High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[YorkshireBear]

No, but I perhaps should work for the Daily Mail. I've just written a perfect 'outrage' story bound to spark loads of comments online, and thus loads of traffic and ad revenue.

You certainly have, factually incorrect and designed to elicit an emotional response from the people who belong to the 'pen (keyboad) of rage group'

Congrats. You are not a fully qualified Daily Mail journalist.

 

[pablo]

Quote: "and so, given we know Chris Gibb isn't an idiot"

Chris Gibb said : “If we are to see the massive investment in HS2, we need to maximise fully the benefits it will bring, and the use of tilting trains running at 140 mph on the classic lines is the way to deliver this.”

Where is the logic in that statement?

 

[joeykins82]

Maybe he's talking about upgrading the classic lines for 140mph running where the CC sets would operate over the classic network, and then maybe extending that capability over time?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Quote: "and so, given we know Chris Gibb isn't an idiot"

Chris Gibb said : “If we are to see the massive investment in HS2, we need to maximise fully the benefits it will bring, and the use of tilting trains running at 140 mph on the classic lines is the way to deliver this.”

Where is the logic in that statement?

He is talking about north of Wigan where CC trains will have to do 110 as they wont have tilt. He is suggesting 140mph tilt the northern WCML and have CC tilt so they can make best use of existing railway to Scotland. To be fair, he may have a point!

 

[Dave1987]

Has anyone pointed out that hs2 needs to be built to free up paths on the slow lines for the freight?

 

[Philip Elliott]

I have demonstrated before that you can run those services far more cheaply than they currently are.
Unless you think that Coventry should get 3 11-coach Pendolinos with massive catering crews for a journey of an hour?

I am not entirely sure why you need 8 of the nine trains?

To maintain service frequency service and speed - yes Coventry should retain 3 125mph trains per hour to London. High frequency is about attracting passengers with a turn up and go. Perhaps we should alter the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkrik from 4x 6-car services to 2x12-car then?:roll:

You can save atleast one on Manchester and two on Birmingham.
You can start splitting trains (Which will be shorter multiple units) at places like MKC and Crewe to preserve paths.

Sitting units down at a busy station with few platforms for several minutes will save paths? Quite the opposite.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No it isn't.

Find me a slot in the timetable for 3 trains per hour running non stop to Birmingham and you can claim that.

Are you seriously proposing withdrawing all the intermediate stations to allow that journey time to be achieved?


No I'm pointing out the like for like time saving by HS2 which is around 25 minutes not 35 minutes.

The turnaround time will drop thanks to the reduced need for catering reprovisioning, water filling and the like (since that tends to be related to time in service rather than number of journeys) and the reduced journey times will tend to reduce utilisation of those services per passenger-hour.

And there will be less need for make up time thanks to the more reliable nature of the infrastructure and the lack of conflicting slower moving train services.
You can turn around a train in a couple of minutes using ATO.

Turn around time have naff all to do with catering but performance and cleaning. So you think you can empty 1,100 off a double deck 400m train and fill it again in two minutes and clean the set....

 

[TrainBoy98]

If we need this, then surely it would be better/easier/cheaper to rebuild the Great Central Railway as that served both Manchester and Sheffield? Then the Chiltern Main Line could be used for the additional services to Birmingham that we will need in the future?

The GCR closure... another short sighted move. If we can predict now what will happen in the future (we know that the WCML will be at capacity soon) so why didn't we predict this ages ago?

 

[HSTEd]

Turn around time have naff all to do with catering but performance and cleaning. So you think you can empty 1,100 off a double deck 400m train and fill it again in two minutes and clean the set....

... Did I mention anything about actually doing that?
I merely said you could.

Performance will be far better allowing drastically shorter turnarounds, and most cleaning on many IC sets already seems to be done prior to arrival anyway.

 

[jon0844]

Has anyone pointed out that hs2 needs to be built to free up paths on the slow lines for the freight?

