High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[nerd]

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.

.

That is the point;

Suppose we have 4,000 persons per hour who want to travel from London to Leeds, 2,000 persons per hour who want to travel from London to Edinburgh, and 400 persons per hour who want to travel from Leeds to Edinburgh.

And we suppose 400m captive trainsets, with a capacity of 1,300; and 200m classic compatible sets with a capacity of 500.

One configuration - as proposed by you - wouild run 6 services through from London to Edinburgh via Leeds. Between Leeds and London the trainsets would be 77% full, from Leeds to Edinburgh they would be 31% full.

The alternative configuration - as proposed by HS2 - would be to run 4 trainsets London-Leeds direct, 2 trainsets London-Edinburgh direct, and an extra classic compatible trainset Leeds - Edinburgh. All the captive sets would run 77% full, and the classic compatible set would run 80% full.

Now I've picked those numbers to support my case; but they are not far off the numbers in the DfT demand model. Running 6 services per hour (configuration 1) all the way to Edinburgh transports a lot of empty air; and consequently requires many more trainsets to be bought than in configuration 2. That in part is set against not having to buy so many classic compatible sets (which will be a lot more more expensive per seast than the captive sets); but even so there would appear to be a clear answer to your question; we would definitely be better off with the HS2 configuration, if the pattern of demand conforms substantially to the current DfT demand model.

 

[Waverley125]

re: Euston-Heathrow replacing HEx, from what I've seen (latest issue of RAIL) Crossrail will include some limited-stop journeys to Heathrow, travelling through the London core. Given this, BAA apparently don't see the use of keeping on a premium service with slightly faster journey times, given that no other airport in Europe has a standalone premium service.

Latest proposal is for the 332s to go the Airedale line (they're longer than the 333s, but the platforms at Shipley aren't long enough for double sets on Leeds-Skipton runs), and for 333s to then be used on other local services, currently expected to be Leeds-Sheffield (both via Moothorpe & Barnsley) and the Harrogate line.

 

[ainsworth74]

and for 333s to then be used on other local services, currently expected to be Leeds-Sheffield (both via Moothorpe & Barnsley) and the Harrogate line.

Though that would require those lines to be wired which (in the time frame of Crossrail) doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[Waverley125]

part of the TPE wiring is now considering Ravensthorpe-Wakefield Kirkgate-Leeds, as it's an often used diversionary route. Last diagram I saw said that, if that's done as TPE, Kirkgate-Barnsley-Meadowhall-Sheffield will be done as part of MML, as otherwise DMUs would be running under the wires halfway, and it allows EMT services ex STP to continue to Barnsley, instead of reversing at Sheffield.

 

[HSTEd]

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-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?

I would suggest limiting the CC to 200m sets, rather than 240m trains, this way they can be run in double formation.

You don't loose that much in terms of capacity really.

And yes, I would propose a Supah-Cl395, perhaps with traction equipment lifted from the N700 Series Shinkansen as that can reach 170mph in under three minutes, which is certainly the sort of performance we need.

As to the double decks, I have been basing my proposals on using some sort of double length TGV Duplex set with the inner power cars in a conventional double deck replaced with extra trailers with AGV power bogies.
Sort of like a service usable V150 type job.

But there is supposed to be a double Deck AGV in the works as well, and it might well arrive before HS2 stock needs ordering.

 

[nerd]

I would suggest limiting the CC to 200m sets, rather than 240m trains, this way they can be run in double formation.

You don't loose that much in terms of capacity really.

And yes, I would propose a Supah-Cl395, perhaps with traction equipment lifted from the N700 Series Shinkansen as that can reach 170mph in under three minutes, which is certainly the sort of performance we need.

As to the double decks, I have been basing my proposals on using some sort of double length TGV Duplex set with the inner power cars in a conventional double deck replaced with extra trailers with AGV power bogies.
Sort of like a service usable V150 type job.

But there is supposed to be a double Deck AGV in the works as well, and it might well arrive before HS2 stock needs ordering.

Don't think there are platrforms long enough to take 400m classic compatible doubles. 260m (as proposed for the Newcastle services) seems the maximum feasible.

But getting 550 seats into a 200m trainset is going to be quite a squeeze; something like the Class 395 Javelin units scaled up. But the class 395 alows no first class, no shop, limited luggage space, and limited space for lavs. That may work well from Kent to St Pancras, but spending 3 1/2 hours on one may be a bit of a trial.

As to the double decks, I would be very interested in your views. My own limited experience in Sweden suggest that limited loading and unloading times at turnround could pose problems for double-deck stock. If you have over 1,000 people (some in wheelchairs, others in buggies, and many with accompanying wheeled luggage) all wanting to find their particualr seats on a 400m long train, and only 5 minutes to do it in.

