High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[swt_passenger]

Wasn't that the past time of one of our past PM's?

Er... pastime?

 

[Clip]

The point is it only takes a couple of minutes to type correctly and if an individual can't be bothered to do that on a forum, who's to say that they will up their act in another setting? Posters cannot hope to be taken seriously if they use poor grammar / spelling.



So sarcastic and obvious that you had to explain it's meaning to everyone else.

Everyone else or just you?

Spelling and grammar are not the b-all and end-all of forum participation and I stand by my statement.


So, are you going to answer my post to you about the wealth of uk companies involved in design and construction of the biggest rail infrastructure project in europe of the last 10 years and why you think they won't be able to deliver the HS2 project?

You're peddling lies and half truths because you don't want to understand nor realise that UK companies are up to the job and this is the perfect project for them to show so.

You deride the supply chain point with spurious and false claims. You are being purposly being obtuse and flapping your gums because you don't believe it, yet are forgetting all the brilliant and excellent work that UK PLC has brought to the railways.

Clutch at any more straws and you could build a nice straw hat for yourself.

This will get built. If you don't like that, then stay in the US.

FYI, if you can never detect the sarcasm then maybe you are not as clever as you claim to be.

 

[Tobbes]

Just watched BBC Look East and the Taxpayers Alliance is claiming the WCML has plenty of capacity and we don't need a new line at all.

Are they serious?!

No, they're not serious, they're the Taxpayers Alliance....!

Taxpayers Alliance is a right wing pressure group (they don't produce enough rigorous work to be called a ThinkTank) whose default position is trenchant opposition to government spending (unless they approve of it). The notion that there is plenty of capacity where (southern WCML) and when (peaks) it counts has been repeatedly debunked by NR.

The 51m £2bn proposals aren't silly- we should do them too. But they're unlikely to be enough - which is why you build HS2.

Tobbes

 

[jon0844]

Just showing the new King's Cross Square and talking about the massive capacity upgrade at the station on BBC News today surely makes people realise that if you're upgrading stations, building new and longer trains and trying to cram in more services to keep people moving, it's stupidly obvious there's growing demand and things will eventually break.

 

[WatcherZero]

Just watched BBC Look East and the Taxpayers Alliance is claiming the WCML has plenty of capacity and we don't need a new line at all.

Are they serious?!

They are also claiming that the competition between HS2 and the existing railway will lower ticket revenue by £10bn and that people having cheaper rail travel is a bad thing, so go figure.

:roll:

 

[tbtc]

They are also claiming that the competition between HS2 and the existing railway will lower ticket revenue by £10bn and that people having cheaper rail travel is a bad thing, so go figure.

:roll:

If HS2 costs more than "traditional" services then that's a bad thing because HS2 will only be for the privileged elite businessmen ("why are we all paying for a toy for the posh" etc etc)

If HS2 costs less than "traditional" services then that's a bad thing because it'll undercut them and starve the traditional network of funds

If there's competition between HS2 and traditional services then that'll be a bad thing because revenue will go down

If there's no competition between HS2 and traditional services then that'll be a bad thing because it proves that there's a cartel that doesn't benefit "customers"

Basically, HS2 can do no right in the eyes of some people! (int TPA etc)

 

[jon0844]

They are also claiming that the competition between HS2 and the existing railway will lower ticket revenue by £10bn and that people having cheaper rail travel is a bad thing, so go figure.

Well, I guess if you're trying to save the taxpayer money then they might actually have a point there!

Possibly the most (only?) sensible they've said, and also proof that trying to save the taxpayer money at ANY cost is not always a good idea.

People don't want money wasted, but neither do they want no money to be spent at all.

 

[WatcherZero]

Still their ethos is to let the market set the price and minimal state involvement and yet they are also arguing that competition is a bad thing...

Actually reading throught the TPA report now, its still based on 51M's old argument of all WCML trains being 9 carriages and that they should be lengthened to 12, doesnt factor in that some have already been lengthened to 11 except conveniantly when its analysing unused seating where thats seating has been put on to provide enough capacity for the next decades growth.

