High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[YorkshireBear]

If we stopped letting people have a say and do what the French do it would be built to Aberdeen by now.

Yes i exaggerated for effect....

 

[corfield]

Except that the anti-HS2 lot dont offer criticism. They just offer blind faith based hate with manipulative and selective information usage to put across a message theyd decided long before they looked at the economic case, which they probably havent.

The Govt of course is no angel in that either, but as with so many "anti" campaigners, they fail to realise that those techniques and attitudes lose them far more credibility than the "in power" organisation suffers.

Then changing the topic through sequences of unattributed and baseless statements which are then left unsupported, as youve done here with your farcical "modest" comment.

The need, and alternatives for HS2 have quite literally been done to death, the legal challenge largely destroyed (aside from welcome judgement on sharp compensation practice) and the departure of local govt supporters (who presumably were in it to apply pressure for other funding/projects) shows the case against it was and is being born out of very small minded, self centred interests; and certainly not cost, benefits (discounted if to others) or any analysis of the problems and solutions of the UKs future railways.

Resorting to bland statements about the economic case and self congratulatory comments on providing criticism (which is a bit like pooing, we can all do that) should be a sign you need to get over it and move on.

 

[hs2critic]

I've seen nothing in the business case for hs2 that mentions the value of the capacity on the WCML that will be freed up (quite important considering it'll be full in ten years). The optimism bias on 60% is pretty hefty but we shall see. In the end the country needs hs2

It is up to the government to propose the scheme. They decide what goes out and what goes in. There will always be some things the treasury says you can / can't put in, but at the end of the day we have to evaluate the case based on what HS2 Ltd, a "company" that defines its internet presence as being very much "not for profit" (ie .org) tell us.

So it isn't enough just to say we "need" it, and ask for a blank cheque. I need food right now. But I have limits of how far I'm going to go to get it or how much time I'm prepared to spend making it. If I opted for pizza at a place that usually charges £7, and they ask for £8-9, I'll probably still buy, but if that trips over £10 I'm going to find another option.

Optimum bias is also there for a reason. If it isn't used, then the money can be recycled, but only very late on in the advanced testing stage in the run up to opening. Look at FYRA - the line is fine, but the trains?

It has also been commented that the Jubilee Line extension had a BCR of only 0.4 - yet Crossrail had a BCR of 2 (DfT) or 2.8 (TfL with London weighting). I find this quite surprising - sure, XR will use full sized trains, but it is a substantially wider bore at 6m diameter instead of the tube's 3.6

Clearly, the methodology is open to interpretation, and if you put garbage in, you will only get garbage out. But we also know that the BCR calculations are based on people not working on the trains, something that clearly happens all the time. In fact, that should have been loaded the other way round - the ability to work on the train should make it considerably more attractive than going by car.

So please excuse my cynicism for making an evaluation based on what HS2 Ltd have told us.

 

[Ironside]

It has also been commented that the Jubilee Line extension had a BCR of only 0.4 - yet Crossrail had a BCR of 2 (DfT) or 2.8 (TfL with London weighting). I find this quite surprising - sure, XR will use full sized trains, but it is a substantially wider bore at 6m diameter instead of the tube's 3.6.

I understand that the costs of boaring a new tunnel are not strictly proportional to the diameter of the tunnel, by which I mean using a wider bore may not be that much more expencive. This assumes the the wider bore does not lead to more work being needed to stabilise serounding structure. In the case of XR vs Jubilee extension perhaps it's in part a case of larger tunnel not much more expencive to dig but larger trains allow more people on so greater BCR.

 

[brianthegiant]

Except that the anti-HS2 lot dont offer criticism. They just offer blind faith based hate with manipulative and selective information usage to put across a message theyd decided long before they looked at the economic case, which they probably havent.

Evidence to the recent parliamentary committee reviewing HS2 Bill is a classic example (sorry can't find link on parliament TV right now). Those in favour mostly gave reasoned technical responses to questions. Stop HS2 & HS2AA seemed to just keep repeating the same soundbites to different questions.