 

[HSTEd]

That is the point;

Suppose we have 4,000 persons per hour who want to travel from London to Leeds, 2,000 persons per hour who want to travel from London to Edinburgh, and 400 persons per hour who want to travel from Leeds to Edinburgh.

Okay, although I will note that I wasn't actually suggesting running all six services through to Edinburgh, I would run six services through to Newcastle, probably extending four of those to Edinburgh/Glasgow, but anyway.

The alternative configuration - as proposed by HS2 - would be to run 4 trainsets London-Leeds direct, 2 trainsets London-Edinburgh direct, and an extra classic compatible trainset Leeds - Edinburgh. All the captive sets would run 77% full, and the classic compatible set would run 80% full.

Right, lets suggest travel times of roughly 1hr20 London-Leeds, 2hr London-Newcastle via Leeds, 1hr50 London-Newcastle avoiding Leeds and ~40m for Leeds-Newcastle.
We will also assume 20 minute turnaround times at both ends of the journey.

This means a set's cycle time from London to Leeds and back is 3hr20, 4hr40 London-Newcastle via Leeds, 4hr20 London-Newcastle avoiding Leeds and 2hr for Leeds-Newcastle.

Running 4tph London-Leeds thus requires 14 sets, 2tph London-Newcastle avoiding Leeds requires 10 sets and 1tph Leeds-Newcastle roughlys 2 sets.

Total of 24 captive and 2 CC sets.

My proposal would run 6tph to Newcastle via Leeds, this would require 28 sets, all of them captive.

So I have only marginally increased crew requirements (which are a major cost) and probably only marginally increased rolling stock procurement costs (roughly 10%? or something as the 400m sets are likely to be similar in total price to the CC sets thanks to the CC sets being horribly bespoke)
But I have generated vast amounts of excess capacity between Newcastle and Leeds, and although I was not actually proposing it originally there is no reason why this could not be extended through to Glasgow via Edinburgh, where you will definitely pick up large flows between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Now I've picked those numbers to support my case; but they are not far off the numbers in the DfT demand model. Running 6 services per hour (configuration 1) all the way to Edinburgh transports a lot of empty air; and consequently requires many more trainsets to be bought than in configuration 2. That in part is set against not having to buy so many classic compatible sets (which will be a lot more more expensive per seast than the captive sets); but even so there would appear to be a clear answer to your question; we would definitely be better off with the HS2 configuration, if the pattern of demand conforms substantially to the current DfT demand model.

Yes, but running air around on high speed trains is actually very cheap, the marginal cost of a seat between Leeds and Newcastle would be similar to that between London and Birmingham, which is roughly £15 return.
Even allowing for an awful capacity factor you easily beat today's ticket prices and could thus allow for drastically increased demand between Newcastle and Leeds.

Especially as I assume that all services on the HSL would make one intermediate stop between Newcastle and leeds (even if they avoided Leeds), but with 6tph you can give 3 stations 2tph service instead of one, with the additional gains in ridership over the other option.

Mileage is cheap, the major costs are crewing and rolling stock procurement, neither of which are really increased majorly by my proposal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't think there are platrforms long enough to take 400m classic compatible doubles. 260m (as proposed for the Newcastle services) seems the maximum feasible.

... There are plenty of platforms on the high speed network for running CC services doubled up.

You could run a train to Hull and a CC train to Aberdeen or somewhere in one formation on the core route, so it only uses one path and then split them somewhere like Leeds or wherever you chose.
(And before anyone says anything about disruption it has no more potential to disrupt the network, since if one of the two components is late the network only has to deal with one late train, the same as if they were to run seperately).

But getting 550 seats into a 200m trainset is going to be quite a squeeze; something like the Class 395 Javelin units scaled up. But the class 395 alows no first class, no shop, limited luggage space, and limited space for lavs. That may work well from Kent to St Pancras, but spending 3 1/2 hours on one may be a bit of a trial.

Why the attachemnt to 550 people on a trainset?
A 200m trainset would obviously have fewer seats but its not so few as to render the whole thing infeasible.

As to the double decks, I would be very interested in your views. My own limited experience in Sweden suggest that limited loading and unloading times at turnround could pose problems for double-deck stock. If you have over 1,000 people (some in wheelchairs, others in buggies, and many with accompanying wheeled luggage) all wanting to find their particualr seats on a 400m long train, and only 5 minutes to do it in.

I would propose a pair of travelators on the platform to allow people to spread out more, and since we will be running the same trains over the same route all the time I would suggest marks on the platforms and so on for people, written in various languages ofcourse, especially as it seems the trains will be operated by ATO anyway and thus can be trusted to stop in almost exactly the same place every time.

 

[Donny Dave]

Out of interest HSTEd, how are you calculating running costs?

For example, are you taking into account build cost, leasing cost, track access charges, energy costs and staff costs (plus a few other sundry items)?

