High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[RichmondCommu]

If there's loads of spare capacity, the quicker we start to run trains further (i.e. the planned services to Holland, Germany etc) the better.

I am sure that even though this market is also unproved, these trains will be frequently used. We know only too well how people prefer services without changes. It suddenly brings London another step closer to mainland Europe.

Hmmm, the thing is for longer journeys i.e. London to Frankfurt air travel will always be a more attractive proposition simply because of speed.

 

[vtiman]

Hmmm, the thing is for longer journeys i.e. London to Frankfurt air travel will always be a more attractive proposition simply because of speed.

I have just checked google and the distance from st pancras to the db station in frankfurt is 635 kms. so at 200kph average speed it would take 3 hours. at 320 kph average speed if this could ever be achieved then the journey city centre to city centre would take 2hours. so at a real world achievable 260kms average speed the journey will take 2 1/2 hours (or 3 1/2 from birmingham) which is well within the travelling time range where modal shift between air and to high speed rail occurs.

if hs2 had a dedicated terminal station within heathrow this could offer direct services to europe to compete with flights from heathrow which would then become a transport not just airline hub. also anyone arriving at heathrow and travelling within say 300 kms of london could then inter-train rather then inter-line. even heathrow admits that about 55% of domestic traffic could transfer to rail. but if passengers have to catch another train albeit only the short way to old oak common then they will merely stay within the airport and catch a connecting flight.

 

[HSTEd]

if hs2 had a dedicated terminal station within heathrow this could offer direct services to europe to compete with flights from heathrow which would then become a transport not just airline hub. also anyone arriving at heathrow and travelling within say 300 kms of london could then inter-train rather then inter-line. even heathrow admits that about 55% of domestic traffic could transfer to rail. but if passengers have to catch another train albeit only the short way to old oak common then they will merely stay within the airport and catch a connecting flight.

So where will the paths for these half empty trains (since you won't be able to get enough "airside" passengers to fil up the trains required to captur ethem, and you can't capture them if they aren't airside) come from?

And even if you could persuade people to clear security at Heathrow and come on regular trains.... where will the paths for the still half empty trains that are terminating at Heathrow instead of Euston come from?

There is just not enough room on the line.

 

[Haydn1971]

Hmmm, the thing is for longer journeys i.e. London to Frankfurt air travel will always be a more attractive proposition simply because of speed.

London to Frankfurt perhaps, but lets not forget that business users are very likely to go from home to an international destination and leisure users will almost certainly travel from home to the international destination. For me, Sheffield to anywhere in Europe means a very long drive to either East Midlands or Manchester Airports (Manchester being especially painful to get to) - Leeds is on the wrong side of the city for me and even longer - by the time I've sat down in the aircraft, I could already be through the channel tunnel. I can also work on the train, entertain myself with the Internet, get up and walk around, look at something other than fluffy cloulds and importantly to me being 6ft 4, get comfortable in the seat.

 

[Rational Plan]

Only 540 seats per train?
That would cause problems with having to split the train in an emergeancy as required by Channel Tunnel regulations.

You are looking at 1300 seats per train unless you want to throw paths away (400m double deckers) which means you would get maybe enough for one train per day in each direction now, perhaps rising to 3 trains per day by the time HS2 opens.

And this is by far the most viable city pair.
It is just not worth it.

I was assuming that they would run through tunnel in joined pairs. For example a Paris service could have one half to Birmingham and another to Manchester, they could split at Birmingham international.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It need's more than growth though, regular international services north of Old Oak Common would have to completely change the market in a way that Eurostar has failed to do - with no dramatic reduction in journey time or cost, and changing in London likely to be cheaper and offer much more choice when HS2 opens, i can't see what would drive that.

Chris

In what way change the market? Eurostar dominates the city pairs it runs. What more can it change? Eurostar has not run services to the North or even been that interested in offering integrated ticketing until recently, but thats the nature or tri national structure.

The arrival competition from DB heralds a complete change to the market at Eurostars comfortable monopoly.

Now that DB is arriving suddenly Eurostar is also looking at expanding it's market.