 

[30mog]

As you may all be aware. Sheffield City Council broadly support HS2, but would prefer Sheffield to have a city centre connection and propose the site of the old Sheffield Victoria station. With regard to this. A 'Sheffield Loop' is proposed as an alternative. On a rail map it would appear a similar sort of feature to the Northampton Loop on the WCML. Odds of it happening don't look good owing to the eye watering cost of £1 billion plus. Mainly due to much of it running through a tunnel north-east of the city centre. Furtermore, the possible demolition of the Royal Victoria Hotel will ignite Nimby-ness.

However, another story emerging in Sheffield is that Sheffield station may need an extra two platforms to cope with feeder services, should HS2 go as currently planned with a Sheffield/Rotherham terminal at Meadowhall. To do this the area of banking above platform 8, that Supertram run on top of, would be excavated to provide two platforms. With Supertram possibly being moved. Pardon me but, how much would this cost? A significant percentage of the £1 billion cost of the Sheffield Loop I suspect.

Thus, I suspect the idea of a Sheffield Loop may not be so dead in the water. Furthermore, what if that north easterly tunnel were bored with twin double track tunnels while they are doing it? This way the existing Supertram system could expand along it?

My only other guesses as to two extra platforms at Sheffield, or capacity of. Divert local stopping trains away, tram-trains. Or locate two new platforms on Sheaf Street, and divert the road onto a flyover.

 

[HSTEd]

If they just close the supertram section in question for the duration of the works it will not cost very much at all.

Earth moving is incredibly cheap these days.
And it sets a very dangerous precedent, since I think with the best part of a billion pounds to work with you could come up with a city centre station for Nottingham, so why shouldn't that be funded?

 

[YorkshireBear]

As you may all be aware. Sheffield City Council broadly support HS2, but would prefer Sheffield to have a city centre connection and propose the site of the old Sheffield Victoria station. With regard to this. A 'Sheffield Loop' is proposed as an alternative. On a rail map it would appear a similar sort of feature to the Northampton Loop on the WCML. Odds of it happening don't look good owing to the high watering cost of £1 billion plus. Mainly due to much of it running through a tunnel north-east of the city centre. And, the possible demolition of the Royal Victoria Hotel will ignite Nimby-ness.

However, another story emerging in Sheffield is that Sheffield station may need an extra two platforms to cope with feeder services, should HS2 go as currently planned with a Sheffield/Rotherham terminal at Meadowhall. To do this the area of banking above platform 8, that Supertram run on top of, would be excavated to provide two platforms. With Supertram possibly being moved. Pardon me but, how much would this cost? A significant percentage of the £1 billion cost of the Sheffield Loop I suspect.

Thus, I suspect the idea of a Sheffield Loop may not be so dead in the water. Furthermore, what if that north easterly tunnel were bored with twin double track tunnels while they are doing it? This way the existing Supertram system could expand along it?

My only other guesses as to two extra platforms at Sheffield, or capacity of. Divert local stopping trains away, tram-trains. Or locate two new platforms on Sheaf Street, and divert the road onto a flyover.

That proposal will be far cheaper than 1 billion I assure you!

 

[30mog]

That proposal will be far cheaper than 1 billion I assure you!

OK. But a few £100m wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Darren R]

If they need extra platforms at Sheffield - and it could do with them as things currently stand even without the extra services in question - wouldn't it be easier to remove the two Station Sidings between platforms 5 and 6 and build a new island there? I know platform 6/8 would need to be narrowed to make room, but this is a wide island and shouldn't be such a major problem. (Compared to widening the entire formation and moving the road and tramway above it, anyway!) Are these two sidings in such regular use that NetworkRail can't manage without them?

 

[hs2critic]

And it sets a very dangerous precedent, since I think with the best part of a billion pounds to work with you could come up with a city centre station for Nottingham, so why shouldn't that be funded?

Sure - now serving city centres, that's a really DANGEROUS idea!