 

[HSTEd]

Out of interest HSTEd, how are you calculating running costs?

For example, are you taking into account build cost, leasing cost, track access charges, energy costs and staff costs (plus a few other sundry items)?

I put together an estimate which is somewhere in this thread based upon various costs I cobbled together from various places.
I accounted for build cost of track, infrastructure and the like, the cost of the rolling stock, maintenance costs for trains and infrastructure, staff costs and energy costs based on published energy use values and published Network Rail energy costs.

It turns out the infrastructure is the dominant cost and that trains are suprisingly low maintenence these days.

And thanks to a 1300 seat HSR set having a similar crewing requirement to a classic compatible set, the cost per seat falls through the floor.

(And thanks to advances in technology we only need two staff on each station [excluding the other sundry staff at major ones obviously] and a handful in a central control centre that can cover the entire HS network).

It is an awful crude analysis but I haven't really seen much work in that direction, I can try and dig it up if you want?

EDIT:

Note that this analysis for London-Birmingham, assumed 12tph or similar (I assumed secondary CC sets would not defray capital costs and that 4tph would be used to each destination in this older analysis), if we assume 8tph were to use the Leeds-Newcastle stretch (6tph to London and 2tph all-stops HSXC) and that capital cost was similar, this would increase the return price to somewhere in the ~£18 region, which although high is not that high.

 

[nick.c]

I may be completely wrong on this (hopefully will know for sure in a couple of months) but I'm sure that HS2 tunnels north of Birmingham will not be suitable for double deckers and max speed will be limited to 200mph - both to reduce cross-sections and thereby reduce cost.

 

[DXMachina]

You reckon they'd restrict the loading gauge on a one-off investment to save small amounts?

I don't.

 

[Nym]

You reckon they'd restrict the loading gauge on a one-off investment to save small amounts?

I don't.

This IS the DfT remember

 

[HSTEd]

I may be completely wrong on this (hopefully will know for sure in a couple of months) but I'm sure that HS2 tunnels north of Birmingham will not be suitable for double deckers and max speed will be limited to 200mph - both to reduce cross-sections and thereby reduce cost.

If they aren't suitable for double deckers that would mean we are basically back to classic compatible sets for all operations to Manchester and Leeds.... which doesn't fit the fleet requirements in all the documents published.

Also I have been doing travel time projections based on 200mph/320kph from Day 1, since I trust the Japanese who came to the conclusion that 360kph running was a waste of time due to increased wear and tear on equipment for marginal benefits in terms of travel time.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Found an interesting document on HS2 Action Alliance Website

Question that interests me is how they know that any parkway stations will have poor bus and rail links seen as we don’t know the locations of them yet!

 

[nerd]

Found an interesting document on HS2 Action Alliance Website

Question that interests me is how they know that any parkway stations will have poor bus and rail links seen as we don’t know the locations of them yet!

This is based on the Atkins report produced last April on the Benefit Cost Ratio calculations. The HS2 service patterns used are those published in January 2012; with Atkins assessment of likely impact on non-HS services. So nothing can be read into the report on specfic routes and stations, that is not published already.

The key to the Atkins work was to assess whether the HS2 could justify removing the 'cap' on modelled demand forecasts. Broadly, the HS2 and DfT rail demand models associate demand for rail travel with projected long-term economic growth. However, it is common practice in such models to 'cap' growth after a number of years; othewise they would predict expansion indefinitely. Realalistically, there must come a time when everyone who could be on a train, is on a train; however affluent they may be.

However, it has turned out that rail demand has continued to grow rapidly despite the recession. This creates a problem for the model, as now demand expansion is nearly half way to the 'cap'. Consequently, there is little further expansion to ascribe to the benefits of HS2 when it comes.

This is why HS2 was finding that their BCR calculations kept on showing successively smaller incremental benefits from HS2 - in that the growth formerly associated with the new line has already taken place. What HS2 wanted from Atkins was an independent justification for deferring the applciation of the cap for a number of extra years. Otherwise there would have been the perverse results that rapid growth in demand now creates suppressed growth in modelled demand in the future.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Found an interesting document on HS2 Action Alliance Website

Question that interests me is how they know that any parkway stations will have poor bus and rail links seen as we don’t know the locations of them yet!

That report doesn't look right, (not as in fake i mean the information) the information just doesn't seem right, why would they suddenly completely udnerutilise the WCML, MML and ECML just cos HS2 is being built, these lines make profit so why reduce the service. Im very confused.

 

[HSTEd]

That report doesn't look right, (not as in fake i mean the information) the information just doesn't seem right, why would they suddenly completely udnerutilise the WCML, MML and ECML just cos HS2 is being built, these lines make profit so why reduce the service. Im very confused.

