High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[jon0844]

If it takes around 3-3.5 hours from Birmingham to Paris (less to Brussels) then the train doesn't surely have to leave too early, even taking into account the 1hr difference. If you expected to rock up in Paris having flown, you'd need just as much time I'd imagine.

I should say that whenever I've gone to Paris for business, via Eurostar, the meeting has always been at a time to allow me to avoid a 3 or 4am start, so I am probably getting the train around 7am for a meeting around 11. Then some food and maybe some more work, before coming back at around 6 or 7pm, with that hour helping speed things up!

If you had to be somewhere for 9, you'd probably go the night before and stay in a hotel.

 

[brianthegiant]

I read somewhere recently that there will be 1 international platform at one of the Birmingham stations can't remember which. presumably it can also be used for non-intl services in between as well.

Presumably the DB London-Frankfurt/Amsterdam service will face the same challenges as Bham-Paris re security & timings, just the opposite way round nonetheless DB seem to think there is a market based on their data from the London Speziale tickets. But it's also possible they're hyping it up a bit & have a contingency plan to replace the sections beyond Koln with connecting trains if there isn't enough demand?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Security checks on Eurostar are rather pointless really....

People can't hijack a train and a bomb light enough to be carried aboard is not going to kill everybody.

Are you seriously suggesting that say two dozen passengers could be regarding as being expendable? The Channel Tunnel is an obvious terrorist target and quite rightly needs to be protected.

 

[jon0844]

It's an obvious target because of the significance of the tunnel, but most terrorists would seek a big, devastating, attack wouldn't they?

As such, I think there are far easier targets to go for - and we've seen the recent example of totally random and almost impossible to detect actions like Woolwich.

 

[edwin_m]

If a target is too difficult then there will always be a softer one where at least as much carnage is possible. When this has actually happened it has been the London Underground and the Madrid suburban network, crowded but not particularly high profile, even though doing the same on a long-distance train would have been just as easy.

 

[JohnB57]

If it takes around 3-3.5 hours from Birmingham to Paris (less to Brussels) then the train doesn't surely have to leave too early, even taking into account the 1hr difference. If you expected to rock up in Paris having flown, you'd need just as much time I'd imagine.

I should say that whenever I've gone to Paris for business, via Eurostar, the meeting has always been at a time to allow me to avoid a 3 or 4am start, so I am probably getting the train around 7am for a meeting around 11. Then some food and maybe some more work, before coming back at around 6 or 7pm, with that hour helping speed things up!

If you had to be somewhere for 9, you'd probably go the night before and stay in a hotel.

Hmmm...

Not looking good for direct services from the north as things stand is it? I realise that on a rail forum enthusiasts will push a rail option for just about any journey, but having traveled extensively across Europe by road, rail and air, in various combinations, I remain deeply sceptical that any demand will be there.

 

[jon0844]

I am not disagreeing with you! I am just saying that you wouldn't always need to run a train so early that it gets people into the heart of Paris for 7 or 8am, and it could still be well used.

I don't know how many people would fly the night before, or get up stupidly early, and I am not going to do such research. Someone else presumably will and make a decision.

I would have thought that one or two services in each direction per day, direct, would have benefits. As I've said, the big issue is the added time needed to transfer - and the fact that in order to avoid problems, Eurostar would probably seek to have an artificially long connection time. This would then make air travel seem more sensible - in effect, killing the service even before it begins.

But, for leisure travel that's (possibly) less of an issue.

Lots of ifs, buts and maybes, but one thing I would say is that such services would probably be so infrequent that a single line to link to HS1 would be more than sufficient.

 

[HowardGWR]

I am not disagreeing with you! I am just saying that you wouldn't always need to run a train so early that it gets people into the heart of Paris for 7 or 8am, and it could still be well used.

I don't know how many people would fly the night before, or get up stupidly early, and I am not going to do such research. Someone else presumably will and make a decision.

I would have thought that one or two services in each direction per day, direct, would have benefits. As I've said, the big issue is the added time needed to transfer - and the fact that in order to avoid problems, Eurostar would probably seek to have an artificially long connection time. This would then make air travel seem more sensible - in effect, killing the service even before it begins.

But, for leisure travel that's (possibly) less of an issue.

Lots of ifs, buts and maybes, but one thing I would say is that such services would probably be so infrequent that a single line to link to HS1 would be more than sufficient.

Has the Greengauge21 report been cited here yet?

http://www.greengauge21.net/publications/travel-market-demand-and-the-hs1-hs2-link/

 

[jon0844]

I can see the argument for trains to connect to Kent via HS1 more than running all-day international services, but at the same time, these are easier connections as you could change train a lot quicker than having one requiring a security/passport check and having an allocated seat.