I think freight gets easily forgotten, even though it's growing (and we want it to grow).

 

[HSTEd]

If we need this, then surely it would be better/easier/cheaper to rebuild the Great Central Railway as that served both Manchester and Sheffield? Then the Chiltern Main Line could be used for the additional services to Birmingham that we will need in the future?

Vast parts of the alignment are beyond reuse.

Leicester, Rugby and other towns are in the way now.

 

[RPM]

If we need this, then surely it would be better/easier/cheaper to rebuild the Great Central Railway as that served both Manchester and Sheffield? Then the Chiltern Main Line could be used for the additional services to Birmingham that we will need in the future?

The GCR trackbed is has been extensively built upon and runs through urban areas. Virtually impossible to reopen it now without massive disruption, opposition and compensation. It would make HS2 NIMBYism seem like a walk in the park. Doubt it would cost any less than HS2, may even cost more and then you end up with something inferior to HS2 anyway. Will never happen.

Chiltern line pretty much runs to capacity already. There is some scope for upgrading further but not enough to cope with predicted future growth without HS2.

The GCR closure... another short sighted move. If we can predict now what will happen in the future (we know that the WCML will be at capacity soon) so why didn't we predict this ages ago?

Agree the GCR closure was short sighted and regrettable but that horse bolted decades ago so no point shutting the stable door now.

There was simply no political will to invest heavily in the railways previously. However, DaFT and the main political parties have had a Road to Damascus experience and things have changed. I suspect the ever rising rail ridership figures have provided the crucial evidence that was needed to achieve this.

 

[jon0844]

Because 'ages ago' there was the thought that we'd all own our own cars and public transport usage would fall, or perhaps be reserved only for the poor.

But then roads filled up and fuel prices rocketed, and we had increased costs for things like parking etc.

And then people got addicted to smartphones and working on their tablets and laptops, so now many more people want to be able to move about without driving themselves - simply to be able to do other things in that time.

Who knows what other changes there will be in society in the next 50 years that alters things all over again?

 

[TrainBoy98]

Ok, was just a thought.

 

[tec]

Has anyone pointed out that hs2 needs to be built to free up paths on the slow lines for the freight?

Move all the freight to the unused HS2 line.

It will be like the M6 toll road with nobody using it.

 

[HSTEd]

Here is an example of what you could do to WCML Classic services.

No station gets "hammered" but you cut the off peak path requirement from 9tph to 4tph.
Only two splits.

 

[AndyLandy]

Here is an example of what you could do to WCML Classic services.

No station gets "hammered" but you cut the off peak path requirement from 9tph to 4tph.
Only two splits.

Off Euston, you're proposing:
1tph Birmingham
1tph Chester (Holyhead)
1tph Birmingham/Manchester (Split MKC)
1tph Liverpool/Manchester (Split Crewe)

An interesting idea. I guess this assumes that most passengers will be on HS2?

 

[HSTEd]

Off Euston, you're proposing:
1tph Birmingham
1tph Chester (Holyhead)
1tph Birmingham/Manchester (Split MKC)
1tph Liverpool/Manchester (Split Crewe)

An interesting idea. I guess this assumes that most passengers will be on HS2?

The purely Birmingham train would actually be to Wolverhampton.
Assuming 5 car multiple units of some description. (Diesel to crewe otherwise electric)
110mph ones would offer greater savings in paths and monetary terms (and offer more capacity) but the system still works with 125mph ones.

And yes, it assumes most people who have HS2 stations nearby will use them preferentially.

 

[AndyLandy]

The purely Birmingham train would actually be to Wolverhampton.
Assuming 5 car multiple units of some description.
110mph ones would offer greater savings in paths and monetary terms (and offer more capacity) but the system still works with 125mph ones.

110mph 5-car EMUs? Sounds like a job for the fabled Class 344!

With decent acceleration, you could probably squeeze in a couple of additional station calls on some of those services. Maybe give the Trent Valley a regular semi-fast service to London?