So dangerous that it is done throughout practically the entire German speaking world (Berlin HB and the new combined Vienna HB being cases in point). My understanding is that costs for the former were in the region of €700m for the station, and €2bn for north-south tunnels, but I can't verify this right now.

The real dangerous precedent we are creating is divide between those cities which are directly on it and those which are only partially on it (Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield etc), or not on it at all (Coventry, Wakefield etc).

This is unlike any other comparable HSR project in Europe. In fact, I can only think of one major interchange city (outside capitals with a fragmented terminus network like London and Paris) where the high speed trains do not serve a station in (or directly adjacent to) the centre.

The one I'm thinking of is famous for its art. If you have others, please let me know.

 

[si404]

Don't forget that HS2 is about relieving existing lines, which are most congested approaching cities. Add to that the gauge issue that doesn't exist elsewhere, except Spain, and having HS2 serve city centres proves problematic. You can't do what the French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans do, and build lines to bypass the slow route between cities, but then merge in with the 'classic' lines to access the city centre with little changes made to it (are Lyon and Lille the only non-Spanish cities to get a new city centre station as part of their High Speed Network? Is Lille not the only one to have a through station which trains can pass through at High Speed?).

and if you count Nottingham and Derby as "partially served", then Coventry is too, via Birmingham Interchange. Which, if the city lobbies hard enough, can be 'Warwickshire Parkway' to remove the 'Birmingham' if that is less offensive.

 

[HSTEd]

Sure - now serving city centres, that's a really DANGEROUS idea!

No, just a very very very expensive idea.

Our Continental Brethren have the advantage that GC gauge will actually fit into existing stations without ridiculous amounts of work.
Try running a TGV Duplex into Nottingham station from the western approach and watch what happens.

That is an extreme example but still, many stations would need near total reconstruction to accept high speed rail trains that comply with standards.

Even a new Sheffield station will add billions to the project and deliver almost no real benefits, and will create hard to resist demands for similar loops for Derby and Nottingham and probably other places which together would push the project cost so high as to drag it under.

The options for these places is a parkway station or no station, it is as simple as that.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No, just a very very very expensive idea.

Our Continental Brethren have the advantage that GC gauge will actually fit into existing stations without ridiculous amounts of work.
Try running a TGV Duplex into Nottingham station from the western approach and watch what happens.

That is an extreme example but still, many stations would need near total reconstruction to accept high speed rail trains that comply with standards.

Even a new Sheffield station will add billions to the project and deliver almost no real benefits, and will create hard to resist demands for similar loops for Derby and Nottingham and probably other places which together would push the project cost so high as to drag it under.

The options for these places is a parkway station or no station, it is as simple as that.

Was just coming on to put this after reading the thread on my phone on my commute! That is the main sticking point, and we don't want to build our high speeds lines to UK loading gauge because that would frankly be pointless... We are building a 21st century railway.

 

[tbtc]

The real dangerous precedent we are creating is divide between those cities which are directly on it and those which are only partially on it (Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield etc), or not on it at all (Coventry, Wakefield etc)

You could argue the same about any fast line - it creates a "two tier" system between the towns/cities on the line and those not on it - like the way that Daventry/ Northampton/ Warwick etc aren't on the main London - Birmingham line but Coventry is.

As you may all be aware. Sheffield City Council broadly support HS2, but would prefer Sheffield to have a city centre connection and propose the site of the old Sheffield Victoria station. With regard to this. A 'Sheffield Loop' is proposed as an alternative. On a rail map it would appear a similar sort of feature to the Northampton Loop on the WCML. Odds of it happening don't look good owing to the eye watering cost of £1 billion plus. Mainly due to much of it running through a tunnel north-east of the city centre. Furtermore, the possible demolition of the Royal Victoria Hotel will ignite Nimby-ness.

