High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[tbtc]

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 ism 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

If HS2 doesn't serve some cruise ships, that's hardly an injustice!

 

[Gareth]

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

Those are the population figures for Greater Manchester and Merseyside respectively. Botched metropolitan counties created in the seventies do not adequately represent the relative sizes of Manchester and Liverpool. For example, it surely can't be right that fairly large and independent Wigan is just a borough of Manchester whilst scouse 'burbs such as Runcorn, Ellesmere Port etc are not Liverpool.

Of course, Manchester is larger than Liverpool but the difference is not nearly as great as many wish to believe. And Liverpool is a major city and not just Bolton with New York crime levels, as is often insinuated on this forum.

Liverpool's largest problem is being located in one of Whitehall's administrative divisions of which it is not considered the centre. Liverpool's the largest city in the country in this predicament and so it suffers more than most places. The fact it's still the size it is and still has the economy it has is a testament to it, quite frankly.

In rail terms, the city has the issue of the Lime Street-bound line not being the only option for most of the city region. There is Chester in the south and Warrington Bank Quay in the east. To a lesser extent, there is also Wigan North Western in the far north east. This is in contrast to the Manchester city region, which, despite having many more notably sized towns in comparision to the area surrounding Liverpool, such as Bolton, Oldham etc, most of these don't have their own lines independent of Manchester. Addtionally, because of the larger number of services per hour to London, Manchester is linked with more intermediate towns, such as Stoke and Milton Keynes, which help justify its services, not to mention Crewe, which is a notable rail head where people will travel to reach both Manchester and Liverpool. However, for Liverpool, they will use London Midland trains from Birmingham, therefore having nothing to do with Liverpool-London flows.

Regardless, the primary reason Liverpool's not currently being given a spur is because of a lack of paths. Remember, Network Rail's original proposal was for a West Coast only line from London to Scotland with branches to Birmingham, Manchester & Liverpool. Because Whitehall wanted Leeds served, Liverpool got bumped off. As a result, the whole area is not getting as good a service as it could/dare I say 'should'. Not only is central Liverpool itself getting a far slower service compared to Manchester (and even Preston) but Chester for the southerly end of the city region will not be on HS2 at all and Warrington is only going to get a single train per hour instead of the two it could get if it were to be associated with Liverpool. So it's not at all unreasonable for people in this part of the country to not be happy about the current proposals and aspire to obtain a better deal.

 

[Ironside]

HS2 scraps Ealing bridge demolition plan for tunnelling

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

And HS2 ltd has more details on their website, a 9km tunnel with vent shafts. Why does an electrified line need vent shafts? Is it because of the diesel fumes from maintaince trains making the air too polluted for maintaince workers, or just for construction purposes?

 

[joeykins82]

I'd operated under the assumption that HS2 will lead to 5 classes of service on the WCML:
High-speed captive (phase 1 Birmingham only, phase 2 adding Manchester and Leeds)
Classic compatible HS bypassing the southern end of the WCML and rejoining at Lichfield or (later) Crewe and serving major regional destinations such as Liverpool and Glasgow
125mph intercity services with a standardised stopping pattern (presumably Watford Junction for alighting only southbound and boarding only northbound, then MKC, Rugby etc) on to the various WCML branch destinations (Northampton, Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury after electrification, Blackpool as well as retaining an hourly "slower" regional service to Liverpool/Manchester/Glasgow
110mph regional/commuter services connecting people to an interchange point and covering the commuter flows to places such as Northampton
100mph metro/stopping services

I think that it's a safe bet that there'll be an hourly service between Euston and Liverpool that runs via HS2 added to the existing hourly Euston-Liverpool service after phase 1.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And HS2 ltd has more details on their website, a 9km tunnel with vent shafts. Why does an electrified line need vent shafts? Is it because of the diesel fumes from maintaince trains making the air too polluted for maintaince workers, or just for construction purposes?

Same reason London Underground needs vent shafts: cooling and air circulation. Without them I assume it'd get really hot, really moist and really carbon-dioxidey down there...

