High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Presumably he is proposing a route that comes down the Lea Valley through/over all those reservoirs.

You can get to the olympic park with relatively little tunnelling and with almost no demolitions to speak of.

 

[rebmcr]

It would certainly allow much better through-running onto HS1 for both domestic and international services. There's also going to be just as much tunnelling as for the Euston proposal.

However, unless they can fit a triangle in at Stratford, pax would have no direct connection into central London from the north. The triangle could be high-speed heading into Kent, and classic-speed (still Euro-gauge) heading into St Pancras, but it would still be pretty large.

Crossrail would provide a one-change route into Heathrow either at Old Oak Common or Stratford, so that's irrelevant.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What major projects did Dick Keegan oversee in his tenure as Director of Projects at British Rail ?

 

[cle]

How are Eurostar trains going to pass through the 'unused' platforms if they're used by this?

And Stratford is convenient for Southend and Stanstead - but a 45 min Crossrail ride to Heathrow is acceptable?!

People travelling down from up north to catch flights are going long haul which means Heathrow - they can (and do) catch low fare, short haul destination flights from their local airports, as per SEN and STN. Moronic.

If Stratford was so lucrative (and I'm keen to see what it'll be post-Olympics, beyond a mall and an interchange people try not to leave) - then the international trains would already be stopping there...

 

[ntg]

The crossrail trip accross London from Stratford to Heathrow is certainly not trivial. Why build a railway saving 70 minutes of journey time from Manchester only to add 42 minutes back on to it by necessitating a trip back across the city to Heathrow?

The trip from Old Oak Common would only be ~19 minutes and with phase 2 trains would run direct there anyway.

 

[kylemore]

Surely both the City Centre (the oft repeated advantage of rail) option and the ability to run through trains to HS1 is required. It can't be that big a job to link up existing infrastructure to HS2 to allow say a couple of uk gauge eurostars to transit North London per hour to reach HS1 and offer through services from Manchester/Birmingham to Paris/Brussels?

Re-locating a couple of hundred houses and a primary school is surely a small matter when we're talking about such a huge national project?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Surely both the City Centre (the oft repeated advantage of rail) option and the ability to run through trains to HS1 is required. It can't be that big a job to link up existing infrastructure to HS2 to allow say a couple of uk gauge eurostars to transit North London per hour to reach HS1 and offer through services from Manchester/Birmingham to Paris/Brussels?

Re-locating a couple of hundred houses and a primary school is surely a small matter when we're talking about such a huge national project?

Through services will most likely be no more than about 8 per day to continent. so doesnt warrent going that far out imho.

 

[AndyLandy]

I do think that long-term, any HS lines that terminate in London should all do so at the same terminal. If we're going to build an entirely new country-wide fast rail network, let's not spoil it by making everyone have to make 45 minute connections across the tube!

 

[Chris125]

I do think that long-term, any HS lines that terminate in London should all do so at the same terminal.

Such ideas sound wonderful but if the benefits can't justify the cost they aren't going to happen - London, like Paris, has been long served by a whole variety of Termini and i see no reason to think that's going to change however much one might wish it too.

As for terminating at Stratford, moronic is the only word - at least i can understand the thinking about when people want it to terminate at OOC.

Chris

 

[AndyLandy]

Such ideas sound wonderful but if the benefits can't justify the cost they aren't going to happen - London, like Paris, has been long served by a whole variety of Termini and i see no reason to think that's going to change however much one might wish it too.

I quite agree that trying to change the existing lines is a unlikely prospect, but if we are serious about building a meaningful HS network in this country, there's no excuse not to build it into the same London station.

 

[JamesRowden]

I do think that long-term, any HS lines that terminate in London should all do so at the same terminal. If we're going to build an entirely new country-wide fast rail network, let's not spoil it by making everyone have to make 45 minute connections across the tube!

Perhaps an Underground HS2 through station could be built at St Pancras which would continue to join HS1. The London terminating services could then continue to Stratford and then head to a depot in East London to be made ready for the next service. This would not be HS2, just an extension of HS1 to the North West (allowing international/Kent services to run through to the North West). Another branch could perhaps continue to Brighton/Southampton/Portsmouth to solve the congestion problems there.

 

[Manchester77]

There's an awful lot underground at st pancras,
City Widened Lines
Metropolitan Lines
Hotel Curve
Northern line
Piccadilly line
Victoria line

And Thameslink somewhere in amongst that (that might be city widened lines though)

 

[si404]

I do think that long-term, any HS lines that terminate in London should all do so at the same terminal. If we're going to build an entirely new country-wide fast rail network, let's not spoil it by making everyone have to make 45 minute connections across the tube!

45 minutes? I could crawl between Euston and St Pancras in that time! Wack in a travelator and we're talking about a transfer that is as quick as Thameslink or MML to the Victoria line at Kings Cross St Pancras (and less walking!)

I quite agree that trying to change the existing lines is a unlikely prospect, but if we are serious about building a meaningful HS network in this country, there's no excuse not to build it into the same London station.

So France isn't serious about building a meaningful HS network? They didn't even tweak it to make TGV Nord and TGV Est terminate in the same station, but instead two near each other...