How many trains could pass in two directions on a single track connection? I don't know how long it is or if there would be a passing loop...

 

[Chris125]

How many trains could pass in two directions on a single track connection? I don't know how long it is or if there would be a passing loop...

The link line, single track throughout and now fully segregated from the NLL, has sufficient capacity for 3 trains per hour in each direction - that should be more than sufficient.

Chris

 

[jon0844]

Yeah, that does sound enough. Is there scope to add another line at a later stage if/when demand makes it viable or necessary?

 

[HSTEd]

Yeah, that does sound enough. Is there scope to add another line at a later stage if/when demand makes it viable or necessary?

Well the second track's route doesn't neccesarily have to be the same, you could just add it in using a different, all tunelled route.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It's an obvious target because of the significance of the tunnel, but most terrorists would seek a big, devastating, attack wouldn't they?

In all fairness the same could be said the of the July 2005 bombings. As a Londoner with vivid memories of that terrible morning I would hope that the state would all it could to stop something similar happening in the Channel Tunnel. At the end of the day how do you quantify big and devastating? The bombings on the 7.7.05 certainly felt big and devastating to Londoners.

 

[jon0844]

I know. I saw the bus blow up behind me that morning on my way to work, having been diverted.

However we haven't started scanning all luggage and bags taken on the tube (well, we did have the 'random' checks for some time) and there's nothing to stop it happening again if the intelligence services miss something.

Personally, I don't worry about it now. I was in shock on the day and some time after, not just because of what I saw (and luckily missed being two buses in front, also sitting upstairs) but because a friend of a colleague was killed, but you can't let them win.

P.S. I hope you referred to 7/7/05 rather than having had some vision of the future.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I know. I saw the bus blow up behind me that morning on my way to work, having been diverted.

However we haven't started scanning all luggage and bags taken on the tube (well, we did have the 'random' checks for some time) and there's nothing to stop it happening again if the intelligence services miss something.

Personally, I don't worry about it now. I was in shock on the day and some time after, not just because of what I saw (and luckily missed being two buses in front, also sitting upstairs) but because a friend of a colleague was killed, but you can't let them win.

P.S. I hope you referred to 7/7/05 rather than having had some vision of the future.

Jon, there but for the grace of God! Clearly someone was looking down on you that morning and thank God they were! I agree that the Tube is almost impossible to protect but that should not be an excuse for reducing security checks on Channel Tunnel services.

P.S. I blame the two pints I had after work!

 

[HowardGWR]

Jon, there but for the grace of God! Clearly someone was looking down on you that morning and thank God they were! I agree that the Tube is almost impossible to protect but that should not be an excuse for reducing security checks on Channel Tunnel services.

P.S. I blame the two pints I had after work!

I can see no logic in carrying out security checks on Eurostar services but not carrying them out on the tube or rail service.

Why not check people getting on buses. After all, people were killed on the bus. Alright it was a second choice of target but so what?

You can take your car onto the shuttle service with practically no checks whatsoever (thousands per day remember). As for HGV lorries......

Why pick on rail pax through the tunnel and not other traffic?

 

[mrmartin]

I do hope there will be data (and phone) coverage the whole length of it (even in tunnels). It would be totally pointless for me if there was no internet coverage - I'd take a slower service every time.

Obviously it's a long way away and technology will improve by then (though physics will stay the same) but does anyone know what phone coverage is like on similar routes to HS2 (lot of cuttings/tunnels) in Europe?

I've been on the TGV a few times but didn't really notice as I had data roaming turned off.

 

[gordonthemoron]

German ICEs have Phone signal boosters although I've not tried them. The German high speed lines have lots of tunnels and the new line they are building between Nuremburg/Erfurt/Leipzig will have even more than HS2

 

[jon0844]

The Channel tunnel is to get, or has now got, mobile phone coverage. It's UK coverage, so people will be roaming if travelling with a phone from a non-UK network.

The Heathrow Express also has in-tunnel coverage, but only for 2G I think. I am sure it will be upgraded to 3G and 4G in due course.

By the time HS2 opens, I am sure there will be no chance of it not having coverage for mobile/data coverage. By then we will be on at least 5G and possibly something even faster.

We are only just starting to see 802.11ac rolling out (until more devices support it, take up will be low) and Wi-Fi will clearly have advanced beyond all recognition in the next 20 years given how fast it has already advanced.

