High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Ironside]

I'm surprised no one has suggested running HS2 under central London. If we look at the future gaps raised in the London and SE RUS these are suggested to be dealt with by tunnels from Wimbledon and Purley for fast trains. The former feeds in to Crossrail2, no details on where the latter might go but it would have issues adding more passengers for dispersal at a terminal like Victoria.

My suggestion is that HS2 has a 4 platform station at Euston heading into a tunnel with a more 4 platform stations at Waterloo and East Croydon before emerging in Purley. A re-engineered route to Gatwick Airport passed for continental gauge is used to reach a suitable terminus station at Gatwick (8 platforms?) some CC trains would continue on down the newly OHLE converted Brighton Main line to serve Haywards Heath and Brighton.

This solution solves many issues including space at Euston, dispersal issues and south London capacity problems.

Tunnelling under London has been mentioned previously either just as far as Euston, or right through London. The former is favoured by Boris Johnson and London councils on the route and not favoured by HS2 ldt because of the extra cost. Some members have suggested tunnelling through London, but the usual criticism is that it's alot of expensive infrastructure that will only be used by a minority. As I understand Crossrail 2 would divert of the swml at charing cross and take them to Euston. You are however the first person I can remember suggesting running hs2 to Gatwick after Euston. My initial thoughts are that Gatwick is cuuently only a one runway airport and whilst it could be enlarged to 2 runways it is unlikely to be the largest airport in the southeast, where some form of high speed connection should be directed.

 

[swt_passenger]

... As I understand Crossrail 2 would divert of the swml at charing cross and take them to Euston. You are however the first person I can remember suggesting running hs2 to Gatwick after Euston. My initial thoughts are that Gatwick is cuuently only a one runway airport and whilst it could be enlarged to 2 runways it is unlikely to be the largest airport in the southeast, where some form of high speed connection should be directed.

Wimbledon or Clapham Jn surely, I think 'Charing cross' must be a geographic error...

Tunnelling inbound from the Brighton Line would surely be as a commuter railway, something like a Crossrail 3, to thin out some services through the East Croydon bottleneck, but by joining them to equivalent types of services in the north or northwest sectors. Connecting to HS2 would be like joining two completely different types of railway, it's far more likely to be something like Chiltern or WCML slows.

That'll be the main reason no-one's seriously suggesting running HS2 right through London.

 

[Ironside]

Wimbledon or Clapham Jn surely, I think 'Charing cross' must be a geographic error...

Tunnelling inbound from the Brighton Line would surely be as a commuter railway, something like a Crossrail 3, to thin out some services through the East Croydon bottleneck, but by joining them to equivalent types of services in the north or northwest sectors. Connecting to HS2 would be like joining two completely different types of railway, it's far more likely to be something like Chiltern or WCML slows.

That'll be the main reason no-one's seriously suggesting running HS2 right through London.

Oops, I meant Clapham Junction!

 

[tbtc]

I'm surprised no one has suggested running HS2 under central London

They have.

But what would be the benefit of using a new tunnel from Euston to Gatwick and filling it with long distance InterCity stock (end doors etc)?

HS2 in London needs a proper terminus.

 

[swt_passenger]

HS2 in London needs a proper terminus.

Yes, because despite regular suggestions here, the vast majority are travelling to/from London. It's got to be by far the biggest single origin/destination for long distance travel.

It's only a few weeks ago we had a similar debate when someone thought it would be a great idea to run through intercity trains from the GWML towards Norwich etc. It wouldn't be justified for the small proportion of intercity through journeys, for any given arrival route there are a choice of about half a dozen onward terminals on the 'other side' of London. So which ever one you choose for your through link, the other four or five possibilities still need a change somewhere.

 

[Chris125]

I'm surprised no one has suggested running HS2 under central London.

Routeing long distance trains under London is suggested on a regular basis, but the inability of such costly tunnelling to help relieve either the tube in Central London or suburban services into Termini does not make it good value for money compared to a conventional Crossrail-type scheme. The long dwell times of long distance rolling stock and limited demand for Cross-London long distance traffic doesn't help either.