London will offer more destinations than any other city, but unless you are paying full flexible fare, would you be willing to chance a connection of less than 30 minutes between stations. Besides looking at Eurostar the minimum time to chaeck in is 30 minutes before departure and up to 75 minutes if you have bought a cheap ticket.

With seemless and handy connection possibilities like these I'm sure there might be a market for direct services.

It is also clear that customs facilities are to provided at both Birmingham stations during phase one works. It is under review which phase two stations would have them from opening, but I suspect passive provision will be put into all of them to avoid political fallout.

There will be provision for international services on the high speed line even if they are not all taken up for many years. It is a political imperative that it provides an alternative to air travel. Any cities that can be linked in three and half or less will have a dominate market share over air.

For example Paris to Geneva can sustain 7 trains a day and thats roughly 3 and half hours (depending on stops).

Paris to Zurich has 5 trains a day and that takes 5 and half hours.

I know there are caveats over traffic from intermediate stops etc.

But Paris has a strong chance of regular links to Manchester and Birmingham, with Brussels and Amsterdam following in second Place.

If Eurostar can run trains to Avignon as a leisure destination, then plaeny of other infrequent destinations can be served as well.

I'm not expecting the same range of destinations as will be able from London, I expect a few core routes will develop.

 

[HowardGWR]

What I don't get about the international issue is that there is a big fuss made about checking luggage. First it was said this was a customs issue (which it cannot be as there are no customs issues between France and England). Then it was said that it was Channel tunnel security that demanded this. That cannot be true because if you drive your car onto the le Shuttle services, there are no checks whatsoever.

So we are left with the passport control. Since it is possible to arrange matters that trains to England do not stop at Lille from Brussels , this becomes a non -issue too. It is purely a got-up nonsense anyway and controls can just as easily be carried out on the train, or Brussel-Lille pax (and other similar inter Schengen journeys) could just be carried in a separate coach if so important.

I believe the little englander mentality is so strong and the indoctrination of media so effective that people can no longer think straight about these issues .

Of course we just need to join Schengen and that's that. It's only where people drop out of the sky or swim ashore that we possibly need that stuff.

 

[eps200]

baggage stuff is fluff brought on by airline lobyists that can probably be worked out in time.

Passports, why not have detention areas at the first schengen and first UK stations, train stops at last station passport inspectors get on with full powers of arrest anyone with out the a valid passport is cuffed and taken off at the first stop to be returned to the other zone in a police van aboard the car train at the end of the day for processing. Passport inspectors then get on the next train going the other way and repeat.

Probably need a new law at EU level to make it work probably best to badge the inspectors as europol for political reasons same reason you want people cuffed. Those being processed have immigration status checked, if they are legit they get a small fine and a slap on the wrist illegals go into appropriate systems.

Once that's set up you can have as many branches as you want both sides and away from the tunnel it can operate as a normal train, also at that stage seems a shame to terminate anything in London or pairs and not just run through to various places.

Edit: and with stations at Manchester airport, Birmingham airport and Heathrow/ Boris island / silly airport they end up picking, Integrated air and rail tickets could really dent short haul flights freeing up more capacity for long haul flights that now have more connectivity.

 

[The Ham]

Of course, the UK could just make being in the UK a civil matter (like flouting parking rules) and then just fine anyone as much as we like and deport them. Anyone who doesn't then pay off their fine and/or has been claiming benefits to which they are not entitled to and/or doesn't have any documentation as to their country of origin is conscripted to the TA and shipped off to whatever conflict we're involved in at the time until such time as they have paid back their fine or someone produces evidence as to which country they come from.

It wouldn't take long for word to get about that the UK wasn't a soft option any more, especially if there were adverts warning people of that at key locations.

 

[jon0844]

We would need to make a lot of changes, especially to human rights, to be able to properly punish and deport those that don't want to abide by our rules.

If we could do that, we could happily let people in and open our borders, so to speak, and make train travel a lot easier. As it is now, we seem to try and keep people out (and fail miserably) because we know we'll be stuck with them once they're here!

A friend who is a magistrate is so upset that in just a few months she alone has seen the same Albanian asylum seeker up on shoplifting charges 15 times (probably 16 by now).

He won't be put inside and so he keeps on doing it. The only thing she has been advised that can be done is to recommend he is banned from every Sainsbury's in the country - although even then I am not sure what extra punishment he might receive for doing so.