 

[gordonthemoron]

I am assuming that the current 9 hourly Virgin trains down the WCML south of Rugby will be reduced to 3 after HS2 in line with what Joey says, and there being a better mix of semi fast and slow LM services to alleviate the current situation where there are 2 down trains an hour between Leighton Buzzard and Northampton and they leave 6 minutes apart (there are many other examples of this), plus perhaps Wolverton and Cheddington could get more than 1 train an hour

 

[HSTEd]

Does this 9km of extra tunnelling in London save the New North Main Line from the axe?

Additionally.... might it not now be cheaper to simply tunnel the whole thing? It avoids so much hassle and we are at the point where the cost must be negligible compared to the current cost of the project.

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi,
This new tunnel section takes the route underground for where the Heathrow spur(s) were originally scheduled to be doesn't it?

I'm sure on the originally published plans there were retaining walls for the necessary flyovers or dive-unders.

With the route now being in a tunnel, will HS2 put in passive provision for the Heathrow spurs in the form of short dead-end tunnel segments off the main bores?
Or will the bores be "clean" all the way through meaning any future Heathrow extension will need to break into the existing tunnels?

As idle curiosity, are there any, or any, underground junctions on high speed lines elsewhere in the world?

With my optimist's hat on, I'd hope that the argument would win out in favour of providing those tunnel junctions...

Cheers,
Jason

 

[Geezertronic]

And HS2 ltd has more details on their website, a 9km tunnel with vent shafts. Why does an electrified line need vent shafts? Is it because of the diesel fumes from maintaince trains making the air too polluted for maintaince workers, or just for construction purposes?

Something to do with air pressure and the possibility of derailment should the train forcing itself through the air cycle around the train in the tunnel bore. I remember seeing a program that contained the subject, can't find too much reference on the internet though

 

[edwin_m]

The reasons for shafts every 1km or so in the HS2 tunnels are variously ventilation (mainly to do with smoke in a fire rather than normal running), evacuation (getting people out) and intervention (getting emergency services in).

 

[Ironside]

Hi,
This new tunnel section takes the route underground for where the Heathrow spur(s) were originally scheduled to be doesn't it?

I'm sure on the originally published plans there were retaining walls for the necessary flyovers or dive-unders.

With the route now being in a tunnel, will HS2 put in passive provision for the Heathrow spurs in the form of short dead-end tunnel segments off the main bores?
Or will the bores be "clean" all the way through meaning any future Heathrow extension will need to break into the existing tunnels?

As idle curiosity, are there any, or any, underground junctions on high speed lines elsewhere in the world?

With my optimist's hat on, I'd hope that the argument would win out in favour of providing those tunnel junctions...

Cheers,
Jason

Zimmerberg and Ceneri base tunnels in Switzerland both have short dead end tunnels that break off so junctions could be created with less hassle than boring into a clean tunnel.

 

[Chris125]

Additionally.... might it not now be cheaper to simply tunnel the whole thing?

In a word, no - tunnelling will always be far a more expensive and time consuming process than a surface route through open countryside, though the latter can feature cut-and-cover sections through particularly sensitive locations. The change announced today was only cost neutral because of the cost of the massive disruption and compensation involved, no doubt helped by the proposed tunnel under West Ruislip.

Hi,
This new tunnel section takes the route underground for where the Heathrow spur(s) were originally scheduled to be doesn't it?

I believe the Heathrow junctions are west of the tunnel under West Ruislip (which is now to be extended east to OOC) so should therefore be unaffected - see here

Chris

 

[Stats]

Hi,
This new tunnel section takes the route underground for where the Heathrow spur(s) were originally scheduled to be doesn't it?

No, the London facing junction is proposed to be west of West Ruislip where the Chiltern line crosses Breakspear Road South. The new tunnel will be further East.

 

[Ironside]

Does this 9km of extra tunnelling in London save the New North Main Line from the axe?

Additionally.... might it not now be cheaper to simply tunnel the whole thing? It avoids so much hassle and we are at the point where the cost must be negligible compared to the current cost of the project.

Good question re NNML, would seem good idea to keep it separate if possible.

Also good answers re my tunnel questions. I have two more. Would this tunnel go over or under any underground lines? And if it does could the construction of this tunnel allow a vent be used to improve the ventilation of the underground or is the conflation of risk too great, eg risk of an accident in the underground causing flames or smoke to cause damage in the HS2 tunnel.