 

[HSTEd]

110mph 5-car EMUs? Sounds like a job for the fabled Class 344!

Well the Class 444 successor whatever it is :P

With decent acceleration, you could probably squeeze in a couple of additional station calls on some of those services. Maybe give the Trent Valley a regular semi-fast service to London?

Don't want to degrade the performance of those services too drastically.
But you now have several free paths, both from service speed homogenisation and from the 5 spare paths that are now available.
So you could put in a couple of semi fasts in addition to these services and still be hugely up in terms of infrastructure loading.

 

[AndyLandy]

Well the Class 444 successor whatever it is :P

Yep! That's the bunny!

Don't want to degrade the performance of those services too drastically.
But you now have several free paths, both from service speed homogenisation and from the 5 spare paths that are now available.
So you could put in a couple of semi fasts in addition to these services and still be hugely up in terms of infrastructure loading.

That's a very good point, assuming you keep enough paths for freight.

Of course, it's all about finding the balance between providing semi-fast services along that route, and offering new journey opportunities between more locations on the line. It's always possible that people in Birmingham might want to go to Rugby, or somesuch.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Here is an example of what you could do to WCML Classic services.

No station gets "hammered" but you cut the off peak path requirement from 9tph to 4tph.
Only two splits.

As I've already said it would use paths by splitting than running separately band offers much slower and less frequent services and not nearly enough capacity for the demand. Also no connection from Cumbria to Euston...

 

[HSTEd]

As I've already said it would use paths by splitting than running separately band

It uses fewer paths where it matters, which is the southern WCML.
If splitting services was so bad for this reason why is it ever done anywhere?
Surely all trains would run as fixed formations end to end as it would be more path efficient.

offers much slower and less frequent services and not nearly enough capacity for the demand.

A 110mph EMU would be able to do the stopping pattern I have projected to Coventry losing about 6-10 minutes, even including a split, compared to now.
It is hardly world ending.

And what demand is that?

Birmingham/Wolverhampton would have up to 15 EMU cars per hour serving it, which once the Birmingham/Birmingham International traffic removed will generate not that great a drop compared to now. (3 444s is 987 seats, which is 1.6 11 car Pendolinos)

The other services are even more tilted towards end to end traffic, 5-cars would easily suffice to account for Wilmslow, half of Stafford and a sixth of MKC and Crewe (without including other new semi fasts) to give an example of one of the Manchester sets.
Stockport traffic will likely decant to Manchester Airport thanks to very good bus links, possibly extensions to Metrolink and other bits as well as the very much shorter journey times.

Also no connection from Cumbria to Euston...

Why would there be a link between Cumbria and Euston on the classic line?
It would be pointless.

EDIT:

If the Liverpool Classic Compatibles stop at Runcorn then you can potentially just drop the Liverpool ICWC service entirely since there is little point to it in that case.
Stafford could continue to be picked up by the Manchester(Wilmslow) service on its own.

 

[Philip Elliott]

It uses fewer paths where it matters, which is the southern WCML.
If splitting services was so bad for this reason why is it ever done anywhere?
Surely all trains would run as fixed formations end to end as it would be more path efficient.

Splitting is generally avoided wherever possible and is not very common in the grand scheme of things, particularly north of the Thames. Milton Keynes is on the southern WCML so would cause problems.


A 110mph EMU would be able to do the stopping pattern I have projected to Coventry losing about 6-10 minutes, even including a split, compared to now.
It is hardly world ending.

The allowace for splitting a 350 is 5 minutes alone. It is still slower which is the point - Coventry is closer to London but will take considerably longer than from Birmingham. Why does Birmingham need fast trains but Coventry not?

And what demand is that?