Anyway, back to HS2...

 

[melissat]

Well the implications of Friday's high court ruling,in which the government is hailing as a victory for its high speed rail plans. With a proposed compensation arrangements for homeowners living near the route

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLWw4hf6npU#

Which means it still could go ahead

 

[HowardGWR]

snip ....

Anyway, back to HS2...

We are on HS2 (international issues). The point about your anecdote is that the Albanian is here. The 'wonderful' border arrangements had no effect on stopping him getting here and the importance is about stopping people getting benefits and breaking the law. There is no law about deporting people who have broken the law and have ended their right to remain here. If he has broken the law so many times, he should have been jailed by now, (as should any law breaker, even if they were born here and are British citizens). The only people who have set off bombs here were British citizens and I think they too were all born here, IIRC.

This railway border control pettiness is invented by jealous airline lobbying and thousands of jobsworths in the UK BA and security services.

I cannot understand why the railway lobbyists like Wolmar don't make this a big issue. Our freedoms as EU citizens to travel freely, visit and work in other EU countries is far preferable to the minor drawbacks of the problems of the odd loser from Albania. We are 99.999 percent of the population.

Rational Plan has shewn (see above) what a market could be opened and the only brake is this border nonsense.

 

[jon0844]

Well the implications of Friday's high court ruling,in which the government is hailing as a victory for its high speed rail plans. With a proposed compensation arrangements for homeowners living near the route

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLWw4hf6npU#

Which means it still could go ahead

Yes. I think that given all but one thing was deemed okay, and the only issue was compensation these NIMBYs have got a result. They probably don't really care too much about the construction of the line as long as they're financially compensated. If they now have to get paid off to build the line, it's probably the best (and cheapest in the long run) move.

Funny how money can change opinions!!

 

[si404]

We are on HS2 (international issues). The point about your anecdote is that the Albanian is here.

But the Pakistani, Somalian, etc Asylum seekers aren't over there and over there wants that to remain the case (because we're usually a softer touch than Schengen about immigration from these places. Schengen is simply holey on the land borders - most of whom who use it are European economic migrants).

It's highly unlikely that these migrants/asylum seekers would move over there, doing the reverse of the economic migrants from non-EU eastern Europe crossing the channel to the UK, but our Commonwealth/Anglophone-country ties have always wound up 'old Europe' and are a massive cause of tension.

Yes, there's a little Englander problem, but the 'little European' problem over the Channel, clashing with our 'big world' desires - trade, migration, etc - is a bigger problem with our integration with Europe. It cuts both ways - the 'big world' English don't want to be stuck in a 'little Europe' and 'little Europe' doesn't want to deal much with the world south of the Sahara/East of the Jordan/West of the Atlantic.

 

[Chris125]

In what way change the market? Eurostar dominates the city pairs it runs. What more can it change?

Simply attracting those currently travelling by other modes isn't enough, based on current numbers an international rail service from Manchester and/or Birmingham needs to attract substantial numbers of new travellers to make such a service viable.

Eurostar for example has been very effective at capturing market share, but the hope that the new service would lead to a huge growth in people travelling to Paris and Brussels hasn't taken place - it's only carrying around half the numbers predicted.

There will be provision for international services on the high speed line even if they are not all taken up for many years. It is a political imperative that it provides an alternative to air travel. Any cities that can be linked in three and half or less will have a dominate market share over air.

Your concentrating on market share, but that isn't the real problem - it's the lack of overall demand, not just for travelling between Manchester and Paris for example but doing so on one direct train.

Chris

 

[eps200]

Simply attracting those currently travelling by other modes isn't enough, based on current numbers an international rail service from Manchester and/or Birmingham needs to attract substantial numbers of new travellers to make such a service viable.

Eurostar for example has been very effective at capturing market share, but the hope that the new service would lead to a huge growth in people travelling to Paris and Brussels hasn't taken place - it's only carrying around half the numbers predicted.



Your concentrating on market share, but that isn't the real problem - it's the lack of overall demand, not just for travelling between Manchester and Paris for example but doing so on one direct train.