Sending HS2 services under London introduces even more issues - 200m, 260m or 400m trains, some double deck, operating at 18tph may need at least 6 full length underground platforms to provide sufficient time for passengers to leave and join the trains.

Not only are sufficient platforms needed but room for thousands of people to wait for their train - with HS2 serving so many destinations people can't just walk off the street and get the first train that arrives like they can on the tube, especially if they have a reservation.

Then there's the issue of gauge clearance - it's simply not practical to do this over any substantial distance given the extra height and width needed for GC stock. The wider '6 foot' would have major implications as would our high platforms, remember how Camden Road will need a platform cut back to allow these trains to pass.

Even if there were useful benefits, it's just not practical i'm afraid.

Chris

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes, because despite regular suggestions here, the vast majority are travelling to/from London. It's got to be by far the biggest single origin/destination for long distance travel.

London is not one 'destination' though. When pax walk down the platform at Euston, they are not ending their journey there. So a O/D survey is needed to discover where the destination terminus logically should be to serve the majority. London is a Region, not a city.

Is it the old City or Docklands or Westminster, or in fact are most pax aiming for a wide area around the core, and lastly how many are indeed wanting to use 'London' as a change point for New York or Newhaven or Nuremburg, simply because there is no other choice at present ?

 

[Chris125]

London is not one 'destination' though. When pax walk down the platform at Euston, they are not ending their journey there. So a O/D survey is needed to discover where the destination terminus logically should be to serve the majority. London is a Region, not a city.

As you said yourself there is not one single destination, so a centrally located terminus with good transport links is essential - as HS2 Ltd's analysis of showed, Euston was the best site available.

Chris

 

[si404]

It's only a few weeks ago we had a similar debate when someone thought it would be a great idea to run through intercity trains from the GWML towards Norwich etc. It wouldn't be justified for the small proportion of intercity through journeys

Shenfield - Slough won't be popular at all (I know that's not what Crossrail is about), but Reading to Colchester would see some traffic. You are far more likely to get cross-London traffic with outer suburban/regional routes than inner suburban/metro ones.

Look at Thameslink - the inner suburban routes are on there only as they have to be. Over the past few years the plans have pushed further and further outwards. Sure your Wimbledon loops would like to travel as far as St Pancras (though it wasn't given to them in the first, they wouldn't miss it and there'd have been no asking for such a link to exist), but it's your Gatwicks, Three Bridges, Stevenages, Peterboroughs, Bedford, Lutons, Brightons, etc that generate through traffic.

And it's not like both mainlines (though I'd see the SWML as a better fit with the GEML) are unable to provide 20tph.

There's an awful lot of merit for 'Superlink' or even an '80s' style intercity/outer outer suburban cross-London link. First off you remove from the terminals a shed-load of trains that have long turn-around times - that's the terminal mostly emptied. Crossrail's terminal relief is pretty poor, yet is paraded as a major benefit of the scheme. Add to that the benefit (that is Crossrail's too) of enabling access to the City/West End from the GWML/GEML (respectively) without having to change trains.

Of course the more parochial set up of Crossrail means that it's a line fit for short hops between several Central London stations, rather than mega terminal capacity relief and cross-London journeys. It's a different kind of merit.

This is also considerably different to HS2 going through discussion - it's not a similar debate: there's a balance to a GWML/GEML route (similar numbers of trains each side of London) and also you are not talking about 1000 passenger trains which would mostly empty and refill at one central London station, because you'd have at least two zone 1 stations and shorter and smaller trains.

 

[Chris125]

Look at Thameslink - the inner suburban routes are on there only as they have to be. Over the past few years the plans have pushed further and further outwards.

I can't see how you've got that idea - the proposed Thameslink network has been progressively scaled back to the extent that some longer distance services have now been junked in favour of the Wimbledon Loop. Even scaled back there remains a real concern that Thameslink simply won't be workable with such a diverse network.

