High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[stephen_c]

Not sure if I follow Stephen C's logic. A network with city centre stations that runs to OOC which isn't a city centre station. Forgive me but one could argue that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and that terminating at OOC is terminating at London's version of Manc Airport/Meadowhall/Toton which people are sniffy about because they're not central.

I suggested OOC as the terminus to keep costs down, and because with Crossrail its really not that much different in journey times to other London destinations than any of the other termini. Plus theres a fair old chance OOC will be heavily redeveloped to be a new "centre".

In an ideal world, I run those secondary services to Paddington or Waterloo, but extra cost and limited space are major factors. Another option would be Marylebone via the existing line from Aylesbury, (High Wycombe services evicted to Crossrail). But I fear journey times would be extended too far for that to work.

The rest of your comments basically assume people have cars. For many in cities, car ownership isn't necessary. But *all* the existing public transport is radial to the existing city/town centre. Thus, reaching Nottingham station from any part of the city is one bus/tram, whereas reaching Toton will be 2 journeys for most people without a car.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Thus, reaching Nottingham station from any part of the city is one bus/tram, whereas reaching Toton will be 2 journeys for most people without a car.

I'm sorry but you're talking about something that's going to happen in 20 years time, not 2013. Don't you think that public transport will be reorganised so that direct services to Toton from both Derby and Nottingham will be the norm by then?

My own personal experience of the only time I visited Nottingham by train was that it was a helluva walk into the city centre. Since then whether visiting my son who lived there for a few years or for work purposes it was car every time.

 

[LE Greys]

Because most of the pax that are likely to transfer to High Speed Rail are on Easy Jet / BA / Ryan air etc

More likely EC/Virgin/GC/EMT/etc. It might cut into some of the air market if (a) it can match BA for comfort/speed and (B) it can match Ryanair for cost. Of course, improved access to Heathrow should make a significant dent in connecting flights, but that could be done anyway by allowing a rail/air codeshare, removing the HEX premium fares and bringing in through-ticketing.

 

[stephen_c]

I'm sorry but you're talking about something that's going to happen in 20 years time, not 2013. Don't you think that public transport will be reorganised so that direct services to Toton from both Derby and Nottingham will be the norm by then?

Let me explain a different way. Divide Nottingham in to 1km squares. Each of the squares will have a public transport service (bus/tram) to the city centre, where the bus station is near the rain station http://www.nctx.co.uk/maps/. 10% or less of those squares will have a direct services to Toton, even after tram and bus extensions. Thus, its never going to be easy to get to Toton without a car. (Unless there is a new city centre in Toton with major shops, offices, leisure, the works, as I've previously suggested). Having to take a local "shuttle" train to get to HS2 is just wrong from a customer point of view on so many levels.

And anyway, the plan I put forward is more serves more than just Nottingham (which is probably to most marginal of the locations I mentioned for a secondary service, compared to Leamington, Solihull, Walsall, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Tamworth, Lichfield, Burton-on-Trent,...)

 

[D365]

More likely EC/Virgin/GC/EMT/etc. It might cut into some of the air market if (a) it can match BA for comfort/speed and (B) it can match Ryanair for cost. Of course, improved access to Heathrow should make a significant dent in connecting flights, but that could be done anyway by allowing a rail/air codeshare, removing the HEX premium fares and bringing in through-ticketing.

Train is a helluvalotmore pleasant than by plane any day. And the stress of going through airport control... Plus even with the advancements in planes and whatnot, rail travel is more environmentally friendly, a factor which may also play into the mind of travellers. With the right connections, paths can be freed up in airports for overseas flights.

 

[Philip Elliott]

and a city centre station where you are going,

So a city centre station isn't outdated. Since you make as many arrivals as departures it is just as important to get the destination station right.

You are right about London and it's excellent network - that is what we need elsewhere but the government won't spend the money to do it, instead spending it on HS2.

 

[Chris125]

So, the clear option is four tracks south of Birmingham, but with the second set being something like 150mph and served with Javelin-like trains.

If a 150mph line serving smaller cities and large towns can't be justified instead of HS2, then one alongside makes even less sense.