Chris

The best way would be to join the Euro services with the HS2 services so the train from Manchester is going to London full anyway and as going London pairs anyway you now have Manchester Paris frequently even though most people get off at London.

 

[HowardGWR]

The best way would be to join the Euro services with the HS2 services so the train from Manchester is going to London full anyway and as going London pairs anyway you now have Manchester Paris frequently even though most people get off at London.

I suspect that renaming OOC as 'London Airport Interchange' will do the trick with a lot of the discussion items here. Most people, either here or abroad, have no idea where Heathrow is, and they certainly don't know where Old Oak Common is.

If you travel to Rome Airport, you still have a 20 km trip (and dead slow too) before you step out at Rome Termini station. Amsterdam airport (Schiphol) Paris (any of them, certainly CDG) are miles away from their cities. So all that is needed for airport pax is a swift connection (Rome is snail-like) and problem of interchange is solved.

I think the Two Lord's sketch of a through station in London proper, looks good to me.

 

[Chris125]

The best way would be to join the Euro services with the HS2 services so the train from Manchester is going to London full anyway and as going London pairs anyway you now have Manchester Paris frequently even though most people get off at London.

It's not possible to interwork domestic and international services due to the need for security and border control, which incidentally is one of the reasons why the Lord's proposal for a through station under Euston doesn't work operationally let alone financially.

Chris

 

[dggar]

....
- it's the lack of overall demand, not just for travelling between Manchester and Paris for example but doing so on one direct train.

Chris

I would find a 4Hr to 4.5 Hr journey from Man Pic to Gare Du Nord very attractive

 

[swt_passenger]

Your concentrating on market share, but that isn't the real problem - it's the lack of overall demand, not just for travelling between Manchester and Paris for example but doing so on one direct train...

Isn't this all discussed in one of the early HS2 documents? The fact is that they have never used 'regular through international trains' as a central plank of their business case, and if they thought for one moment they were going to uncover a massive latent demand for continental travel wouldn't they be shouting it from the rooftops?

The HS2/HS1 link was a bit of an afterthought, and its single track nature is presumably due to the predicted lack of use...

 

[The Ham]

Isn't this all discussed in one of the early HS2 documents? The fact is that they have never used 'regular through international trains' as a central plank of their business case, and if they thought for one moment they were going to uncover a massive latent demand for continental travel wouldn't they be shouting it from the rooftops?

The HS2/HS1 link was a bit of an afterthought, and its single track nature is presumably due to the predicted lack of use...

Quite, although by providing it there is the option to provide some services (maybe as a experiment for a short period to test demand) and IF there is sufficient demand then upgrade it at a later date once there is enough of a market to justify it.

I think that HS2 Ltd. is nervous of making the same mistake that was made on HS1 where the international passenger numbers have failed to grow in the numbers expected (due to various reasons), but also they do not want to not have the option to send trains direct from HS2 to HS1 otherwise they would be accused of being short sighted in not providing anything.

 

[Gareth]

Can anyone here help me out with a few questions I have on HS2?

For a start, I still can't imagine what the rail network is going to look like once Phase 2 is completed. All I can see is what services will use or partially use HS2. Also, the length of the captive trains. If, say, Manchester has three trains to London per hour, then three 400m long ones is a hell of a lot more seats than with three 200m ones but it seems likely that many if not most will be 200m outside of the peak. Also, entirely classic services just aren't mentioned. So what happens to Stoke then, for example? I'm assuming there'll still be a service from Piccadilly to Euston via the existing WCML but again, there's nothing that says for sure. I've read somewhere that Chester won't be getting a service at all, which is strange and surely can't be right. Also, what's going to happen to CrossCountry services? I assume Manchester & Leeds are still going to have these run on the classic lines via New Street, on top of the captives into Curzon Street, which will be a bit odd having the two Birmingham stations offering the same destinations. Another weird thing is that Centro seem to think that classic compatible services to Bristol and Cardiff from Birmingham will happen once the line is electrified but I've always assumed Curzon Street was going to be designed as a terminus, unless the idea would be to reverse back out of the station.

In terms of capacity of the line, all I seem to know for sure is that the southern section can take a maximum of 18tph. What about the two branches and the spurs into Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds? Also, if Heathrow doesn't happen, as seems likely, what will happen to the two paths allocated to it from Manchester and Leeds? Will they just go to Euston instead?