 

[Chris125]

Good question re NNML, would seem good idea to keep it separate if possible.

Also good answers re my tunnel questions. I have two more. Would this tunnel go over or under any underground lines? And if it does could the construction of this tunnel allow a vent be used to improve the ventilation of the underground or is the conflation of risk too great, eg risk of an accident in the underground causing flames or smoke to cause damage in the HS2 tunnel.

As HS2 will now be in tunnel from the station box at Old Oak Common to West Ruislip the NNML should be unaffected.

As for London Underground all the lines in this area of West London are above ground.

Chris

 

[WatcherZero]

So much of HS2 will be in tunnel, its like a flipping high speed underground.


Reminds me of that 70's Sci-Fi show where they had a underground railway going all over the world :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(TV_pilot)

 

[The Ham]

Just as an aside Bristol is hardly going to push for a HS line just yet as any speed increase above 140mph (which could be possible before HS2 has started being built, and certainly before it is open) would have a fairly minimal impact on journey times.

As it will benefit from new trains, more trains, more seats and faster journey times with the resignalling of the GWML, IEP, electrification and Reading remodelling.

This is also the case at many of the cities around the UK with the various projects which are happening/are due to happen. However in addition to all these schemes there is likely to be a need for schemes which provide a lot more capacity (especially if the growth rate of our railways continues to outperform the 2.5% which the railways are currently using as the future growth rate for the next 10 years or more) than just tinkering with the existing network.

The only way to provide for potentially 41% more passengers than at present in 10 years time (based on a 3.5% growth figure) is to start looking at building new lines. These line may not need to start being built until such time as the growth figures have been confirmed for 8 years or so, but there is a strong chance that could be a time when projects will need to be started quickly because of stronger than predicted passenger growth.

I think that it is often overlooked that although it is possible to tinker with the network to cope with the number of passengers that are expected in 15 years time, what happens in 16 years time? Also what happens if rather than having 15 years of 2.5% per year growth (just shy of 45% on the passenger numbers we have now) it is 2.8% (just over 51% on the passenger numbers we have now), 3% (just over 55% on the passenger numbers we have now) or even more (for example passenger growth of 4.4% results in more than double the number of extra passengers than a passenger growth rate of 2.5%)?

 

[jon0844]

Reminds me of that 70's Sci-Fi show where they had a underground railway going all over the world :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(TV_pilot)

Wow, imagine the objections today for building a WORLDWIDE railway!

 

[Ironside]

Wow, imagine the objections today for building a WORLDWIDE railway!

Especially if the train didn't even stop in your country and were taxed for it!

 

[HowardGWR]

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

I've read a lot of the HS2 stuff but not come across detailed O/D studies of arriving 'London' pax. Could you point me to the reference please? Most grateful, perhaps others will be too, as this London terminus /through station issue is affected by the prognoses. I was already aware that Heathrow destined pax were less than 10% of total from Lord Mawhinney's report..

 

[Chris125]

I've read a lot of the HS2 stuff but not come across detailed O/D studies of arriving 'London' pax. Could you point me to the reference please?

I honestly have no idea i'm afraid, i've read or skimmed through too many different documents and articles about HS2 over the years to remember.

Chris

 

[bangor-toad]

... It got EU money for a cruise liner facility for cruise liners to stop of at, which got built. The city then wanted to upgrade the facility into a terminal, so that it could be a starting and ending destination, along with baggage handling and immigration/passport controls. The EU stated that this would forfeit the money awarded for the original facility as the upgrade constituted a change in use....

EU funding is notoriously complex and this sort of thing happens...
There's a big project (the Titanic redevelopment I believe) in Belfast that got EU funding then it's proposed use altered and the EU money had to be repaid.

Funding clawbacks happen (even though many consultants get paid to try to avoid it!) and it doesn't really mean anything negative. The fact that Liverpool seem to have a plan that accounts for both growth and repayment indicates that the city believes in what it's doing.
It's a non issue really.