There's an awful lot of merit for 'Superlink' or even an '80s' style intercity/outer outer suburban cross-London link. First off you remove from the terminals a shed-load of trains that have long turn-around times - that's the terminal mostly emptied.

Long distance trains need a longer turn-around for a variety of reasons - as well as the longer dwell times of intercity services with single leaf doors and passengers looking for reserved seats, supplies often need replenishing after long journeys while providing a useful opportunity to change crews. Perhaps most importantly however they provide recovery time, a fast turn-around allowing services to recover time without the need for more severe measures.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

There's an awful lot of merit for 'Superlink' or even an '80s' style intercity/outer outer suburban cross-London link

There's that argument to have, but that's nothing to do with the HS2 argument - to run a "frequent" cross London underground service, you need quick dwell times, you need wide doors, you need a simple service pattern... HS2 has none of those things.

Trying to load/ unload 400 metre HS2 trains in a minute or two, and use them for local journeys like Euston to Waterloo... never going to happen.

 

[swt_passenger]

London is not one 'destination' though. When pax walk down the platform at Euston, they are not ending their journey there. So a O/D survey is needed to discover where the destination terminus logically should be to serve the majority. London is a Region, not a city.

I wasn't addressing where the HS2 terminus should be, but why it makes no obvious sense to build a proposed underground link from HS2 directly to the Brighton Line.

 

[jon0844]

Not only are sufficient platforms needed but room for thousands of people to wait for their train - with HS2 serving so many destinations people can't just walk off the street and get the first train that arrives like they can on the tube, especially if they have a reservation.

You only need to look at St Pancras lower levels to see the potential nightmare scenario once you have loads of people waiting for different trains in the coming years, many with large amounts of luggage.

Imagine how much more of a nightmare it would be with a cross London railway line going way beyond that of Thameslink! I'd rather not!

 

[inner-city]

So now people travelling on HS2 will arrive into aging 60s brutalism.

Wonderful.

Euston is a wonderful piece of 60s architecture. You should find out what brutalist architecture is. Look at Moscow.

Demolishing a perfectly good, and nice, station like Euston is foolish and a waste of money, as is the 7.5 mile Manchester tunnel, when Liverpool has not one piece of HS2 infrastructure within 15 miles and 35 mins slower to London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wasn't addressing where the HS2 terminus should be, but why it makes no obvious sense to build a proposed underground link from HS2 directly to the Brighton Line.

It makes lots of sense. Terminals in inland cities like Manchester and London make no sense at all. Berlin got rid of all its terminals and made them through stations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Underground stations do not give a good first impressions for premium travellers. Just compare St Pancras with Birmingham New Street. Which of the two station designs would you want as the terminus for your brand new flagship high speed line?

An underground station with some height and wide platforms is attractive enough. Look at Moscow underground with its chandeliers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HS2 in London needs a proper terminus.

Euston is adequate enough. Some WCL trains can be diverted to Crossrail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Gatwick is cuuently only a one runway airport and whilst it could be enlarged to 2 runways it is unlikely to be the largest airport in the southeast, where some form of high speed connection should be directed.

Run HS2 to Gatwick and its passenger levels will rocket.

 

[HSTEd]

Euston is a wonderful piece of 60s architecture. You should find out what brutalist architecture is. Look at Moscow.

Euston is a disaster, I am not convinced that reconstruction of the type that HS2 Ltd is now proposing will be able to solve the basic problems with the layout.

It probably needs vertical seperation of departures and arrivals passengers to handle the loadings that will be placed upon it by HS2.

Demolishing a perfectly good, and nice, station like Euston is foolish and a waste of money,

Whatever you feel about Euston, once you demolish everything that will need to be replaced to get HS2 to work properly without massive logjam getting the passengers on and off the platforms there won't really be much left.

as is the 7.5 mile Manchester tunnel, when Liverpool has not one piece of HS2 infrastructure within 15 miles and 35 mins slower to London.