 

[HowardGWR]

It's not possible to interwork domestic and international services due to the need for security and border control, which incidentally is one of the reasons why the Lord's proposal for a through station under Euston doesn't work operationally let alone financially.

Chris

It sounds as though you have an agenda about which you are not informing us. What do you think will the case if those 'controls' aren't needed?

 

[si404]

It sounds as though you have an agenda about which you are not informing us. What do you think will the case if those 'controls' aren't needed?

It sounds like you have a clear pro-'Schengen' agenda which you are not informing us of...

However, even without the controls, there's not enough demand between London (you know, the very large place that is the economic hub of Europe and the one of two Alpha++ cities in the world - if anywhere can generate demand it's there) and the continent for any meaningful reduction in Euston terminating services by a through station at Euston St Pancras - you lose 3tph max (given there's less than 2tph now, and you've opened up a couple of trains per day to the north), and I got shot down for pairing up the classic-compatibles with Javelins to make it a handful more...
--

For a start, I still can't imagine what the rail network is going to look like once Phase 2 is completed. All I can see is what services will use or partially use HS2. Also, the length of the captive trains. If, say, Manchester has three trains to London per hour, then three 400m long ones is a hell of a lot more seats than with three 200m ones but it seems likely that many if not most will be 200m outside of the peak. Also, entirely classic services just aren't mentioned.

Look about a page back - I link to a sample timetable that HS2 Ltd used for modelling, published by the DfT.

So what happens to Stoke then, for example? I'm assuming there'll still be a service from Piccadilly to Euston via the existing WCML but again, there's nothing that says for sure.

Stoke fast trains to London will be 1tph, not 2 and will stop at Milton Keynes Central and a Trent Valley stop, but they will go through Manchester to Scotland, providing the service for Oxenholme, Penrith, etc - who can, if they want, change at Preston or Piccadilly for a faster journey to London.

I've read somewhere that Chester won't be getting a service at all, which is strange and surely can't be right.

You've read wrong. Chester trains will pick up a couple of stops (after all, change at Crewe and you can cut lots of time off), but will still be fast and with no loss of frequency (as only 1tph anyway)

Also, what's going to happen to CrossCountry services? I assume Manchester & Leeds are still going to have these run on the classic lines via New Street, on top of the captives into Curzon Street, which will be a bit odd having the two Birmingham stations offering the same destinations.

Some diversions and more stops n of Birmingham as end-to-end journey time of the Birmingham - Manchester or Birmingham - Newcastle leg doesn't matter - Stafford, Congleton, Water Orton, etc will see better service to Birmingham.

Another weird thing is that Centro seem to think that classic compatible services to Bristol and Cardiff from Birmingham will happen once the line is electrified but I've always assumed Curzon Street was going to be designed as a terminus, unless the idea would be to reverse back out of the station.

A chord onto the classic lines in the Curzon Street throat, I'm guessing. Not planned, but possible. The trains wouldn't stop at Curzon Street (but will at New Street), but join the line NE of there.

In terms of capacity of the line, all I seem to know for sure is that the southern section can take a maximum of 18tph. What about the two branches and the spurs into Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds?

IIRC, the branches and spurs have a similar capacity, though with the spurs the terminus area is the limiting factor and they won't be able to turn anywhere near 18tph (save Euston).

Also, if Heathrow doesn't happen, as seems likely, what will happen to the two paths allocated to it from Manchester and Leeds? Will they just go to Euston instead?

I'd imagine that the Liverpool via Stafford/Birmingham train will take up one of those paths so as not to have to split/join at Birmingham Interchange, and the other will probably be a Manchester/Leeds - Euston splitter, or just a Manchester - Euston service.

 

[Gareth]

Thanks for that. It helps a lot. I'm strugglying somewhat with the table you provided in that link though. It seems a bit overly complicated. I take it the 'Do Minimum' column is essentially the services on the line today and 'Do Something' is in the future. So, if I'm reading it correctly, Stoke will get 16 trains per day between London and Manchester, which works out hourly. North of Manchester, half will go to Glasgow and half to Edinburgh. Plus three peak services between Manchester and London. So, this works out at 1tph off peak. Liverpool, on top of its two classic comptabile HS2 trains, will retain its classic service, although this will be slower than now as it goes via Birmingham, whilst the current 2tph New Street service will be halved to just 1tph. Am I reading it right?