Doesnt provide any basis for their claim of £10bn competition, I quote the section in FULL

Competition with the existing network

The business case ignores the potential impact to the revenue of HS2 services as a result of competition from operators on the existing network. But this is already happening today – there are three operators between Birmingham and London, offering eight trains an hour between them. Virgin is fastest but the other two (Chiltern and London Midland) offer much cheaper fares and are capturing an increasing share of the market. This is good news for passengers, but bad news for Virgin, which is losing passengers and having to keep its fares lower. The same will happen with HS2, though of course it will not be apparent until it opens.

We estimate a reduction in revenues of at least £10 billion over the life of the project.

Includes the previous assumption that Crossrail 2 is a HS2 cost, includes £10bn for that and £2bn for other citys. In fact does even worse, double counts the extra costs by setting them out then adding them to the IFM's extra cost prediction which already included them.

Mistakes budget contingency for sunk Capital costs.

Assumes that the indicative service plan for HS2 is the final plan, i.e. that when trains are taken off the existing network nothing replaces them.

As already pointed out somehow fails to comprehend that the WCML services are commuter services, It thinks services into Manchester, Birmingham and London dont exist and theres no calling points inbetween.


Overall this report would get an F it was being marked at GCSE level!!!

 

[NSEFAN]

You're not even remotely close. 'Supply and demand economics' is primary school stuff and only applies in certain situations (such as music concerts). Before any notion of 'supply and demand' can exist, a company must be able to cover it costs. In many niche industries, prices are high because demand is low - the very opposite of the standard supply and demand model.

The railway doesn't cover it's cost and it is government policy to reduce the subsidy therefore the TOCs are obligated to extract as much revenue as they can. Prices have risen on all routes including those cart fresh air around all the time so the notion that pricing is linked to lack of capacity. In fact, most TOCs offer cheap advance tickets owing to plenty of spare capacity and on VT, the average fare paid has gone down despite all the walk up fares going up.

I accept that it's more complicated than simple models, but are the railways so much of a niche market that they can just charge whatever they like? You yourself say that VT are offering cheap advance fares to avoid carting fresh air around.

The railways do have something of a captive market, especially on commuter routes, but I still think that more capacity should mean lower prices, especially with a modern railway line. The reason prices have gone up above inflation every year is at least in part to do with pricing people off the busiest trains, as well as the current subsidy reduction policy.

 

[samxool]

Well the budget is £42.6 bn including a large contingency fund, so I'm not sure why you think it'll be at least £50 bn - some evidence would be useful.

We'll, the budget for the line is £42.5bn, and the trains somehow will cost £7.5bn (an absurd figure, how the hell is this so high???)
This equals £50bn for HS2 in most people's books.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We'll, the budget for the line is £42.5bn, and the trains somehow will cost £7.5bn (an absurd figure, how the hell is this so high???)
This equals £50bn for HS2 in most people's books.

The figure that is stated for the cost of the trains does seem to be a most simplistic figure (i.e. one that politicians can comprehend) to give a nice round total of £50bn, speaking as an extremely cynical mathematician...

 

[jon0844]

People just assume that because of many high profile disasters (usually It related, rather than the physical construction of something) you just can't trust a government on coming up with figures.

And it's therefore easy to believe any ridiculous claims, even if made by people that don't deserve any airtime because their calculations are so flawed.

Would the BBC and all the national papers run a story on the front page if I submitted it, after working the weekend to come up with some facts and figures, merged with loads of personal opinion? Of course not.

Yet because HS2 is news worthy right now, they happily promote every new bit of research from other idiots. And then get people on the street to comment on it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

People just assume that because of many high profile disasters (usually IT related, rather than the physical construction of something) you just can't trust a government on coming up with figures.

This view that you highlight in your quote shows how easily the media feel that they can be judgmental, having regularly fostered the view that you state in their news output and editorial comments. Yet the media are the worst offenders in the promulgation of "false figure" economics, especially where a "news" story suitably treated so can be given its most dramatic effect.

 

[AndyLandy]

Something I've been wondering about recently is the possibility of high speed freight.