- it would lack the profitable intercity traffic
- require an almost entirely new alignment to serve all these places en-route
- need either massively expensive routes into each town/city centre or require the use of the existing network, cancelling out any capacity benefit
- replicate existing services which will already have been relieved of long distance traffic, making inefficient use of the network.

I just can't see the kinds of places you're talking about justifying the kind of service frequency need to make such a line viable. Appropriate use and upgrades of the existing network for this kind of regional and commuter traffic would be much more effective.

I suggested OOC as the terminus to keep costs down, and because with Crossrail its really not that much different in journey times to other London destinations than any of the other termini.

OOC is not a low cost solution because Crossrail doesn't have the capacity without impacting it's other users, while any service disruptions would leave passengers virtually stranded. You need the dispersal of somewhere like Euston to spread the load on as many different lines as possible.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose York/Leeds-Stratford via Peterborough and Stansted is out of the question. That would redress the balance very firmly, and provide a much more direct link to France. Let's call it option E (for 'Eastern' or 'Europe', whichever you prefer).

Surely, Paddington has an additional priority, a line running west to Bristol, South Wales and Plymouth, presumably serving Heathrow and Reading on the way. Ideally, it would also take in Swindon, allowing it to absorb traffic to Cheltenham as well, but running farther south can't be out of the question.

I did ponder an Option 'E' and considered presenting it with the other three options but I had it routing into the SP-KGX complex.

Stratford does not strike me as an appropriate place to end a High Speed line since there will not be significant through traffic to Europe and its a bit out on a limb.

Unfortunately although it delivers as many paths to the North as 'M' it constrains their use to a far greater degree than that plan.
Paths that join the network at York are only of significant use to destinations such as Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow and points north, and it is difficult to concieve how ~12-14 paths could be employed to best effect.
While the terrain is considerably easier than along Option 'M', with no need for tunnels north of Peterborough and likely the ability to avoid demolishing a single house along most of the route, it for that reason has no significant centres along the route and it also requires by far the most trackwork in distance terms of any of the options.


As to a line out of Paddington, it does have other priorities such as serving the west country, but the 9 paths available to points to Bristol and the B&H should be able to support the beginnings of a network in that direction. (8 towards Birmingham, 1 towards Great Malvern via Oxford leaving 9 remaining).

A line to the west out of Paddington can always be augmented by paths shifted from another line out of one of the Southern Terminals heading for Southampton, Bournemouth and Weymouth.

 

[The Ham]

Train is a helluvalotmore pleasant than by plane any day. And the stress of going through airport control... Plus even with the advancements in planes and whatnot, rail travel is more environmentally friendly, a factor which may also play into the mind of travellers. With the right connections, paths can be freed up in airports for overseas flights.

Also trains tend to be more frequent and just look at what you get from the airlines if your plane is delayed by 3 hours compared with what you get from the trains.

 

[tbtc]

its never going to be easy to get to Toton without a car

I expect that in twenty years time the public transport map of Nottingham will look fairly different, with trams running out to Toton, a local railway station there for extended services from elsewhere in Nottinghamshire etc

 

[si404]

I expect that in twenty years time the public transport map of Nottingham will look fairly different, with trams running out to Toton

They will almost be there soon - in fact the easy extension of the trams from the Toton Lane P&R stop was a minor factor in putting the station there.

a local railway station there for extended services from elsewhere in Nottinghamshire etc

That's even in the plans! With services from Leicestershire and Derbyshire too!

They plan on Toton being well connected to the cities and hinterland.

 

[stephen_c]

If a 150mph line serving smaller cities and large towns can't be justified instead of HS2, then one alongside makes even less sense.

- it would lack the profitable intercity traffic
- require an almost entirely new alignment to serve all these places en-route
- need either massively expensive routes into each town/city centre or require the use of the existing network, cancelling out any capacity benefit
- replicate existing services which will already have been relieved of long distance traffic, making inefficient use of the network.

You seem determined to misunderstand what I said. Building two extra tracks alongside HS2 from London to Birmingham Rural. Build additional short links from the two extra tracks to Leamington, Tamworth, and so on. Re-use the existing tracks to access stations in all the places I listed. Run Javelin type services to them. Its *exactly* the same principals as HS1, and broadens the base of people that benefit from the investment *hugely*.