As for excuses, how about:
1)a single London terminus for High Speed trains to all over the country (including the South Coast as well as Kent, Europe, North and West) will feed too much traffic onto the tube network for adequate dispersal of traffic through central London (even if each line had their own OOC-style 'get a third of the traffic off' station).
2)a single London terminus for High Speed trains would have too many platforms.
3)security checks for the Channel Tunnel puts paid to easily and practically having a through station with through running and no/few terminal platforms.
4)the geography and demand patterns likewise prevent that sort of set up
5)huge expense for little gain

Sure, 45 minute journeys on the tube (is there even one inter-terminus journey in London that takes that long?) is not good, but a couple of minutes on the tube, or a 10 minute walk, or a 5 minute travelator journey isn't really a hardship - the latter two transfer times could well exist in the same station (and certainly do in airports) - especially if the station had most of the capital's intercity trains serve it!

The trip from Old Oak Common would only be ~19 minutes and with phase 2 trains would run direct there anyway.

As long as 19 minutes? Heathrow Express takes 15 minutes between Paddington and Central today. Take 4 minutes off for Paddington-OOC, and wack it back on for being on the slows and stopping at Ealing Broadway and Hayes & Harlington if (when) HEx is taken over by Crossrail. That gives 15 minutes.

And maybe HS2 Ltd have won in convincing the DfT that a Heathrow link is a waste of pretty much everyone's time - I've not heard anything about Heathrow in the HS2 pre-announcement teases...

 

[Haydn1971]

Through services will most likely be no more than about 8 per day to continent. so doesnt warrent going that far out imho.

Spot on, which is why a single tunnel will be perfectly adequate for the foreseeable future.

I also see numerous trains per day terminating in the south at Old Oak and Heathrow rather than Euston, just as numerous trains in the north won't call at Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester or the gradually increasing number of parkway stations.

Internationally you might see a couple of express services a day doing say, Glasgow > Edinburgh > Newcastle > Birmingham Int > Paris, a couple calling at all stops south of Leeds, a couple doing Birmingham > Birmingham International > Stratford > Paris, then a couple doing Heathrow > Paris direct.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Spot on, which is why a single tunnel will be perfectly adequate for the foreseeable future.

I also see numerous trains per day terminating in the south at Old Oak and Heathrow rather than Euston, just as numerous trains in the north won't call at Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester or the gradually increasing number of parkway stations.

Internationally you might see a couple of express services a day doing say, Glasgow > Edinburgh > Newcastle > Birmingham Int > Paris, a couple calling at all stops south of Leeds, a couple doing Birmingham > Birmingham International > Stratford > Paris, then a couple doing Heathrow > Paris direct.

Heathrow not so much, i believe there will be no spur from heathrow into London, only a spurr for Heathrow heading north. This is taken from their indicative timetables and maps that i researched. THey want heathrow London to be Crossrail.

But yeah the rest i agree, i basically had non stop Leeds and Scotland services to go to Continent as that would make passport control easier.

 

[Haydn1971]

Heathrow not so much, i believe there will be no spur from heathrow into London, only a spurr for Heathrow heading north. This is taken from their indicative timetables and maps that i researched. THey want heathrow London to be Crossrail.

Fair comment, however provision has been identified for a London facing junction - as to it being built, hopefully we shall see soon.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Fair comment, however provision has been identified for a London facing junction - as to it being built, hopefully we shall see soon.

I hadnt found that actually. Intersting, i cant see it being used much but good on them for providing one just incase.

 

[deltic]

HS2 Ltd (or rather their sub-contracted engineers) will have been having detailed discussions around a range of options in both cities; both as to possible locations for the terminating station, and as to possible route alignments for the spur in.

So local planning officers will have known a range of possible options for the station site. But none of those undertaking the discussions (on either side) would have known which was HS2 Ltd's 'preferred' option; and, even if they did, this would not assure them as to which would be the DfT 'preferred' option.

It does seem that there have been a number of minsterial meetings recently with local civic leaders; both along the DfT 'preferred' route, and in respect of station locations - and it seems that the news stories confirming Meadowhall as the Sheffield site arose from one of these meetings. So there will be some local politicos who are privy to these matters as they affect their specific localities; but all are likely to be bound by confidentiality (and most unlikely to breach it). The most likely sources for possible early leaks would be HS2-hostile MPs in rural areas along the new route.

But in any case; it does look very likely that Mayfield will be the preferred site in Manchester, and Crown Point in Leeds

This thread started over a year ago based on leaks by MPs who stated HS2 would stop at Meadowhall and Toton which is exactly what the media is now reporting.

Mayfield was ruled out as a location for a Manchester station a long time ago - while Crown Point is to far from central Leeds to be a suitable location - the station needs to be as close as possible to Leeds City station - so either to the north and adjacent to the existing station or at right angles to it on the edge of the former Tetley brewery site.

 

[JohnB57]

Through services will most likely be no more than about 8 per day to continent. so doesnt warrent going that far out imho.

