High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[flymo]

Had to laugh the other day when this photo



flashed up on my Windows 8 Start screen. Does 'Bing News' know something we don't.......

 

[TheGrew]

Hey everyone, it seems to the court of appeal has rejected the challenge to HS2, so one step closer to actually happening.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23433902

 

[jon0844]

Hey everyone, it seems to the court of appeal has rejected the challenge to HS2, so one step closer to actually happening.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23433902

It's just about time wasting now I suspect. Ultimately, I'm convinced HS2 will go ahead in one form or another.. just as we finally saw Crossrail and Thameslink (2000) go ahead.

I accept not all of the problems with the latter two were down to objections, but financing but these were still projects that I think a lot of people concluded would never happen.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

For further helpful analysis of todays' Judicial Review descision, the Cabinet Office have published this table, showing each ground of Appeal and the individual Appellants :

http://rnn.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=6742&SizeId=-1

Notwithstanding these statements, it remains an option for the objectors to launch a further Appeal against today's decision in the Supreme Court; an option which comes with considerable expense.

 

[hs2critic]

So you complain that its upteen billion to save a few mins then complain that it isn't quick enough?

My complaint always has been that this line is extortionately expensive for relatively few gains, compared with European equivalents. That was largely based from reading HS2 Ltd's own reports.

So yes, the gains in journey time are relatively modest when compared with something like the AVE between BCN & MAD - and that is because the WCML is already starting from a fast baseline, if not technically "high speed", for the sake of 1mph worth of definition.

I don't think the Penzance comparison is relevant, because volumes and yields are much lower beyond Plymouth. Also, if you are trying to load in some green credentials, you need to provide an alternative to air routes, and even Newquay is barely a handful of flights each day.

So yes, HS2 - in its current form, ie the proposal that is on the table, not future potential, is not quick enough to capture the lion's share of the market to Scotland. Nor would making it a 250 or 300mph service make much difference, because the problem is that it then goes back to the classic lines to head north.

So as it stands, post 2033, you will attract leisure passengers away from flying to Scotland, but 3h40 will have little appeal to the day trip business user, and they are the ones who spend the most money.

Far from being "bowled over", I remain of the view that the case for HS2 is yet to be proven.

 

[tbtc]

I wonder how many people decide not to travel between Sheffield and London by train because of the current journey time? One suspects that very few people are put off by the two hour train ride as there isn't a quicker alternative. Which makes me wonder how much extra business HS2 is likely to win between South Yorkshire and London

The current Sheffield - London service is one "fast" train an hour taking approx 2h7 and one "slow" train an hour taking just under 2h30.

Sheffield has generally had a slower/ poorer London service than places in Yorkshire that are further away from London (Doncaster, York, Wakefield all have regular services that take under two hours).

The difference is such that its a common thing for Sheffield - London passengers to travel via Doncaster on split tickets (hence Sheffield - London tickets being marked "route Chesterfield" to discourage this).

Knocking down the Sheffield - London journey time to around an hour (as HS2 plans to) would make London as far away in time terms as Manchester/ Leeds are most of the time. And there are a lot of people who do those commutes (I used to be one of them).

That would make a big difference to commuting options (given that Sheffield produces a large number of graduates but has a lot fewer jobs for them to go into).

 

[hs2critic]

The difference is such that its a common thing for Sheffield - London passengers to travel via Doncaster on split tickets (hence Sheffield - London tickets being marked "route Chesterfield" to discourage this).

Could you comment on the need to route trains via Derby, instead of taking a faster route through Toton? I get the obvious advantage of picking up more pax there, but has there ever been a plan to perhaps run the fast service this way and the slower one via Derby, or even to upgrade to 3 tph?

My other concern is that you are effectively creating two main stations, one of which is at a vast sprawling shopping mall, and the other is in the city centre.

It is better than our lot in Coventry, where they are desperately trying to call the B'ham M42 station "West Midlands Parkway", but it is still not Sheffield city centre.

I know, we'll be told the cost of a spur going right in was just too expensive, but what about a classic compatible link that at least gave some services into the centre, and perhaps the hinterland beyond?