The logic of HS2 is, in part, to stop keeping the WCML as a high speed line, to avoid lots more investment on Victorian infrastructure. Yet, HS2 supporters in the same breath suggest that there will be lots more (fast) services on the "freed up" WCML. If you do that, you haven't actually gained anything - you still need to keep the WCML being absolutely full of relatively high speed services whacking the infrastructure to death.

The logic of the 4 track HS2 is that it is new infrastructure, to modern standards with far less maintainance issues. 4 tracks provides greater resilience such as if a train breaks down. And it allows the WCML's traffic to be reduced to give the older infrastructure more leeway to cope - again, better resilience.

Resilience, resilience, resilience.

 

[LE Greys]

I did ponder an Option 'E' and considered presenting it with the other three options but I had it routing into the SP-KGX complex.

Stratford does not strike me as an appropriate place to end a High Speed line since there will not be significant through traffic to Europe and its a bit out on a limb.

Unfortunately although it delivers as many paths to the North as 'M' it constrains their use to a far greater degree than that plan.
Paths that join the network at York are only of significant use to destinations such as Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow and points north, and it is difficult to concieve how ~12-14 paths could be employed to best effect.
While the terrain is considerably easier than along Option 'M', with no need for tunnels north of Peterborough and likely the ability to avoid demolishing a single house along most of the route, it for that reason has no significant centres along the route and it also requires by far the most trackwork in distance terms of any of the options.

You aren't the only one, this originally came from a Greengauge 21 proposal. They also suggested a third station at Cambridge to act as a hub for East Anglia, but Stansted is probably placed better, and a route following the M11 and A14 west of Cambridge would simplify matters greatly. I think the idea was that the connection at Stratford would be west-to-north, so that trains could run into St Pancras or reverse at Stratford (presumably changing crews and dropping off any passengers without passports) before heading on to the Chunnel. Peterborough was a hub station for the local area and a link to the rump ECML, while there was another station at Doncaster as a hub for South Yorkshire. However, they planned for a trans-Pennine route rather than one from Birmingham.

The arguements for that route are essentially the same as the original GNR (although it's actually closer to the Eastern Counties proposal of the 1840s), it saves time by running fast over easy terrain. I'd estimate 10-20mins for London-Edinburgh and 20-30 mins for Paris-Edinburgh. What is more, it protects the East Anglia-North East route, the one that uses Peterborough as its major hub.

As to a line out of Paddington, it does have other priorities such as serving the west country, but the 9 paths available to points to Bristol and the B&H should be able to support the beginnings of a network in that direction. (8 towards Birmingham, 1 towards Great Malvern via Oxford leaving 9 remaining).

A line to the west out of Paddington can always be augmented by paths shifted from another line out of one of the Southern Terminals heading for Southampton, Bournemouth and Weymouth.

Southampton-Bournemouth and Weymouth would probably be served much better by getting 125mph out of the SWML. Speculating on the various routes out of Paddington, I would expect frequencies to increase. The line would most likely pass through Heathrow as well, taking on the Heathrow Express route. If it really is 9tph (I've always considered 18tph impossible to deliver, that's a headway of just over 3 minutes, easily wiped out by a single pushchair) then most likely that would be 3tph to Swansea via Bristol Parkway, 3tph to Plymouth via Bristol and the remainder 2tph to Bristol via Bath Spa and 1tph to Cheltenham.

 

[Chris125]

You seem determined to misunderstand what I said. Building two extra tracks alongside HS2 from London to Birmingham Rural. Build additional short links from the two extra tracks to Leamington, Tamworth, and so on. Re-use the existing tracks to access stations in all the places I listed. Run Javelin type services to them. Its *exactly* the same principals as HS1, and broadens the base of people that benefit from the investment *hugely*.

The Javelin trains are high density commuter services into London with a fares premium, what you're suggesting is essentially a semi-fast Cross Country network creating little if any new capacity on the existing network.

As i said, such a model makes no economic sense when it includes intercity traffic, alongside HS2 the demand wouldn't come close to justifying the cost of the extra infrastructure.

Yet, HS2 supporters in the same breath suggest that there will be lots more (fast) services on the "freed up" WCML.