Birmingham/Wolverhampton would have up to 15 EMU cars per hour serving it, which once the Birmingham/Birmingham International traffic removed will generate not that great a drop compared to now. (3 444s is 987 seats, which is 1.6 11 car Pendolinos)

The other services are even more tilted towards end to end traffic, 5-cars would easily suffice to account for Wilmslow, half of Stafford and a sixth of MKC and Crewe (without including other new semi fasts) to give an example of one of the Manchester sets.
Stockport traffic will likely decant to Manchester Airport thanks to very good bus links, possibly extensions to Metrolink and other bits as well as the very much shorter journey times.



Why would there be a link between Cumbria and Euston on the classic line?
It would be pointless.

Because there is no planned link from Cumbria (Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme) to London on the high speed services.


EDIT:

If the Liverpool Classic Compatibles stop at Runcorn then you can potentially just drop the Liverpool ICWC service entirely since there is little point to it in that case.
Stafford could continue to be picked up by the Manchester(Wilmslow) service on its own.

Or we could run a service from MK/Rugby/Nuneaton to Liverpool but there won't be the capacity west of Weaver...

 

[HSTEd]

Splitting is generally avoided wherever possible and is not very common in the grand scheme of things, particularly north of the Thames. Milton Keynes is on the southern WCML so would cause problems.

There are numerous split operations all over the network every day, there is no reason to believe that a single split every hour is going to cause everything to collapse.

The allowace for splitting a 350 is 5 minutes alone. It is still slower which is the point - Coventry is closer to London but will take considerably longer than from Birmingham. Why does Birmingham need fast trains but Coventry not?

6 minutes down without the split, 5 minutes for the split and we are at approximately ten minutes.
And why does Peterborough deserve fast trains but Huntingdon not?
The fact is, compared to Birmingham, Coventry is relatively minor.

Are you saying that Birmingham is not permitted fast trains simply because Coventry doesn't get them too?

Because there is no planned link from Cumbria (Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme) to London on the high speed services.

Well if not one HS2 path can be shaken lose to put a classic compatible service service to Carlisle then you could just get rid of the Liverpool portion working and replace it with a portion working to serve the Cumbrian stations.
But not all of the paths on HS2-2 are actually spoken for at the present time so it should not be impossible to run a Classic Compatible set on that route, even though it is not laid out in the rough working down by HS2 up to the present time.

 

[Philip Elliott]

The fact is, compared to Birmingham, Coventry is relatively minor

Coventry is more minor than Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn and Darlington?:roll:

 

[tbtc]

Coventry is more minor than Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn and Darlington?:roll:

I'm sure there are a few examples - why does Aviemore get a direct London train when Middlesbrough doesn't etc, why does Milton Keynes get a faster London service than Bletchley? Always going to be examples like this - fact of life on the railway.

Coventry should have an appropriate level of service to London, based on demand from Coventry to London.

Does demand really justify six trains an hour (three fast, three via Northampton), or is that just because it happens to be on the route to/from Birmingham?

 

[Philip Elliott]

It only really has 3 per hour - via Northampton trains are just two services stitched together which LM have taken advantage of to provide cheap tickets but the main demand is always direct.

Does the demand exist for 3tph to Birmingham? At the moment the two compliment each other to their mutual benefit.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Has anyone pointed out that hs2 needs to be built to free up paths on the slow lines for the freight?

What freight might that be? Unless you plan to confine HGV's to the inner lane on the motorways I really don't see much of an increase in freight traffic over the next 30 years.

 

[HSTEd]

Does the demand exist for 3tph to Birmingham? At the moment the two compliment each other to their mutual benefit.

Almost certainly, Birmingham is far more a regional centre than Coventry could ever hope to be.

As to freight, other than banning lorries from staying overnight in lay-bys there is not much that can be done.

 

[RichmondCommu]

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.

But you could still run a classic compatible TGV into Nottingham without any problems. Along with a service into Derby and a service running from Sheffield calling at Chesterfield before linking up with HS2 at Toton.

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.

I'm afraid with that kind of attitude Toton will become a White Elephant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As to freight, other than banning lorries from staying overnight in lay-bys there is not much that can be done.

Well exactly so the need to create capacity for increases in freight traffic is an untruth? Right?