However, another story emerging in Sheffield is that Sheffield station may need an extra two platforms to cope with feeder services, should HS2 go as currently planned with a Sheffield/Rotherham terminal at Meadowhall. To do this the area of banking above platform 8, that Supertram run on top of, would be excavated to provide two platforms. With Supertram possibly being moved. Pardon me but, how much would this cost? A significant percentage of the £1 billion cost of the Sheffield Loop I suspect.

Thus, I suspect the idea of a Sheffield Loop may not be so dead in the water. Furthermore, what if that north easterly tunnel were bored with twin double track tunnels while they are doing it? This way the existing Supertram system could expand along it?

My only other guesses as to two extra platforms at Sheffield, or capacity of. Divert local stopping trains away, tram-trains. Or locate two new platforms on Sheaf Street, and divert the road onto a flyover.

A Sheffield Loop would be a waste of time.

Sheffield isn't significant enough to justify direct services in the city centre (since any London - Sheffield service would come at the cost of a London - Leeds service).

A London - Leeds service diverted through Sheffield is going to be significantly slower than the next London - Leeds service.

I'd much rather that they spent the fictional "billion" on genuine improvements for Sheffield (like four-tracking from Dore to Swinton).

 

[HSTEd]

A billion pounds would probably buy Sheffield a significant portion of a true heavy rail metro line, underground and all.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A billion pounds would probably buy Sheffield a significant portion of a true heavy rail metro line, underground and all.

Thats what i was considering. It would certainly allow me to complete my South Yorkshire Metro plan that i have dreamt up many times

 

[pt_mad]

Speaking of wcml capacity issues, have Chiltern Mainline services not taken some of the footfall away from Virgin?

I mean it is an alternative of sorts and certainly very suitable for the working traveller.

 

[HSTEd]

Speaking of wcml capacity issues, have Chiltern Mainline services not taken some of the footfall away from Virgin?

I mean it is an alternative of sorts and certainly very suitable for the working traveller.

Yes, but the capacity of the Chiltern route is frankly a rounding error compared to the procession of 9 and 11 coach Pendolinos going to Birmingham.

To say nothing of the trains to Manchester and Leeds.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, but the capacity of the Chiltern route is frankly a rounding error compared to the procession of 9 and 11 coach Pendolinos going to Birmingham.

To say nothing of the trains to Manchester and Leeds.

Also, much of the "loss" would be offset by the increase in passenger numbers.

 

[Wirral]

The London Midland trains from Euston to Birmingham are fully loaded peak time as Virgin is so expensive. After Milton Keynes the Virgin Birmingham trains I have been on are half empty.

Spend the money on the existing railways and make marginal improvements.

What would the price of an anytime standard return to Birmingham on HS2 in todays prices. Far more I expect that most people can afford.

 

[transmanche]

What would the price of an anytime standard return to Birmingham on HS2 in todays prices. Far more I expect that most people can afford.

A 9-car Pendolino carries 439 passengers. (11-car carries 589.)
A double TGV Duplex carries 1016 passengers. (That's 400m long, so possibly what HS2 captive sets will be like.)

More passengers per service should equal a lower average fare paid.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The London Midland trains from Euston to Birmingham are fully loaded peak time as Virgin is so expensive. After Milton Keynes the Virgin Birmingham trains I have been on are half empty.

Spend the money on the existing railways and make marginal improvements.

What would the price of an anytime standard return to Birmingham on HS2 in todays prices. Far more I expect that most people can afford.

You put the nail in the coffin of your own argument there. You can only ever make marginal improvements without huge expense and massive disruption.

And they say pricing will be in line with existing services.

 

[Wirral]

A 9-car Pendolino carries 439 passengers. (11-car carries 589.)
A double TGV Duplex carries 1016 passengers. (That's 400m long, so possibly what HS2 captive sets will be like.)

More passengers per service should equal a lower average fare paid.

An interesting theory, however, the upgrade of the West Coast Main line increased its capacity and frequency and should then have lowered fares. The opposite has happend with train ticket inflation pushing the tickets higher and higher.

Doubt there will be any difference with HS2, the building cost alone will make sure that the peak times trains costs will be above the pricing of Virgin's now which are beyond normal peoples budgets.