Which HS2 supporters? The mainstream view, shared by HS2 Ltd's modelling, suggests no such thing. There's an opportunity for limited new direct services but much of the affect of HS2 will be changing frequencies and adding stops to fast services, allowing the existing network to better serve intermediate markets.

Chris

 

[steamdrivenand]

Which HS2 supporters? The mainstream view, shared by HS2 Ltd's modelling, suggests no such thing. There's an opportunity for limited new fast services but much of the affect of HS2 will be changing frequencies and adding stops to fast services, allowing the existing network to better serve intermediate markets.
Chris

I assume that the more southern parts of WCML (and I presume ECML) will still have four lines and therefore the opportunity to run relatively fast trains that miss out a number of stations will still be there. It will just mean that there's a more intensive service using the paths that VT (or whoever) no longer want for express long distance services. I suspect it will be a much better service all round for people travelling from Milton Keynes Central/Bletchley/Cheddington/Tring/Berkhamstead/Hemel Hempstead/Apsley/Kings Langley/Watford Junction/Harrow & Wealdstone and London Euston only. Actually I've just thought, will these services still go into a rebuilt Euston or are they to go elsewhere?

 

[tbtc]

The logic of HS2 is, in part, to stop keeping the WCML as a high speed line, to avoid lots more investment on Victorian infrastructure. Yet, HS2 supporters in the same breath suggest that there will be lots more (fast) services on the "freed up" WCML

I'm not speaking for other "supporters", but my personal view is that one of the big problems on the railways is the speed differentials that we have. We try to cram

• 125mph Intercity trains
• 90 /100mph middle distance trains
• 75mph local trains
• Randomly pathed freight

...onto one line.

We could get a lot more capacity out of the existing lines by either removing the fastest/ slowest services (since you can get a lot more trains on a line where all the trains run at a similar speed) or by trying to slow down/ speed up these services to get a more "uniform" speed. Look at how LM have been able to squeeze an extra WCML path by reducing the difference between 350/390 speeds from 100/125mph to 110/125mph.

There's no chance of getting rid of freight, so that's a non-starter. Any dedicated freight line would serve such a limited number of freight trains that it would only be window-dressing.

You can try to speed up slow passenger trains - electrification should help this - but there will always be frequent stops.

So the answer seems to be to separate the 125mph stuff away onto another line (i.e. HS2). You've then got scope to replace each 125mph path on existing routes with maybe two 100mph paths.

Without the need to dodge between the 125mph paths, there should be a lot more paths for 100mph trains to run routes like London - Milton Keynes - Northampton.

In summary - if you were building railways from scratch today, you wouldn't want to put the 75/100/125mph mix all onto one line, because it wastes so much capacity.

 

[Chris125]

I assume that the more southern parts of WCML (and I presume ECML) will still have four lines and therefore the opportunity to run relatively fast trains that miss out a number of stations will still be there. It will just mean that there's a more intensive service using the paths that VT (or whoever) no longer want for express long distance services.

You can get an idea of the way that WCML services may change from the HS2 economic case, though it should be noted the proposals are for modelling purposes only and don't represent an actual workable timetable.

However the general thrust behind it, of concentrating the current Virgin services on semi-fast trains serving the major intermediate stops like Milton Keynes instead of a variation of non-stop and semi-fast trains with varying stopping patterns does correlate with what (in my experience) most HS2 supporters have been saying will be one of the major benefits.

Chris

 

[DynamicSpirit]

OOC is not a low cost solution because Crossrail doesn't have the capacity without impacting it's other users, while any service disruptions would leave passengers virtually stranded. You need the dispersal of somewhere like Euston to spread the load on as many different lines as possible.
Chris

Depending how they designed the station it wouldn't have to only be Crossrail though. They could put a stop on the West London line there too. Not by itself much better admittedly - but alternatively, if they built the station a bit further West than the current plans, it could interchange with Crossrail, the North London line, the Central line, and (if they ever built it) the Ealing Broadway-Brent Cross light rail that various people have proposed. That would seem a substantial interchange to me.

 

[tbtc]

Depending how they designed the station it wouldn't have to only be Crossrail though. They could put a stop on the West London line there too. Not by itself much better admittedly - but alternatively, if they built the station a bit further West than the current plans, it could interchange with Crossrail, the North London line, the Central line, and (if they ever built it) the Ealing Broadway-Brent Cross light rail that various people have proposed. That would seem a substantial interchange to me.