Internationally you might see a couple of express services a day doing say, Glasgow > Edinburgh > Newcastle > Birmingham Int > Paris, a couple calling at all stops south of Leeds, a couple doing Birmingham > Birmingham International > Stratford > Paris, then a couple doing Heathrow > Paris direct.

Where do you guys see the demand for eight through trains per day coming from?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Where do you guys see the demand for eight through trains per day coming from?

I said no more than about 8. I did mean by that that as an absolute maximum. I first typed 4 which would be my honest guess at how many per day. But typed 8 as a maximum.

So no i dont see demand for 8 now, but who knows where the world will go in 20 years time.... Probably round the sun 20 times....

 

[JohnB57]

I said no more than about 8. I did mean by that that as an absolute maximum. I first typed 4 which would be my honest guess at how many per day. But typed 8 as a maximum.

So no i dont see demand for 8 now, but who knows where the world will go in 20 years time.... Probably round the sun 20 times....

My prediction is zero through services per day. But excellent interchange facilities in London.

 

[Haydn1971]

Where do you guys see the demand for eight through trains per day coming from?

It's a potential, point to point, it's currently quicker for me to travel from Sheffield to Manchester and fly to Paris and get a train into the city centre than go by train. I'd hope that changes with HS2 and the two equalise in total travel time, ease of journey and cost. I'd prefer rail with all things equal, I'd get more legroom, could have a nicer meal, face less delay potential, could potentially work if travelling on business and generally feel less stressed by a direct (ish) train service, so will 1000's of others each day nationally, especially as the airspace over the south of England gets even fuller.

 

[LE Greys]

It's a potential, point to point, it's currently quicker for me to travel from Sheffield to Manchester and fly to Paris and get a train into the city centre than go by train. I'd hope that changes with HS2 and the two equalise in total travel time, ease of journey and cost. I'd prefer rail with all things equal, I'd get more legroom, could have a nicer meal, face less delay potential, could potentially work if travelling on business and generally feel less stressed by a direct (ish) train service, so will 1000's of others each day nationally, especially as the airspace over the south of England gets even fuller.

I agree entirely.

 

[JohnB57]

I'd hope that changes with HS2 and the two equalise in total travel time, ease of journey and cost. I'd prefer rail with all things equal, I'd get more legroom, could have a nicer meal, face less delay potential, could potentially work if travelling on business and generally feel less stressed by a direct (ish) train service, so will 1000's of others each day nationally, especially as the airspace over the south of England gets even fuller.

Can't see it.

Total travel time will always have to factor in travel to departure point, security and probably border checks and however you look at it, a slower form of transport with intermediate stops. Unless flying is artificially inflated, costs are never likely to equalise and I think your projection for thousands switching mode is way out. Insufficient I'd say to justify the station facilities that would be necessary in the first place.

I'm a fairly experienced international traveller by the way and have used Eurostar a number of times, Le Shuttle dozens of times, European rail extensively and had more European flights than I care to think about. Efficient interchange is the future.

 

[LE Greys]

My prediction is zero through services per day. But excellent interchange facilities in London.

But knowing our usual luck...

 

[JohnB57]

But knowing our usual luck...

I should have qualified that with "eventually"...

 

[brianthegiant]

Can't see it.

Total travel time will always have to factor in travel to departure point, security and probably border checks and however you look at it, a slower form of transport with intermediate stops. Unless flying is artificially inflated, costs are never likely to equalise and I think your projection for thousands switching mode is way out. Insufficient I'd say to justify the station facilities that would be necessary in the first place.

I'm a fairly experienced international traveller by the way and have used Eurostar a number of times, Le Shuttle dozens of times, European rail extensively and had more European flights than I care to think about. Efficient interchange is the future.

I think the economics of long distance rail vs flying will slowly tilt back towards rail. Liquid fuel costs will only ever rise relative to inflation due to scarcity, air tickets costs contain a higher % of fuel cost. For the same reason high petrol prices increase rail travel because cost per mile of motoring contains higher % of fuel cost.

 

[Haydn1971]

Unless flying is artificially inflated, costs are never likely to equalise and I think your projection for thousands switching mode is way out.

That's the key, we don't really know what flying will be like in 20-30 years, we didn't have the number of budget airlines we have now 20-30 years ago, that market could get saturated or callapse depending on factors in the Middle East and other oil producing nations.

Who would have imagine the smartphone tsunami we have today 20 years ago, that we would run out of IP addresses 30 years ago, or indeed, having lower speed limits on motorways at peak times.

No market now, sure, but in 20-30 years, who knows for sure

 

[YorkshireBear]

And that last sentance there Haydn is why HS2 is a gamble, just one i think we should take because if we dont and it goes wrong, it will be far worse!

 

[33Hz]

I quite agree that trying to change the existing lines is a unlikely prospect, but if we are serious about building a meaningful HS network in this country, there's no excuse not to build it into the same London station.

So France isn't serious about building a meaningful HS network? They didn't even tweak it to make TGV Nord and TGV Est terminate in the same station, but instead two near each other...

There has been some discussion about building a large subterranean station in Paris to allow through running between north/east and south (without going via CdG) and to take pressure off the termini. Can't come fast enough IMHO. Maybe we will get there 30 years after HS2 opens too.