Would they still make a profit after HS2 has gutted large sections of the express passenger market on them though?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Would they still make a profit after HS2 has gutted large sections of the express passenger market on them though?

Good point, but there are many places not on the HS2 map that still need serving.
Milton keynes coventry northampton leicster peterbrough grantham newark doncaster york wakefield stoke crewe stafford wolverhampton. Plus any new destinations that are added, sunderland, shrewsbury, burton, barnsley, lincoln. Etc etc. In the next 15 years these places could start to create some fairly large passeneger numbers.

 

[HSTEd]

Either way, I think I have a viable site for a Newcastle Station.
It is on the Town Moor north of the city centre as shown here.

This station would have a box similar in construction to the Stratford International Box as its base, but would be wider to support eight platforms instead of six alongside the two through lines.

The space above the platforms would then be used for the ticket offices and the like and presumably underground parking (presumably over one end of the trench and not over the station proper).

This would be arranged to give substantial headroom both on the "ticket office" and "platform" levels but it would all end up below the top of the trench, which could then be covered over cut-and-cover style to yield an oversized underground station with only a small access building at one end of the box which would be a "glass cube" over the main concourse, with the floor partially cut through to let some natural light.

The remainder of the ground, including the fair ground used by the annual "Hoppings" would be returned to regular use, leaving minimal land take by the station (essential considering the parkland site).

A pedestrian subway with travelators would provide access to the Metro at the nearby "West Jesmond" station.

It would probably come in at around the billion pound mark, or roughly 3-4x Stratford International after inflation, which is expensive but considering the price tag of the project as a whole it would be acceptable, and you would end up with a new station that fits into its surroundings and won't be a huge eyesore in a few years time, simply because it will be rather hard to see most of it, save for the "glass cube" surface entrance and a road access slip that just dissapears into the "ground".

Additionally if we assume a box similar to Stratford INternational, that has the track ~25m below ground level at the end of the box where it goes into the tunnel, the altitude at the south end of my proposed box is roughly 62m and it is ~2500m from the north bank of the Tyne.

If we assume 25m deep below 62m that leaves us 37m above sea level and if the tunnel drops at the UIC TSI maximum of 2.5% it should be 25m below sea level under the Tyne, and thus should have no problem clearing the river bottom, despite the rather hilly nature of the site.

The tunnel would be far shallwoer to the north of the station and would veer west, passing immediately east of the Newcastle Airport towards a straight line for Edinburgh.

West Jesmond is only 8 minutes from Central station on the MEtro and the ~350m between that station and my proposed sight could be covered by a person walking on a travellator in ~3 minutes if they were walking briskly.

 

[nerd]

Either way, I think I have a viable site for a Newcastle Station.
It is on the Town Moor north of the city centre as shown here.

This station would have a box similar in construction to the Stratford International Box as its base, but would be wider to support eight platforms instead of six alongside the two through lines.

The space above the platforms would then be used for the ticket offices and the like and presumably underground parking (presumably over one end of the trench and not over the station proper).

This would be arranged to give substantial headroom both on the "ticket office" and "platform" levels but it would all end up below the top of the trench, which could then be covered over cut-and-cover style to yield an oversized underground station with only a small access building at one end of the box which would be a "glass cube" over the main concourse, with the floor partially cut through to let some natural light.

The remainder of the ground, including the fair ground used by the annual "Hoppings" would be returned to regular use, leaving minimal land take by the station (essential considering the parkland site).

A pedestrian subway with travelators would provide access to the Metro at the nearby "West Jesmond" station.

It would probably come in at around the billion pound mark, or roughly 3-4x Stratford International after inflation, which is expensive but considering the price tag of the project as a whole it would be acceptable, and you would end up with a new station that fits into its surroundings and won't be a huge eyesore in a few years time, simply because it will be rather hard to see most of it, save for the "glass cube" surface entrance and a road access slip that just dissapears into the "ground".

Additionally if we assume a box similar to Stratford INternational, that has the track ~25m below ground level at the end of the box where it goes into the tunnel, the altitude at the south end of my proposed box is roughly 62m and it is ~2500m from the north bank of the Tyne.

If we assume 25m deep below 62m that leaves us 37m above sea level and if the tunnel drops at the UIC TSI maximum of 2.5% it should be 25m below sea level under the Tyne, and thus should have no problem clearing the river bottom, despite the rather hilly nature of the site.

The tunnel would be far shallwoer to the north of the station and would veer west, passing immediately east of the Newcastle Airport towards a straight line for Edinburgh.

West Jesmond is only 8 minutes from Central station on the MEtro and the ~350m between that station and my proposed sight could be covered by a person walking on a travellator in ~3 minutes if they were walking briskly.