Manchester has a population well north of 2.5 million.
Liverpool has a population of roughly 1.4 million.

Since electrification is going to reduce Liverpool-Manchester travel times to something on order of 30 minutes you could get faster than that by just running the classic compatible services Liverpool gets via Manchester.

And how exactly do you propose to fit a double deck alignment into southern m anchester without that tunnel?
The OLE reconstruction to the station throat at Picadilly to get sufficient vertical clearance for the GC gauge trains to cross over the station throat to the new platforms would cost a fortune and drastically reduce the capacity of the new line.

If liverpool gets High Speed infrastructure it will be via Wigan, that offers a fast route into the centre of Liverpool with the minimum of insane civils that would be required for a conventional southerly route.

 

[inner-city]

More than half of Liverpool services are 11-car so you're wrong there...

The 9 cars are primarily used on Manchester services.

Manchester is currently overserved, the trains are empty during the day. While Liverpool is vastly underserved as the trains are always full. The point that Manchester has mainly 9 cars as to Liverpool's mainly 11 is interesting giving a false impression od passenger flow.

Didn't Virgin apply for more Liverpool trains and were turned down?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Manchester is currently overserved, the trains are empty during the day. While Liverpool is vastly underserved as the trains are always full.

you what? I travel to Liverpool often and the loadings are never more than 10% in a 9 coach pendolino. For instance, last night I got the 19:16 11 coach Pendolino from Crewe to Lime Street (17:33 ex euston) and it was largely deserted. Load factor on Manchester services isn't much better

 

[inner-city]

The WCML isn't really full quite yet, not all the Pendos have been extended to 11-car after all

Adonis stated that the lines into Liverpool docks was to be electrified with the current works. This meant electric freight trains could run on the WCML and not be a slow hindrance to the line a diesel would when running under the wires. The line from Edge Hill to the container terminal at Liverpool, the Bootle branch, now is not being electrified by this government.

All this does not make sense when Liverpool is current expanding its container terminal to accommodate giant post-panamax ships. The port authority is talking of bringing in a further line from Atlantic junction (the old Canada Dock branch), which the route has been protected. As the country moves over more to manufacturing the importance of the docks will re-emerge. The WCML would be well used if electric train were run into Liverpool Docks. Ironically, electric freight trains run into the separate, and small, Garston Docks, which are in Liverpool. Also electrifying the Bootle branch bring more districts onto Merseyrail and provides a station for Liverpool FC's expanded stadium.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

you what? I travel to Liverpool often and the loadings are never more than 10% in a 9 coach pendolino. For instance, last night I got the 19:16 11 coach Pendolino from Crewe to Lime Street (17:33 ex euston) and it was largely deserted. Load factor on Manchester services isn't much better

That may be the case, however that is not my experience. In summer during the day Liverpool trains are well full as the city is a tourist destination. But the Manchester trains are nearly always empty as there are far too many of them and tourists do not go there. I suspect this is for political purposes to get HS2 to Manchester while giving an excuse to eliminate Liverpool. Also the Liverpool cruise liner terminal is coming on-line. It is predicted that a ship full of passengers will soon be leaving and arriving every other day. The cruise business is taking off like a rocket. 20 new ships world-wide are being introduced in the next three years with most being well over 100,000 tons.

 

[gordonthemoron]

South of Rugby, the WCML is certainly full and bursting, any disruption causes massive knock on effects, especially as Virgin's empty trains seem to take priority over LM's full ones

 

[inner-city]

South of Rugby, the WCML is certainly full and bursting, any disruption causes massive knock on effects, especially as Virgin's empty trains seem to take priority over LM's full ones

Excellent point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Routeing long distance trains under London is suggested on a regular basis, but the inability of such costly tunnelling to help relieve either the tube in Central London or suburban services into Termini does not make it good value for money compared to a conventional Crossrail-type scheme.