Now, whilst having a HS2 branch direct to the cruise ship terminus would be nice I can't really see any viable business case for building it!

Cheers,
Jason

 

[WatcherZero]

Its because the change of use meant public money was being used to help Liverpool by developing as a cruise liner stopover point was instead being used to enhance the port into a more substantial cruise liner terminal facility and compete with the facility at Southampton and Southampton objected to that.

 

[HowardGWR]

I honestly have no idea i'm afraid, i've read or skimmed through too many different documents and articles about HS2 over the years to remember.

Chris

Of course, Chris, I was not doubting your word but I do think the issue is of sufficient importance to demand extra attention, especially to debunk or support, say, the 'Two Lords' submission (as well as the other suggestions such as 'just have OOC, as one can get to anywhere in London with Crossrail').

So say, just for the sake of argument, the majority of pax were bound for the Square Mile, then the HS2 terminus / through station should be somewhere near Liverpool Street or Bank. The other destination choices have to change anyway onto Crossrail and other lines.

I don't know the answer but sustainable principles, namely minimising the need to travel, minimising the distance travelled, and making best use of existing resources, would mean that any other approach to deciding where the terminus should be would be sheer guesswork.

I know one thing, very few pax wish to visit Euston!

 

[Chris125]

So say, just for the sake of argument, the majority of pax were bound for the Square Mile, then the HS2 terminus / through station should be somewhere near Liverpool Street or Bank. The other destination choices have to change anyway onto Crossrail and other lines.

That would no doubt strengthen the case for the proposed extension of the DLR to Euston, but i don't think it makes any real difference to the case for an underground terminus in the Square Mile which suffers in the same way as any suggestion for putting long distance traffic under Central London - relieving tube congestion is far more cost effective.

Chris

 

[mister-sparky]

....So say, just for the sake of argument, the majority of pax were bound for the Square Mile, then the HS2 terminus / through station should be somewhere near Liverpool Street or Bank....

Can we assume that you regularly commute into that area?

 

[The Ham]

Can we assume that you regularly commute into that area?

That or they think that HS2 will only be used by fat cats and that's where they'd be heading.

 

[edwin_m]

I think once the decision was made for a central london HS2 terminus, the site moreorless chose itself on the grounds of technical feasibility (there's a big report whittling down a very long list of sites but I can't find it at present).

Short of double-decking the listed Liverpool Street I don't imagine there was any available large space in the City with suitable rail and Tube connections. Although the Euston site involves quite a bit of demolition, it is less than elsewhere as the existing station occupies more space than it really needs. And unlike HS1 a Euston terminal will deliver passengers to the same general area as they would have arrived previously on the classic network.

 

[HowardGWR]

Can we assume that you regularly commute into that area?

Well you can (and you may) but you would be wrong (as it happens). My posting dealt with the carrying out of O/D studies. These reveal where people are coming from and to where they are headed. On the basis of these, it is possible to design transport systems that cater for demand. Without them one is just guessing.

So as an example, if only 5% of arriving pax at Euston are for a destination a short walk away, it would seem sensible to find out where the other 95% are destined. If, say, it was discovered that the vast majority were destined for the City (I have no idea, I repeat, what the data are, which is why I posed the question) then on the face of it, one is putting a lot of people to the trouble of a further journey and unnecessarily clogging the tube /buses / taxis.

Given that the whole justification for this new line is to cater for business people (at least that is what the proponents say it is for) where every minute counts, apparently, then I would think a careful study of these data (and prognoses of them) would be advisable.

I have not come across any such in the HS2 paperwork, which is why I asked Chris125 where he saw the study.

If the results shewed a diffuse pattern, then I think Chris125 makes a fair point. One may as well dump the pax anywhere that suits operating and management convenience. Not very elegant though is it, for the cost of £40 billions?

 

[gordonthemoron]

if you were going to the city, wouldn't you change at Old Oak Common onto Crossrail?

 

[swt_passenger]

Whether the line is predominantly for business people is debatable, but which direction will they be travelling in? If they are going from London to a regional meeting, (unlikely I know) they might well be starting from home. Maybe they are inbound travellers but going via an hotel, or to a conference centre, or to an exhibition. There are loads of permutations...