HS2 can fill the trains at the terminus; there is no point in stopping on the way - as there will be no seats free to be used.

Whether the trains are full or not is largely irrelevent, the question is whether the track itself is full as that is the very very expensive part, the number of trainsets required in a large high speed rail operation is trivial next to the capital cost of the infrastructure.

And since it now appears that HS2 Ltd wants to throw very expensive space away adopting the French model (with its low density services) of having lots of 200m trains going everywhere rather than a more appropriate high density model.

Can you fill 4 1300 seat trains per hour to Leeds and 2 such trains to Newcastle or Scotland (assuming after an extension to Scotland as that is the likely "end state" for a network int he long term) reliably? or would we be better off with 6 1300 seat trains per hour to both which take 6-7 minutes longer to reach Scotland?

Doing the later gives us better utilisation of seat space as we can fill our trains with either Newcastle or Leeds people as required by the situation, we also get buckets of capacity on the Newcastle/Scotland- Leeds route.

In Summary: trains that are not 400m long units that are double decks (with conservatively 1300 seats) are wasted on captive diagrams and should not be run, likewise running CC trains on the core London-Birmingham section in formations not 400m long is very very wasteful.

 

[D365]

I'd love double decker trains, as long as the top deck isn't as low as that on some of our buses. Would increase dwell times but that surely isn't as much of a problem with terminal stations?

Also, when the Euston-OOC-Heathrow runs begin, could/would that replace the current HEx, or the possible Crossrail version? The 332s will be in their 30s by then, but perhaps BAA would sponsor the operation.

 

[joeykins82]

Well, the HS2-only services can run with the 400m trainsets whereas the services which run via HS2 to the WCML/ECML are limited to 240m. Given that the expected bulk passenger flows are Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds to London it makes sense. Plus, the vast majority of London to Leeds/Manchester services are already terminating services so it doesn't make a difference to passengers.

 

[D365]

Alright, so so far we/they have devised two types of train for HS2. We have 400m (appx. 15x26m carriages) double-deckers for HS2 only (Euston-OOC-Birmingham Interchange-Curzon and eventually Heathrow, Manchester, Leeds and possibly HS1). For HS2/Classic services, we have a more traditional 240m (9x26m or 11x23m) single deck train. Sounds good!

Could this be a job for Hitachi? Super-Super Express Trains?

 

[ainsworth74]

Could this be a job for Hitachi?

It could. Then again it could also be a job for Siemens or Alstom or Bombardier. It all depends on who wins the tender