London's tube can be greatly improved by small measures. The centre is too congested at main points like Kings X. The North London Line crosses the two branches of the Northern Line. Interchange stations should be built at these points. From Swiss Cottage a tunnel can be run from either the Met Line or the Jubilee line up Fitzjohn's Av and branch into the northern line tunnel at Hampstead. This will mean Passengers from Baker St can travel to the top reaches of the Northern line with having to travel to Kings X. It spreads the load in the centre stations. It also enables people around north London to use the tube a proper metro jumping from district to district, which now that is limited as one outside the centre of London's Underground it is commuter-rail, radial lines.

This is where the 18bn spent on Crossrail should have been spent, and in tarting up some of the grotty stations in London. Widening platforms is must in some stations as people are jostling to get to platform exists to various lines and those waiting to board and those alighting. It is dangerous and uncomfortable being continually jostled.

 

[Tremzinho]

Adonis stated that the lines into Liverpool docks was to be electrified with the current works. This meant electric freight trains could run on the WCML and not be a slow hindrance to the line a diesel would when running under the wires. The line from Edge Hill to the container terminal at Liverpool, the Bootle branch, now is not being electrified by this government.
.

Are you sure about this? There have been no reports of any electrification cancelled by this government apart from a brief rethink of Swansea electrification.

I was heavily involved with discussions about the Liverpool-Manchester electrification around the time of the Adonis announcement, and the Bootle Branch Line was never mentioned, not even by Merseytravel who have a long standing aspiration to restore passenger services to the line.

I agree that electrifying the line would be an eminently sensible add-on, but no one has ever committed to funding it.

 

[Geezertronic]

South of Rugby, the WCML is certainly full and bursting, any disruption causes massive knock on effects, especially as Virgin's empty trains seem to take priority over LM's full ones

The VT services I have been on between Birmingham and London certainly cannot be described as empty - travelling obviously during the peak but also weekend travelling where the loadings were still around 50% (in the coaches I was in anyway)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are you sure about this? There have been no reports of any electrification cancelled by this government apart from a brief rethink of Swansea electrification.

I was heavily involved with discussions about the Liverpool-Manchester electrification around the time of the Adonis announcement, and the Bootle Branch Line was never mentioned, not even by Merseytravel who have a long standing aspiration to restore passenger services to the line.

I agree that electrifying the line would be an eminently sensible add-on, but no one has ever committed to funding it.

I think Peel Ports is expected to stump up the cash (or at least to guarantee enough traffic to make a decent business case).
The same is expected at Port Salford, where the rail connection is also not yet funded.

 

[tripleseis]

HS2 scraps Ealing bridge demolition plan for tunnelling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22265586

 

[inner-city]

Are you sure about this? There have been no reports of any electrification cancelled by this government apart from a brief rethink of Swansea electrification.

I was heavily involved with discussions about the Liverpool-Manchester electrification around the time of the Adonis announcement, and the Bootle Branch Line was never mentioned, not even by Merseytravel who have a long standing aspiration to restore passenger services to the line.

I agree that electrifying the line would be an eminently sensible add-on, but no one has ever committed to funding it.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....t.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf

70. Electrification of this route will offer electric haulage options for freight. There will be an alternative route to Liverpool docks for electrically-operated freight trains, and better opportunities of electrified access to the proposed freight terminal at Parkside near Newton-le-Willows.​

The above is clear. The Bootle branch is now the only route left into Liverpool Docks. There was numerous at one time.

Not to electrify the Bootle branch is ludicrous. It is only a short length of track. It can served freight and passengers.

Merseytravel would not say anything as that idiot who ran it, Scales, was determined to run down Merseyrail in favour of trollycars. His plan was scrapped and he wanted to save face. He is now disorganising the transport in Brisbane.

What was your role in all this?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Peel Ports is expected to stump up the cash (or at least to guarantee enough traffic to make a decent business case).
The same is expected at Port Salford, where the rail connection is also not yet funded.