There is no point in planning a through station in Edinburgh for HS2, as HS2 ltd and DfT dosn't do city centre through stations. Mybe they should, and a lot on here suggest that through stations would be better, but that would be an entirely different railway from the one that is actually in the process of final aproval. If the Scots parliament aagrees to fund a high speed connection into Phase 2 along an eastern alignment, then it will pass to the West of Newcastle, with a spur into a city centre terminus.

Moreover, I doubt very much whether plonking a station on top of the Hoppings is going to win you many friends on Tyneside. And it is facing the wrong way, a spur line off the main HS2 route to Scotland into a Newcastle terminus would likely run east-west, not north south. A site immediately north of the Scotswood Road would look more likely to me; but then its a number of years since I lived in Newcaste, and the vacant land I recall south of Benwell there may now be built up for all I know.

Or Otherwise (if the Scots decide to go west), there is plenty of spare land I recall on the South side of the the Tyne under and west of the Redheugh bridge. That would save on having to tunnel under the Tyne at all. Remember there are two levels of Meto tunnels under the city centre already; not to mention the listed Victoria waggonway tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no point in planning a through station in Edinburgh for HS2, as HS2 ltd and DfT dosn't do city centre through stations. Mybe they should, and a lot on here suggest that through stations would be better, but that would be an entirely different railway from the one that is actually in the process of final aproval.

Yes, and I would hesitate to say that HS2 is in the process of final approval, it has a long way to go yet, and it appears any attempt to even pass the act of parliament neccesary will slip into the next parliament.

It is highly likely at this rate that the entire project will be shelved. And the rather contradictory signals being produced by the DfT and HS2 Ltd as to the purpose of the network are not helping. If I was more paranoid than I am I would suggest that the DfT was trying to paralyse the project.

If the Scots parliament aagrees to fund a high speed connection into Phase 2 along an eastern alignment, then it will pass to the West of Newcastle, with a spur into a city centre terminus.

Problem with that is, if you go west of newcastle you have to go half way to Consett to get clear of the city and avoid massive tunneling, at which point you are into terrain that makes the terrain closer to the coast look pancake-like.
I dont think a Newcastle-avoiding alignment is going to fly for the simple reason that the terrain would require vast amounts of tunneling anyway.

Moreover, I doubt very much whether plonking a station on top of the Hoppings is going to win you many friends on Tyneside. And it is facing the wrong way, a spur line off the main HS2 route to Scotland into a Newcastle terminus would likely run east-west, not north south.

Like I said, I am having difficulting seeing a practical route west of the city that is not even more expensive than the one I have proposed.
And there aren't any better choices for a station location that make themselves readily apparent that have such good transport links and are still relatively central within the urban area.

And that proposal would allow the Hoppings to return to the site after the construction was complete.

A site immediately north of the Scotswood Road would look more likely to me; but then its a number of years since I lived in Newcaste, and the vacant land I recall south of Benwell there may now be built up for all I know.

As of March there was a large cleared sight north of Scotswood Road, the problem is that its even further out than the site I propose on the Town Moor and there is no access to any non-road related public transport on such a site, atleast not without a new bridge over the Tyne to reach the Metrocentre.

Or Otherwise (if the Scots decide to go west), there is plenty of spare land I recall on the South side of the the Tyne under and west of the Redheugh bridge. That would save on having to tunnel under the Tyne at all. Remember there are two levels of Meto tunnels under the city centre already; not to mention the listed Victoria waggonway tunnel.

The problem with the Southern approach to Tyneside is that it is almost impossible to thread a line through without resorting to huge viaducts and/or tunnels, which pushes the price up for a spur.

I am convinced that if there is no through route up the eastern side of the country High Speed Rail will never reach Newcastle, it is just too expensive.

As to the Metro tunnels, as I understand it they are relatively shallow since they do not go under the Tyne (they go over a bridge right? It has been a while since I have been in Newcastle either), while the Victoria waggonway tunnel would be aligned parallel to my proposed route and is also shallower, since it doesn't go under the Tyne.

Therefore there should only be relatively minor problems with "threading" the tunnels through.

 

[tbtc]

Either way, I think I have a viable site for a Newcastle Station.
It is on the Town Moor north of the city centre as shown here.

This station would have a box similar in construction to the Stratford International Box as its base, but would be wider to support eight platforms instead of six alongside the two through lines

Maybe I'm missing something, but how frequent do you expect HS2 to be at Newcastle to warrant eight platforms?

 

[nerd]

I am convinced that if there is no through route up the eastern side of the country High Speed Rail will never reach Newcastle, it is just too expensive.

As to the Metro tunnels, as I understand it they are relatively shallow since they do not go under the Tyne (they go over a bridge right? It has been a while since I have been in Newcastle either), while the Victoria waggonway tunnel would be aligned parallel to my proposed route and is also shallower, since it doesn't go under the Tyne.