I've just been looking into *what* HS2 will be able to interchange with at OOC - http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/ - I don't know what plans are to divert existing lines to connect with it though.

It sounds like the west London version of Stratford though (in terms of interchanges)

 

[HSTEd]

You aren't the only one, this originally came from a Greengauge 21 proposal. They also suggested a third station at Cambridge to act as a hub for East Anglia, but Stansted is probably placed better, and a route following the M11 and A14 west of Cambridge would simplify matters greatly. I think the idea was that the connection at Stratford would be west-to-north, so that trains could run into St Pancras or reverse at Stratford (presumably changing crews and dropping off any passengers without passports) before heading on to the Chunnel. Peterborough was a hub station for the local area and a link to the rump ECML, while there was another station at Doncaster as a hub for South Yorkshire. However, they planned for a trans-Pennine route rather than one from Birmingham.

The arguements for that route are essentially the same as the original GNR (although it's actually closer to the Eastern Counties proposal of the 1840s), it saves time by running fast over easy terrain. I'd estimate 10-20mins for London-Edinburgh and 20-30 mins for Paris-Edinburgh. What is more, it protects the East Anglia-North East route, the one that uses Peterborough as its major hub.

The problem that kills Options 'E' and 'M' in my opinion is the sourcing of the terminus.
St Pancras doesn't have sufficient width to take the platforms required without fouling the international ones, and King's Cross has a canal in the way of the station throat being moved further north. (And that canal is still in regular tourist use so severing it is not a practical proposition).

All you really have to do at Paddington is demolish the Vodafone HQ and slew the underground lines over out of the way.

Building a terminus out at Stratford seems to be doomed to failure in my opinion, and any attempts to connect to europe are going to be too problematic anyway for it to be really worthwhile.

Southampton-Bournemouth and Weymouth would probably be served much better by getting 125mph out of the SWML. Speculating on the various routes out of Paddington, I would expect frequencies to increase.

While 125mph on the SWML might be feasible and would be quite nice to have, you are still hamstrung by the restrictions on loading gauge and length of trains.

A 10 car Class 444 has 668 seats, whereas a 400m TGV Duplex Grande Capacité can have 1350 with an Intercity seating density..... I hate to think what a higher density seat layout would do to passenger numbers.

The line would most likely pass through Heathrow as well, taking on the Heathrow Express route.

My Option 'W' has an OOC style station at Heathrow with all 18tph stopping for simplicities sake (Assuming 18hr operational days, that is 324 trains per day in each direction). That should easily be enough to saturate demand for the forseable future without causing dwell time issues.

This should easily If it really is 9tph (I've always considered 18tph impossible to deliver, that's a headway of just over 3 minutes, easily wiped out by a single pushchair) then most likely that would be 3tph to Swansea via Bristol Parkway, 3tph to Plymouth via Bristol and the remainder 2tph to Bristol via Bath Spa and 1tph to Cheltenham.

I think 18tph is achievable if they have a "doors can be closed up to 2 minutes before departure" rule in effect.
Also the theoretical headway is 150 seconds, which means you should be able to handle bunching of trains without too much issue.

 

[brewvip]

I'm sorry but you're talking about something that's going to happen in 20 years time, not 2013. Don't you think that public transport will be reorganised so that direct services to Toton from both Derby and Nottingham will be the norm by then?

My own personal experience of the only time I visited Nottingham by train was that it was a helluva walk into the city centre. Since then whether visiting my son who lived there for a few years or for work purposes it was car every time.

You've identified part of the problem with Toton: public transport will have to be reorganised to get people to it from Derby and Nottingham. Any improvements will benefit a transport hub that doesn't serve an urban centre - ie. no associated shops, offices, leisure and cultural uses. Toton has all the potential to be a white elephant station or a nightmare for traffic in the surroundings because far too many people will end up driving there.

We know a central Nottingham station is not an option and that Toton has beaten Derby by a hair's breadth as the East midlands choice: Toton is the political choice - 'if Nottingham can't have a central station then neither can Derby', is the unspoken conclusion.