 

[HowardGWR]

And note that if you had no concern for environmental impacts you could build HS2 for a rather small percentage of its current cost, as there would be no need to use a single tunnel outside of an urban area.
You could cross the Chilterns on a series of large embankments, cuttings and long cheap concrete viaducts.

That's the M40 isn't it?

Note that HS2 will be in tunnel for much of the crossing, unlike the M40.

In planning, if you can't see it, you can't hear it, you can't smell it (etc) it isn't a planning issue as far as impact on landscape is concerned.

 

[tbtc]

Could you comment on the need to route trains via Derby, instead of taking a faster route through Toton? I get the obvious advantage of picking up more pax there, but has there ever been a plan to perhaps run the fast service this way and the slower one via Derby, or even to upgrade to 3 tph?

My other concern is that you are effectively creating two main stations, one of which is at a vast sprawling shopping mall, and the other is in the city centre.

It is better than our lot in Coventry, where they are desperately trying to call the B'ham M42 station "West Midlands Parkway", but it is still not Sheffield city centre.

I know, we'll be told the cost of a spur going right in was just too expensive, but what about a classic compatible link that at least gave some services into the centre, and perhaps the hinterland beyond?

I've suggested diverting Sheffield trains via the Erewash route (i.e. avoiding Derby) on here a few times, given that XC cover the Sheffield - Derby section of the route. I've generally been told that the Erewash route is no faster, but I don't know where the problems are.

At least Meadowhall is well connected for local trains/ trams/ buses. The only alternative to Meadowhall would be the old Sheffield Victoria site, which is also outside the city centre but lacks the connections to the rest of Sheffield/ South Yorkshire.

 

[HSTEd]

It would be nice if the could add a north facing classic compatible access point at Birmingham to allow trains to leave New Street and join the line to Leeds and (possibly but less importantly) Manchester.

That would allow future electrification of the Birmingham-Bristol line to reroute the Bristol-Scotland trains over the high speed section, cutting large amounts off the end to end journey time. (They would be 'shadowed' by a conventional train to take the intermediate station load on the middle section)

 

[HowardGWR]

For further helpful analysis of todays' Judicial Review descision, the Cabinet Office have published this table, showing each ground of Appeal and the individual Appellants :

http://rnn.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=6742&SizeId=-1

Notwithstanding these statements, it remains an option for the objectors to launch a further Appeal against today's decision in the Supreme Court; an option which comes with considerable expense.

But they only have leave to appeal on the EIA stuff and that only because one of the judges voted the opposite to his two colleagues on that issue. I wonder if the council tax payers will be happy with more money being thrown on legal challenges. After all, the vast majority of CT payers live nowhere close to the line and may never even become aware of its existence.

Another irony has entered my mind. If they think EU directives are coming to their aid, I wonder how many of the councillors want out of the EU or their constituents voted UKIP in the EU elections?

 

[The Ham]

My complaint always has been that this line is extortionately expensive for relatively few gains, compared with European equivalents. That was largely based from reading HS2 Ltd's own reports.

So yes, the gains in journey time are relatively modest when compared with something like the AVE between BCN & MAD - and that is because the WCML is already starting from a fast baseline, if not technically "high speed", for the sake of 1mph worth of definition.

I don't think the Penzance comparison is relevant, because volumes and yields are much lower beyond Plymouth. Also, if you are trying to load in some green credentials, you need to provide an alternative to air routes, and even Newquay is barely a handful of flights each day.

So yes, HS2 - in its current form, ie the proposal that is on the table, not future potential, is not quick enough to capture the lion's share of the market to Scotland. Nor would making it a 250 or 300mph service make much difference, because the problem is that it then goes back to the classic lines to head north.

So as it stands, post 2033, you will attract leisure passengers away from flying to Scotland, but 3h40 will have little appeal to the day trip business user, and they are the ones who spend the most money.

Far from being "bowled over", I remain of the view that the case for HS2 is yet to be proven.

I wasn't suggesting that a HS line be built to Penzance, rather that if you start from a low base point for train speeds then you can see massive reductions in journey times.