 

[YorkshireBear]

An interesting theory, however, the upgrade of the West Coast Main line increased its capacity and frequency and should then have lowered fares. The opposite has happend with train ticket inflation pushing the tickets higher and higher.

Doubt there will be any difference with HS2, the building cost alone will make sure that the peak times trains costs will be above the pricing of Virgin's now which are beyond normal peoples budgets.

Please can you inform all of us on this new way of looking into the future with certainty?

 

[Ironside]

An interesting theory, however, the upgrade of the West Coast Main line increased its capacity and frequency and should then have lowered fares. The opposite has happend with train ticket inflation pushing the tickets higher and higher.

Doubt there will be any difference with HS2, the building cost alone will make sure that the peak times trains costs will be above the pricing of Virgin's now which are beyond normal peoples budgets.

With the partial upgrade of the west coast main line capacity was increased but demand increased so there was no need to lower the price, in fact it had to be increased to keep the line maintained or cover the cost of the fines for failing to do so. With HS2 their are the building costs to consider but also the greatly reduced maintaince costs because of the simpler ( fewer points and signals etc) and more robust (eg built on the 1000 year flood plane).

It's too early to say exactly what the cost structure will be but HS2 doesn't need to be a premium fare service. Spanish high speed rail have found that by reducing the fares they can get more revenue. People want to go long distance by high speed rail but only a small proportion will be prepared to pay to get there fast.

Pricing really will come down to how the government of the day choose to have the line run and under what rules.

 

[jon0844]

I can see there being cheap advance fares and high-priced turn-up-and-go first class fares just as there are now.

But if the trains have excess capacity, chances are there will be more cheap tickets at certain times than there are now for obvious reasons; empty seats aren't making money.

Only the most hardcore anti-HS2 campaigner could think that someone would just decide to charge ten times as much for a ticket and expect to make loads of profit. Businesses are there to make money, and the successful ones don't just bump up prices unless they've got a very captive market. HS2 will have to compete with other lines, albeit slower ones, so won't be able to get away with murder.

 

[The Ham]

I can see there being cheap advance fares and high-priced turn-up-and-go first class fares just as there are now.

But if the trains have excess capacity, chances are there will be more cheap tickets at certain times than there are now for obvious reasons; empty seats aren't making money.

Only the most hardcore anti-HS2 campaigner could think that someone would just decide to charge ten times as much for a ticket and expect to make loads of profit. Businesses are there to make money, and the successful ones don't just bump up prices unless they've got a very captive market. HS2 will have to compete with other lines, albeit slower ones, so won't be able to get away with murder.

Often HS1 is highlighted as it shows the opposite, however HS1 is run by the same TOC and so they can charge what they like.

Whilst HS2 will have other TOC's running other routes (unless we go over to all service on HS2, MML, WCML & ECML as being one franchise!) so there will be competition which will keep prices down as there will be more than enough capacity for a good long while.

 

[Muzer]

...we all hope.

I do think that HS1 should be taken away from Southeastern to encourage competition, though I assume this isn't the thread to talk about that

 

[jon0844]

The HS1 supplement is a nonsense when it's only really (or only entirely) SET priced tickets that have the 'no HS1' clauses. People from further afield don't necessarily pay any more at all, which seems somewhat unfair. However, as said, with HS2 likely operated by someone else than that of the WCML, MML, ECML etc, there would be no real logic in pricing it out of the market (except where it's clear it would be able to - such as peak times for commuters).

HS1 and its supplement seems more like a TOC specific thing to entice people to travel on the classic route, or somehow make HS1 seem like some super-exclusive club (for what reason, I don't know - many services are very empty off-peak).

I also find it absolutely insane that we have a huge network of zones and two stations inside the network that exclude the use of Travelcards, for example. Heathrow Express I can accept, partly because of the fact the rail station isn't part of the zonal network and was built and paid for by BAA, but Stratford International and St Pancras International? Idiotic.