If Derby was chosen then public transport improvements to and from there would benefit existing centres and corridors, especially Nottingam City Centre - everybody wins.

 

[HSTEd]

A city centre station in Derby is just as infeasible as one in Nottingham.

It has one of the things that make it possible to have such stations in Birmingham and it lacks the importance that makes one in London practical, the fact that it needs such a station at any cost.

 

[Lampshade]

Yet, HS2 supporters in the same breath suggest that there will be lots more (fast) services on the "freed up" WCML.

I have one word to describe people who actually believe that - deluded.

It won't mean faster services, it'll mean existing fast services calling at Watford, Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield etc, making end to end journey times less attractive and pushing end to end passengers onto HS2 - the premium service. There is a precedent to this.

 

[HSTEd]

HS1 Domestic services are entirely different to HS2.

For one thing HS1 Domestics use inefficient rolling stock (short Classic Compatibles).

 

[D365]

I have one word to describe people who actually believe that - deluded.

It won't mean faster services, it'll mean existing fast services calling at Watford, Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield etc, making end to end journey times less attractive and pushing end to end passengers onto HS2 - the premium service. There is a precedent to this.

On the other hand, there would be a scandal if HS2 opened to a lower than predicted amount of traffic... Or something.

HS1 Domestic services are entirely different to HS2.

For one thing HS1 Domestics use inefficient rolling stock (short Classic Compatibles).

395s can (and are?) coupled to form 12 car trains. Fair point though.

 

[HSTEd]

395s can (and are?) coupled to form 12 car trains. Fair point though.

Indeed they can, but that is still only ~240m.

Captive sets on HS2 can be made nearly double that length (20 car Class 395?) and can be made double decked thanks to not having to be classic compatible.

 

[D365]

Indeed they can, but that is still only ~240m.

Captive sets on HS2 can be made nearly double that length (20 car Class 395?) and can be made double decked thanks to not having to be classic compatible.

New or rebuilt lines in the south-east would have to be expensively rebuilt for even 200m CCs; on your average railway, 12x20m is the maximum length. And it's not exactly like HS1 will fill up for a while yet as, long as Eurostar is the only other regular operator.

 

[johnb]

It won't mean faster services, it'll mean existing fast services calling at Watford, Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield etc, making end to end journey times less attractive and pushing end to end passengers onto HS2 - the premium service. There is a precedent to this.

Well yes, obviously. The aim would be to recast the WCML fast timetable so that stops are as consistent as possible and paths are wasted as little as possible. That's a massive benefit for people living in the areas served by intermediate stations that saw their services slashed as part of the upgrade, and allows faster, more regular journeys between important second-tier towns like (e.g.) Watford and Coventry.

End-to-end passengers will have the choice of a cheaper, slower service or a more expensive, faster service, like Brum passengers already do with Virgin vs Chiltern. This is a Good Thing.

 

[tbtc]

I have one word to describe people who actually believe that - deluded.

It won't mean faster services, it'll mean existing fast services calling at Watford, Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield etc, making end to end journey times less attractive and pushing end to end passengers onto HS2 - the premium service. There is a precedent to this.

Well yes, obviously. The aim would be to recast the WCML fast timetable so that stops are as consistent as possible and paths are wasted as little as possible. That's a massive benefit for people living in the areas served by intermediate stations that saw their services slashed as part of the upgrade, and allows faster, more regular journeys between important second-tier towns like (e.g.) Watford and Coventry.

End-to-end passengers will have the choice of a cheaper, slower service or a more expensive, faster service, like Brum passengers already do with Virgin vs Chiltern. This is a Good Thing.

I agree with John - taking out the fastest trains (which pass through Watford, Milton Keynes, Tamworth etc non-stop so are of no benefit to these places) means that there's space for other trains to give these places a much more consistent service.

Not sure why people think that this is a bad thing?

 

[steamdrivenand]

Not sure why people think that this is a bad thing?

I think it might be down to a number of factors:

1. Natural dislike of change
2. A perception that they or their locality is being demoted
3. A natural cynicism
4. A dislike of feeling manoeuvred into altering habits of travel (actually that's probably an amalgam of 1, 2 & 3).

Me, I get upset every year when the local supermarkets move products about the shelves for no apparent reason or benefit, just making my supply trips longer while I search