Also, do we know the length of the captive trains? I know they can be potentially doubled up to 400m, but will that be standard fare for the most part? I'm thinking probably not.

 

[HowardGWR]

It sounds like you have a clear pro-'Schengen' agenda which you are not informing us of...

Oh yes I did, see previous posts.

My problem with the OP is that he just blandly wrote 'Oh, no we can't' without explaining why not. Of course it is logical to make London a natural commercially supported stop, the two Lords solution recognises this.

 

[eps200]

I suspect that renaming OOC as 'London Airport Interchange' will do the trick with a lot of the discussion items here. Most people, either here or abroad, have no idea where Heathrow is, and they certainly don't know where Old Oak Common is.

If you travel to Rome Airport, you still have a 20 km trip (and dead slow too) before you step out at Rome Termini station. Amsterdam airport (Schiphol) Paris (any of them, certainly CDG) are miles away from their cities. So all that is needed for airport pax is a swift connection (Rome is snail-like) and problem of interchange is solved.

I think the Two Lord's sketch of a through station in London proper, looks good to me.

Guess that works especially if HEX continues in some form.

I'm struggling to find two lords sketch?

As for boarder controls how many seats are there on a 400m captive, how long does Ashford-calise take and how many passports can be checked in that time? trains are double decked so have two teams of boarder staff one up one down they pass through the train three in each group two checking passports one each side of the carriage and the third making sure no one slips past.

 

[jon0844]

Checks used to be done on Eurostar back at the start, but it must introduce to many unknown variables, such as incidents that could cause a train to be delayed.

I am sure that any checks would always be done off the train, and so this would be factored in. However, it can't be that expensive to have checks done at major stations and I am sure we're not thinking that trains to mainland Europe from beyond St Pancras would have that many stops. Probably just one or two, with people simply travelling to their nearest station - just as people in the south east have to get to St Pancras now.

 

[Chris125]

It sounds as though you have an agenda about which you are not informing us. What do you think will the case if those 'controls' aren't needed?

Eh?

While i'd personally welcome the relaxing of our border controls realistically it's not going to happen, at least in a timescale relevant to this discussion. On that basis, proposing to interwork domestic and international services is not feasible with the current restrictions currently seen with Eurostar.

Chris

 

[nerd]

Thanks for that. It helps a lot. I'm strugglying somewhat with the table you provided in that link though. It seems a bit overly complicated. I take it the 'Do Minimum' column is essentially the services on the line today and 'Do Something' is in the future. So, if I'm reading it correctly, Stoke will get 16 trains per day between London and Manchester, which works out hourly. North of Manchester, half will go to Glasgow and half to Edinburgh. Plus three peak services between Manchester and London. So, this works out at 1tph off peak. Liverpool, on top of its two classic comptabile HS2 trains, will retain its classic service, although this will be slower than now as it goes via Birmingham, whilst the current 2tph New Street service will be halved to just 1tph. Am I reading it right?

Also, do we know the length of the captive trains? I know they can be potentially doubled up to 400m, but will that be standard fare for the most part? I'm thinking probably not.

I think you have it right; but note that the listed services on the released capacity model don't include any lines that are unaffected; so there was no modelling of the impact on services into Marylebone from Brum; or from Stoke into Manchester.

I am guessing that a fairly high proportion of the captive services wil be run with 400m sets - certainly if it enables off-peak Leeds/Manchester paths to be freed for lower frequency routes (e.g. classic compatible Euston-Holyhead via Chester and Crewe).

 

[Gareth]

But there's no plan for classic compatible routes to Chester/North Wales. It seems Chester's service will be identical to today. Surely if Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham don't warrent 3 400m trains into Euston, or Manchester and Leeds 2 400m trains into Birmingham (on top of CrossCountry services) then it would be better to use 400m trains at a lower frequency in order to allow services such as Chester to Euston via HS2. My suspicion, though, is that they'd sooner have a higher frequency in order to justify building the spurs.