The UK already have Highspeed trains, as:

The European Union Directive 96/48/EC, Annex 1 defines high-speed rail as a set of three elements with precise criteria:

Infrastructure: track built specially for high-speed travel or specially upgraded for high-speed travel.
Rolling stock:' Minimum speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) on lines specially built for high speed and 200 km/h (124 mph) on existing lines which have been specially upgraded.
Operating conditions: Rolling stock must be designed alongside its infrastructure for complete compatibility, safety and quality of service.

Therefore as, our current 125mph (plus) rolling stock runs on lines which were upgraded to cope with the faster stock, at the very least the ECML, WCML and GWML can all be classed as highspeed routes as they were upgraded to enable highspeed services.

What HS1 (and HS2, once built) is a new build highspeed line with the faster speeds associated with the requirement for a new line to be classed as high speed.

 

[cle]

Won't Totton have a connection to the Erewash line?

Therefore couldn't Classic Compatible trains leave HS2 there, and run to Chesterfield and Sheffield proper?

 

[WatcherZero]

Despite all the bluster the opposition is starting to fall way, Coventry has decided to leave the 51M group and start supporting HS2 now. Couple of other tory councils have changed their position from opposition to getting the largest compensation deal possible.

 

[Bonemaster]

After all, the vast majority of CT payers live nowhere close to the line and may never even become aware of its existence.

There are three or four major strands of objection, and that scenario only applies to one of them, and the actual per capita cost local councils have put aside for legal challenges is pennies. Whilst there are some who object on the grounds that it is close to them, others have objections that parks, nature reserves and other areas of high social and aesthetic value are going to be bisected and in at least two cases not tunnelled but on embankments, this can and has pulled in much opposition from a much larger area, than those who live close to the route.

I certainly dont see today as a decisive time for the project, we have seen senior politicians from two parties start to wonder from the party pro line within the last week firstly , secondly, and thirdly , and it is not inconceivable that one or more of the parties could change stance between now and the next election, and that some kind of commission to look at rail capacity (along Heathrow runway lines) along with some short term solutions still looks the most likely outcome in the medium term in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Coventry has decided to leave the 51M group and start supporting HS2 now. Couple of other tory councils have changed their position from opposition to getting the largest compensation deal possible.

Not factually true

Coventry City Councils stance changed to "neither support, nor oppose." to quote one of the councillors

“We accept this is a controversial project but we have to make the best of this situation and we’re being pragmatic and realistic. We have to get the best deal for Coventry. We will try to influence a positive outcome.”

 

[RichmondCommu]

Won't Totton have a connection to the Erewash line?

Therefore couldn't Classic Compatible trains leave HS2 there, and run to Chesterfield and Sheffield proper?

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be enough room to run these trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

Won't Totton have a connection to the Erewash line?

Nothing shown on the plans:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/69003/hs2-arp-lr0-dr-rt-55121_3-0.pdf

Other connections, such as that at Crewe, are shown so absence here suggests it isn't planned at all.

 

[gordonthemoron]

yes, what we need it's lost more railway lines to the north as upgrading existing lines is too expensive and doesn't work. Surely one line is better than 4?

 

[snowball]

Won't Totton have a connection to the Erewash line?

Therefore couldn't Classic Compatible trains leave HS2 there, and run to Chesterfield and Sheffield proper?

I think you mean Toton. Totton is near Southampton.

 

[RichmondCommu]

yes, what we need it's lost more railway lines to the north as upgrading existing lines is too expensive and doesn't work. Surely one line is better than 4?

Eh? Could you decode this please?

 

[gordonthemoron]

some idiot in the news said that HS2 was too expensive and it would be cheaper to build several new lines to the north

 

[Bonemaster]

upgrading existing lines is too expensive and doesn't work.

I assume you are opposing the £5bn cost for the GWML upgrade on that basis then

 

[LexyBoy]

I assume you are opposing the £5bn cost for the GWML upgrade on that basis then

Getting the sort of capacity and speed gains that would be delivered by HS2 is "too expensive and doesn't work" IMO. The aims of the GWML upgrade are not primarily about speed or capacity.

 

[Bonemaster]

Getting the sort of capacity and speed gains that would be delivered by HS2 is "too expensive and doesn't work" IMO. The aims of the GWML upgrade are not primarily about speed or capacity.