The Bootle branch is expected to be freight and passengers. That is a 50-50 split in funding. One thing is clear is that the container expansion, which was known by Adonis but not set in concrete, needs better rail links. Also grain, coal, wood pellets, etc, use this one and only line. The other dock routes can be recommissioned which are laying idle

 

[tbtc]

In summer during the day Liverpool trains are well full as the city is a tourist destination. But the Manchester trains are nearly always empty as there are far too many of them and tourists do not go there. I suspect this is for political purposes to get HS2 to Manchester while giving an excuse to eliminate Liverpool

Please spare us the "one city is better than the other" stuff, there's probably a football forum or two if you want that kind of argument.

Manchester to London is a much bigger flow than Liverpool to London, there's a much bigger "business" flow too (which is the kind of market that HS2 considers important).

 

[snowball]

70. Electrification of this route will offer electric haulage options for freight. There will be an alternative route to Liverpool docks for electrically-operated freight trains, and better opportunities of electrified access to the proposed freight terminal at Parkside near Newton-le-Willows.

I remember seeing that at the time and being temporarily confused by it. It's badly worded. It's clearly not true in the obvious interpretation, as an alternative route would mean a second all-electric route, yet there isn't a first one yet. What I think it means is a second electric route to the Liverpool area, which gets as near to the docks as the first one does.

Edit: Looking at the document, there's nothing else in it except that one phrase to suggest electrification to the docks. It's not shown on the map. It's clearly just a bit of confusing wording.

 

[inner-city]

Please spare us the "one city is better than the other" stuff, there's probably a football forum or two if you want that kind of argument.

Manchester to London is a much bigger flow than Liverpool to London, there's a much bigger "business" flow too (which is the kind of market that HS2 considers important).

Liverpool is clearly left out of HS2 when Manchester is getting a 7.5 mile tunnel. This is all out of proportion as the two cities are currently only a few minutes from London, under HS2 35 minutes difference. The city of Liverpool has to fight this injustice.

HS2 is to be in 20 years time. The economy of Liverpool would have risen sharply by then overtaking Manchester - A HSBC reports states that. The city has major cruise liner (many passengers) and container port expansion, along with the massive Wirral and Liverpool Waters projects. A second Cruise liner terminal is planned as part of Liverpool Waters. Tourism is increasing greatly - the city is the most attractive major provincial city. No other provincial city has such schemes which will create major economic growth. Also, currently the Liverpool economic is rising faster than all, but London.

Leaving Liverpool off HS2 is purely political as the city can be accessed in about 4 ways. The best is via the old North Liverpool Extension avoiding Broad Green and the flyovers and bridges and reuse the old Exchange station site, which is now a surface car park. This is right in the business quarter and near to the cruise liner terminal and Liverpool Waters. Perfect and easy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I remember seeing that at the time and being temporarily confused by it. It's badly worded. It's clearly not true in the obvious interpretation, as an alternative route would mean a second all-electric route, yet there isn't a first one yet. What I think it means is a second electric route to the Liverpool area, which gets as near to the docks as the first one does.

It is clear that it states electrification into the docks - which it needs.

 

[Chris125]

Euston is a disaster, I am not convinced that reconstruction of the type that HS2 Ltd is now proposing will be able to solve the basic problems with the layout.

It probably needs vertical seperation of departures and arrivals passengers to handle the loadings that will be placed upon it by HS2.

As they aren't proposing to use the current layout for the HS2 station i can't see the problem - if you look at the diagram the new platforms to the west are below the concourse with multiple access points along their length as i believe was the plan before.

The WCML platforms won't benefit from this layout but will be relieved by the opening of HS2, and they can always be added at a later date. That said, the diagram does appear to suggest new access points at the north end of the platforms...

Chris

 

[snowball]

It is clear that it states electrification into the docks - which it needs.

Whether it's needed is irrelevant. The question is whether it's part of the current NW electrification plan. LNW-GW Joint claims inside knowledge and thinks it isn't. You've only found one phrase in one 4-year old document that says it is. There's independent evidence that that part of that document is badly worded. I think it's reasonable to assume it's not in the current plan unless more evidence is found to the contrary.