Therefore there should only be relatively minor problems with "threading" the tunnels through.

If the Scots decide to go west, I think you may well be right; the ECML line north of York is already 'high speed' by many defintions, I think Newcastle and York will continue with classic compatible services. If the Scots go east, then a route through will have to be found - most likelty on a high viaduct over the Tyne alongside the existing western ring road

As I recall - and there may well be those on this forum who can put me right - the north-south Metro line crosses below the east-west Metro line at Monument. It also has to go well below the Victoria tramway tunnel at Barras Bridge. Either way there is not a lot of space down there. Moreover, the whole of the Town Moor - including especially your proposed site - is undermined by the unmapped workings of the former Spital Tongues pit. This is not the sort of geology where you would want to build a sub-surface station.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The scots will go west, this is very clear if you look at a map of the UK, going london birmingham leeds newcastle scotland is a very windy route. London Birmingham Manchester Scotland is very direct. Edinburgh is west of most UK cities. I cannot see it going beyond Newcastle at any point. I can only see it going to Newcastle if in like 2040 it proves so popular we build an eastern arm to HS2 up through midlands therefore having EHS2 and WHS2.

 

[JohnCarlson]

If the Scots decide to go west, I think you may well be right; the ECML line north of York is already 'high speed' by many defintions, I think Newcastle and York will continue with classic compatible services. If the Scots go east, then a route through will have to be found - most likelty on a high viaduct over the Tyne alongside the existing western ring road

As I recall - and there may well be those on this forum who can put me right - the north-south Metro line crosses below the east-west Metro line at Monument. It also has to go well below the Victoria tramway tunnel at Barras Bridge. Either way there is not a lot of space down there. Moreover, the whole of the Town Moor - including especially your proposed site - is undermined by the unmapped workings of the former Spital Tongues pit. This is not the sort of geology where you would want to build a sub-surface station.

Your right. The metro does cross the Tyne at the high level but by the time it gets to the Haymarket its quite deep. The construction of the Metro caused all kinds of subsidence issues in the city centre. IIRC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no point in planning a through station in Edinburgh for HS2, as HS2 ltd and DfT dosn't do city centre through stations. Mybe they should, and a lot on here suggest that through stations would be better, but that would be an entirely different railway from the one that is actually in the process of final aproval. If the Scots parliament aagrees to fund a high speed connection into Phase 2 along an eastern alignment, then it will pass to the West of Newcastle, with a spur into a city centre terminus.

Moreover, I doubt very much whether plonking a station on top of the Hoppings is going to win you many friends on Tyneside. And it is facing the wrong way, a spur line off the main HS2 route to Scotland into a Newcastle terminus would likely run east-west, not north south. A site immediately north of the Scotswood Road would look more likely to me; but then its a number of years since I lived in Newcaste, and the vacant land I recall south of Benwell there may now be built up for all I know.

.

The town moor is not a viable site. There was hell on when John Hall tried to build a new football stadium in the area and that was only going to be used for one day every other week. Putting a rail station there would be a nightmare. Its just to busy and residential. Very little in the way of parking space and public transport links and generally too far from the city center.

I would recon that just South of Leeds HS2 trains will begin to separate awy from eaxh other with some including captive stock running into Leeds via Wakefield and terminating on that semi derelict land south west of the station. Others will run onto York and then via either and upgraded existing line or a new Northallerton/Darlington/Durham by pass as far as Birtley Then they will run into the existing Newcastle station via the existing like. The platforms to the est of the building will be re aligned and vastly extended that trains will follow the existing alignment before branching off to a new high speed line at the Northern edge of the city.


Tunneling under the city center is just too much money for too little gain.

 

[HSTEd]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how frequent do you expect HS2 to be at Newcastle to warrant eight platforms?

Well there have to be two for potential International services, then I just proposed 6 services to London per hour and 2tph of some sort of high speed all stations service on "HSXC".
Running 8tph each direction out of 4 platforms sounds a little hairy to me.

EDIT:

On second thoughts, 6 platforms, so 2 international and 4 domestic is probably ample, although that could lead to issues if we have failed trainsets.......

As I recall - and there may well be those on this forum who can put me right - the north-south Metro line crosses below the east-west Metro line at Monument. It also has to go well below the Victoria tramway tunnel at Barras Bridge. Either way there is not a lot of space down there. Moreover, the whole of the Town Moor - including especially your proposed site - is undermined by the unmapped workings of the former Spital Tongues pit. This is not the sort of geology where you would want to build a sub-surface station.

As to the geology of Town Moor and the like, as I understand it a large part of tyneside is like that, pits and tunnels seem to be everywhere, and how deep down is Monument station anyway?
By the time you pass under central station it is likely to be below the level of the Tyne's surface, which almost certainly puts it below the metro.