 

[StupidQuestion]

I can see no logic in carrying out security checks on Eurostar services but not carrying them out on the tube or rail service.

Why not check people getting on buses. After all, people were killed on the bus. Alright it was a second choice of target but so what?

You can take your car onto the shuttle service with practically no checks whatsoever (thousands per day remember). As for HGV lorries......

Why pick on rail pax through the tunnel and not other traffic?

I agree. Given the number of options for a determined person, my guess is that the money spent on security checks would be more effectively spent on intelligence/surveillance, also saving passengers time and inconvenience. Unless there is evidence to the contrary?

 

[HSTEd]

The simple reason is that they do it because the airline lobby demanded it.

 

[jon0844]

I think intelligence plays a massive role these days. I can't remember the last time I went through customs and saw people being randomly stopped, or even having staff there at all.

They'll have decided who to stop well in advance, either before the person got on the plane or when getting off.

I am sure it nets far bigger results in the long run.

The security checks for Eurostar seem a lot less thorough than at most airports. At least in my opinion.

 

[JohnB57]

The Channel tunnel is to get, or has now got, mobile phone coverage. It's UK coverage, so people will be roaming if travelling with a phone from a non-UK network.

T'other way round Jon.

The UK bound south tunnel has GSM-P, installed by French networks ahead of the Olympics.

The north tunnel, heading out of the UK, still has nothing. This means of course that UK networks will charge roaming fees for calls heading into the UK.

 

[jon0844]

Oops. Should really have Googled it, rather than relied on memory. Still, it was 50/50!

Come 2015 (July?) we should hopefully have done away with roaming fees throughout the EU and it won't matter, although it's odd to have only done one tunnel. What about the French people coming back from the Olympics?!

What's more, given how simple it is to network share, with Orange, T-Mobile and Three having done so (and Vodafone and O2 in certain rural areas) - you'd think that the industry would have worked out a way to offer coverage for all UK and French networks, with users remaining on their home network until made to change the other end.

 

[JohnB57]

Apparently the project took ten months and cost €14m so neither fast nor cheap. I think the lack of commitment from UK networks was the main obstacle so it's all down to money, as usual.

One theory was that the call-inclusive structure of most UK contracts makes it difficult to work alongside system access charges levied by Eurotunnel, but it's probably more British heel dragging.

Plus ça change, eh?

 

[mrmartin]

The Channel tunnel is to get, or has now got, mobile phone coverage. It's UK coverage, so people will be roaming if travelling with a phone from a non-UK network.

The Heathrow Express also has in-tunnel coverage, but only for 2G I think. I am sure it will be upgraded to 3G and 4G in due course.

By the time HS2 opens, I am sure there will be no chance of it not having coverage for mobile/data coverage. By then we will be on at least 5G and possibly something even faster.

We are only just starting to see 802.11ac rolling out (until more devices support it, take up will be low) and Wi-Fi will clearly have advanced beyond all recognition in the next 20 years given how fast it has already advanced.

Yeah I'm aware of this. I was just thinking that the high speed (350km/h vs 160km/h in the channel tunnel), plus jumping in and out would be a serious RF headache even with the better modulation modes.

Having said that, you're probably totally right. I'm almost certainly underestimating the pace of technology

 

[HSTEd]

Tunnels for HS2 can also be designed and built with space for a leaky feeder or something similar in place.

Channel tunnel almost certainly wasn't built with such things in place.

 

[JohnB57]

Leaky feeder with optical amps every 750m. Modulation is the usual GMSK. The tunnel's original Motorola analogue comms have also been converted to digital apparently.

 

[Chris125]

Well the second track's route doesn't neccesarily have to be the same, you could just add it in using a different, all tunelled route.

True in theory, but putting a second link line in tunnel throughout would face even greater issues than doing so with the first - Old Oak Common isn't designed with further tunnel mouths in mind and HS2 doesn't resurface again until Denham. I can't see it being an issue though, 3tph is adequate even if demand is much higher than anticipated, and there isn't the capacity for more through services on HS2 anyway.

Chris

 

[RichmondCommu]

The simple reason is that they do it because the airline lobby demanded it.

Do you have a source to back up this statement? As a nation we would be extremely foolish to disregard the clear terrorist threat posed by Al-Qaeda and other similar organisations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can see no logic in carrying out security checks on Eurostar services but not carrying them out on the tube or rail service.

Why not check people getting on buses. After all, people were killed on the bus. Alright it was a second choice of target but so what?

Have you ever used the Tube or bus service, especially during the peak? Such a scheme would be completely unworkable.