To quote the preamble from Network Rail on the GWML upgrade

"Faster, more reliable services, more seats,
better stations and more freight trains
will not only improve the experience of
rail users but also stimulate economic
growth across the region and beyond."

and to quote the former transport minister

"The transformational 10-year
programme that Network Rail is leading
will do more than help to meet projected
demand for increased passenger and
freight journeys; it will deliver a longterm boost to the economies of Wales
and the South West."

I think capacity and speed are both covered off in those headlines. whilst I accept you will never get the speed and capacity boost from upgrading an existing line, compared with new build however much can be done. The best way forwards is determined by answering how much capacity is needed, and what is the benefit of each incremental increase in speed, these determine which is the best answer cheaper solutions with lower benefit, or an expensive solution with greater benefit, and depending on how you value to non monetary benefits you get different answers, two small changes in the CBA, and HS2 is either dead, or a nailed on certainty to be built as the economics of it are so highly weighted in its favour. Building in too much capacity is equally as foolish as building in too little, as many people have found out.

 

[pt_mad]

I can't see why they just don't look at four tracking Rugby - Birmingham as an alternative.

HS2s marketing is misleading in saying 'journey times of 45 minutes London - Bham down from current 83 minutes'. The fastest journey is 72 minutes in the morning (not stopping at Rugby/Coventry) and this could be done on a wider scale if it was required.


Out of interest what are the current full linespeeds between Rugby and Grand Junction?

 

[gordonthemoron]

I can't see why they just don't look at four tracking Rugby - Birmingham as an alternative.

Because the capacity problem is South of Rugby

 

[joeykins82]

I think capacity and speed are both covered off in those headlines. (etc)

There's also a positive financial case for the electrification of the GWML (as well as the MML and the Newbury-Cogload Junction infill scheme once Bristol-Plymouth is wired). Reliability improvements, journey time improvements and capacity improvements are all necessary and welcome but nothing gets ministers and civil servants salivating quite like a scheme that genuinely pays for itself through reduced running costs and therefore higher franchise premiums.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't see why they just don't look at four tracking Rugby - Birmingham as an alternative.

How does quad tracking the Birmingham Loop help?
That is not the capacity constrained section.

HS2s marketing is misleading in saying 'journey times of 45 minutes London - Bham down from current 83 minutes'. The fastest journey is 72 minutes in the morning (not stopping at Rugby/Coventry) and this could be done on a wider scale if it was required.

Perhaps it could be done more widely, but could it be done 3 or 4 times an hour, every hour?
Crack Express timings are worthless, the important thing is what the normal travel time is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I assume you are opposing the £5bn cost for the GWML upgrade on that basis then

I am not really aware of any significant speed improvements beyond that would be achieved if all GWML services were run by squadron fleets of Class 180s.

The GWML upgrade is random bits tied in with electrification and the already due resignalling. It is far less extensive than even the WCRM was.

 

[LexyBoy]

I think capacity and speed are both covered off in those headlines.

Indeed, but I think that the headlines emphasise the more glamorous (such as it is) things which will interest passengers. Reduced operating costs and replacement of life-expired systems and stock isn't a very sexy way of spending £5bn. Also note that according to NR electric trains are (paraphrasing) "cheaper and lighter than diesels" - true generally, perhaps not so much with IEP...

Also the GWML hasn't been upgraded for a long time so you get more bang for your buck with upgrades. You can't simply electrify & resignal the WCML to deliver faster/more trains, as it's already been done to (pretty much) the best we can do. I accept there's room for improvement on the MML of course.

 

[pt_mad]

How does quad tracking the Birmingham Loop help?
That is not the capacity constrained section.



Perhaps it could be done more widely, but could it be done 3 or 4 times an hour, every hour?
Crack Express timings are worthless, the important thing is what the normal travel time is.

4 tracking would help by increasing possible linespeed and reducing the normal journey time.

To be fair I think it probably would be possible to run a lot more trains straight through Eus - Bhm with no stops but there is too much business sense in stopping at Coventry, International and maybe Rugby.


Capacity needed or not, if 90% of the feedback from HS2 consultation was against, something is obviously fundamentally wrong.