The only way to be sure ofcourse would be ultrasonic studies on the town moor in an attempt to discover if the site is underlaid by any troublesome workings, or just boring some boreholes and injecting cement into the ground under the box.

The scots will go west, this is very clear if you look at a map of the UK, going london birmingham leeds newcastle scotland is a very windy route. London Birmingham Manchester Scotland is very direct. Edinburgh is west of most UK cities. I cannot see it going beyond Newcastle at any point. I can only see it going to Newcastle if in like 2040 it proves so popular we build an eastern arm to HS2 up through midlands therefore having EHS2 and WHS2.

The Scottish may well "like" to go west, but you have to account for the cost factor, a line from Manchester to Scotland would have to be paid for effectively entirely by the Scottish government, and it would likely be absurdly expensive.
How do you think it would look if the nationalists chose to spend a huge sum of money in england building a hundred miles of high speed railway track.

If they go east, they can almost certainly wiggle out of paying for anything south of Newcastle and just pay from there, which cuts the project cost drastically.
If you include the fact that they would not need to build a "Y" shaped network to reach Edinburgh and Glasgow and would gain the ability to run high frequency, high speed, services between the two by going east at no extra cost, and the arithmetic begins to look very different.

The travel time penalties are just too small to justify so much extra cost.

 

[CalumCookable]

Why would Holyrood have to pay for the entire Western route but only the Scottish part of the Eastern route? Nonsense. If there was to be a high speed line, the best route would be worked out and Westminster would pay for the English bit and Holyrood would pay for the Scottish bit. The benefit of a high-speed line would not be solely to Scotland, after all. It's not just a case of, "oh, if THEY want it extended to their wee provincial cities, then THEY can pay for the whole thing". There have been positive noises from England about extensions to HS2, as well.

And that's all there have been, from both sides of the border, btw. Noises. At this stage, the talk of an HS2 extension to Scotland is little more than a political desire to be seen to be "doing something". Like the Edinburgh-Glasgow maglev, the £2.3billion Glasgow Subway extension... everyone is keen to jump on board and say "what a great idea!", but it is a fantasy. The SG has just had to delay 30 miles of electrification because they can't afford it.

 

[Padav]

This entire discussion, about alignments, locations of stations etc. etc. is meaningless and irrelevant if the Hybrid Bill does not go through.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of this enabling legislation. If a Bill fails to pass during a single Parliamentary cycle (up to max of 5 years) then that Bill falls, end of story - you have to begin again from scratch.

This reality now forms the central plank in anti-HS2 campaign tactics. The Judicial Review (JR) is a sideshow compared with the manoeuvres going on around the Hybrid Bill. Yes, the outcome of the JR, scheduled for early December will provide useful background insight into the shenanigans going on behind the scene but that's all.

I fully expect the JR to dismiss the vast bulk of the challenges presented by anti-HS2 groups - yes, there will be criticism/observations concerning elements of HS2 policy/strategy - that's the core purpose of a JR - to provide an independent Judge led appraisal of the Executive decision making process.

Assuming the JR does not provide any real obstacles, I expect the Hybrid Bill to appear in the next Queen's Speech and in the House during October 2013 with a view to receiving Royal Assent during late January 2015. It is during this early period (Oct 2013) when the real battle will begin with anti-HS2 campaigners jockeying to get their supporters on to the all important Select Committee - it is this Committee that will decide on the merits of the Bill itself - if the anti-campaigners can gain a strategic advantage here and delay progress of the Bill to its next stages, the legislative timetable is disrupted and highly unlikely to complete before the next general election - then the entire Bill falls and with it HS2 in its present form.

It's important that readers here understand how the legislative process works - failure of the Hybrid Bill means the end of HS2 in its present form, back to the drawing board and all bets off! That's the single goal of anti-HS2 campaigners - anything else is just a smokescreen!

 

[HSTEd]

Why would Holyrood have to pay for the entire Western route but only the Scottish part of the Eastern route? Nonsense. If there was to be a high speed line, the best route would be worked out and Westminster would pay for the English bit and Holyrood would pay for the Scottish bit. The benefit of a high-speed line would not be solely to Scotland, after all. It's not just a case of, "oh, if THEY want it extended to their wee provincial cities, then THEY can pay for the whole thing". There have been positive noises from England about extensions to HS2, as well.

Because the Western route is of absolutely no utility to any large group in England beyond the connection to Scotland.

The Eastern route has definable utility to a significant number of English people.

Having the link to Scotland is the important thing for England, and the best way to achieve it for English voters is via the East, since it gets them Newcastle for ten minutes travel time to Glasgow.

 

[nerd]

This entire discussion, about alignments, locations of stations etc. etc. is meaningless and irrelevant if the Hybrid Bill does not go through.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of this enabling legislation. If a Bill fails to pass during a single Parliamentary cycle (up to max of 5 years) then that Bill falls, end of story - you have to begin again from scratch.

This reality now forms the central plank in anti-HS2 campaign tactics. The Judicial Review (JR) is a sideshow compared with the manoeuvres going on around the Hybrid Bill. Yes, the outcome of the JR, scheduled for early December will provide useful background insight into the shenanigans going on behind the scene but that's all.

I fully expect the JR to dismiss the vast bulk of the challenges presented by anti-HS2 groups - yes, there will be criticism/observations concerning elements of HS2 policy/strategy - that's the core purpose of a JR - to provide an independent Judge led appraisal of the Executive decision making process.

Assuming the JR does not provide any real obstacles, I expect the Hybrid Bill to appear in the next Queen's Speech and in the House during October 2013 with a view to receiving Royal Assent during late January 2015. It is during this early period (Oct 2013) when the real battle will begin with anti-HS2 campaigners jockeying to get their supporters on to the all important Select Committee - it is this Committee that will decide on the merits of the Bill itself - if the anti-campaigners can gain a strategic advantage here and delay progress of the Bill to its next stages, the legislative timetable is disrupted and highly unlikely to complete before the next general election - then the entire Bill falls and with it HS2 in its present form.

It's important that readers here understand how the legislative process works - failure of the Hybrid Bill means the end of HS2 in its present form, back to the drawing board and all bets off! That's the single goal of anti-HS2 campaigners - anything else is just a smokescreen!

not quite so I think:

from the paliament website

Carry-Over between Sessions
As with private bills, the House has, when necessary, considered motions to suspend hybrid bills from one session to another: the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill was suspended twice. When a General Election has been called, motions have also been considered to allow hybrid bills to recommence at the point they had reached before the election. Motions of these kinds may, of course, be opposed and negatived; in which case the bill would fall, or have to start all over again.

It would appear that a motion could be considered to carry over the work of a hybrid bill committee from one parlliament to another - without beginning again from scratch.

But as you say, the hybrid bill is where the action is most likely to be. As a general rule; neither opponents nor supporters of the scheme should be on the Select Committee, and members with a direct constituency interest are specifically precluded. In particular, the select committee is not there to discuss the merits of the bill itself; that will have been done by the Public Bill Committee following the Second Reading; the select committee hears petitions from individuals and corporations whose private interests are affected by the scheme, and who propose amendments to its details. So the select committee cannot hear petitions as to the business justification for the scheme, nor its route, nor the siting of stations, not its enviromental impact - all these are considered to be already agreed. It will hear petitons yard-by-yard, mile-by-mile as to matters of detailed design - the slope of embankments, the materials for bridges, the depth of cuttings; and also the specific arrangements for construction - which roads will be used to move spoil, how many construction vehicles may pass along each road in a day, what will be their maximum width, how long a byroad may be closed off. Then they will hear responses from HS2, either accepting the petition, or proposing othe ways of ameliorating the damage to the petitioners interest. Then they decide between the two. And so on for months on end. The Whips sometimes threaten nomination to a hybrid bill select committtee as a punshment for misbehaving members.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would Holyrood have to pay for the entire Western route but only the Scottish part of the Eastern route? Nonsense. If there was to be a high speed line, the best route would be worked out and Westminster would pay for the English bit and Holyrood would pay for the Scottish bit. The benefit of a high-speed line would not be solely to Scotland, after all. It's not just a case of, "oh, if THEY want it extended to their wee provincial cities, then THEY can pay for the whole thing". There have been positive noises from England about extensions to HS2, as well.

The issue is not about who will pay; that is clearly established in law. Any part of the route that is built on the English side of the border will be paid for by DfT, any part of the route built on the Scots side will be paid for by Holyrood.

The issue is where these bodies get their money from; and especially, within which budgetary stream. The formal agreement that set up Holyrood reserved all matters as to England/Scotland rail links to Westminster; detailed discussion with HS2 has been delegated to Holyrood by agreement with DfT and the Treasury, but it is still constitutionally Westminster business. In effect, this means that the money to build HS2 is a special allocation from the UK Treasury, outside the departmental capital allocation. For the purposes of HS2 within England, this money has been associtated for budgetary purposes with the resources for Crossrail - the Treasury has allocated £2bn per year to Crossrail, when that is completed it will have £2bn year to spend withinn England on HS2.

The question is how the Treasury will count a special allocation to HS2 Scotland - and in particular, whether they will consider it to be covered by the Barnet formula, or whichever revenue formula is adopted to replace that. My guess is that this will all be negotiated separately once Holyrood and HS2 have agreed a Scots route - hence it should not be the case that choosing west or east would affect funding access purely as to the postiion of the border along the route. But it could well still be the case that an east route (via Coldstream) could be substantially cheaper to build overall than a west route (via Carstairs).