My first thoughts about HS2 carrying freight were that it would be a very bad idea, as the slower nature of it would chew up paths and hugely reduce capacity, but perhaps there are other possibilities:

1. Is it even theoretically possible to haul a freight train at high speed? I assume not, but it's worth confirming. Relatedly, this letter from Philip Hammond suggests that there may at least be scope for "Airmail-type" packages to go via high speed lines.
2. What about the off-periods? We may want to run a passenger-intensive service during the daytime, but what about late evening, or even possibly overnight?
3. If HS2-speed freight isn't possible, is it realistic that we may be able to haul freight services at 110mph on the existing WCML? I can well see that capacity management on the existing railway would be a great deal easier if all commuter, regional and freight services could all be pathed for 110mph operation.

 

[dggar]

No, they're not serious, they're the Taxpayers Alliance....!

Taxpayers Alliance is a right wing pressure group (they don't produce enough rigorous work to be called a ThinkTank) whose default position is trenchant opposition to government spending (unless they approve of it). The notion that there is plenty of capacity where (southern WCML) and when (peaks) it counts has been repeatedly debunked by NR.

The 51m £2bn proposals aren't silly- we should do them too. But they're unlikely to be enough - which is why you build HS2.

Tobbes

I just cannot understand why anybody takes any notice of anything that the tax payers alliance says or publishes

 

[The Planner]

90mph for containers is about the best you can hope for I suspect. It has been mooted many times before.

 

[jon0844]

I assume that nobody does for the most part, but every now and then they'll come up with something that supports their view - and then it's considered okay to endorse it.

The anti-HS2 brigade have gladly accepted everything that supports the same view - scrapping HS2.

 

[tbtc]

I just cannot understand why anybody takes any notice of anything that the tax payers alliance says or publishes

They are cheap filler for newspapers/ media eager to find an angle on a story - it's usually nonsense, but they are good at a quick soundbite and it normally ties into the prejudices of the newspaper concerned, so they get their "message" into the press very easily.

Frustrating.

Wonder if they are suggesting we abolish competition between Virgin and Chiltern/ LM (by following their "logic")? Terminate all LM services at Northampton and all Chiltern services at Banbury (to ensure that more people use Virgin and therefore Virgin need less subsidy)?

 

[Ironside]

Something I've been wondering about recently is the possibility of high speed freight.

My first thoughts about HS2 carrying freight were that it would be a very bad idea, as the slower nature of it would chew up paths and hugely reduce capacity, but perhaps there are other possibilities:

1. Is it even theoretically possible to haul a freight train at high speed? I assume not, but it's worth confirming. Relatedly, this letter from Philip Hammond suggests that there may at least be scope for "Airmail-type" packages to go via high speed lines.
2. What about the off-periods? We may want to run a passenger-intensive service during the daytime, but what about late evening, or even possibly overnight?
3. If HS2-speed freight isn't possible, is it realistic that we may be able to haul freight services at 110mph on the existing WCML? I can well see that capacity management on the existing railway would be a great deal easier if all commuter, regional and freight services could all be pathed for 110mph operation.

The French postal service do have tgv trains for fast delivery so in theory this can be done.

The problem with overnight journeys are that the time period when track maintaince is supposed to be done and I am guessing that having to wait late into the night for an express route defeats the point of running a train on a high speed line.

There are others who can answer whether freight can be run faster on the WCML, but imagine the problems involve the time it takes to get the train up to that speed and then how the loads move about on the corners ie tight corners will require slowing down to prevent derailment or bumping into bridges or tunnels, the change in line speed require acceleration and breaking that is beyond the performance capabilities of a freight train. Also simply running a heavy train at that speed will increase the wear and tear on the infrastructure. In summary I don't know if a freight train can get to that speed and whether it's worth it but infrastructure improvements will be required to make it happen.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I was thinking, the WCML south of MKC is a prime example of how you can fit in more high speed services than slower stopping ones, i.e:

1. up/down fast 12 tph (9 virgin, 3 LM for some or all way into Euston)
2. up/down slow 6 tph (4 LM, including both Tring terminators, 1 Southern and 1 freight)

 

[Deerfold]

We'll, the budget for the line is £42.5bn, and the trains somehow will cost £7.5bn (an absurd figure, how the hell is this so high???)
This equals £50bn for HS2 in most people's books.

The figure for the train costs had not been mentioned when I posted that - and it's not clear where it's come from. Even if that is a correct cost it means £50bn is a maximum, if all the contingency fund is used, not the "at least" you said.

 

[jon0844]

I'd like to see provision for one or two trains during the night, to reduce the wait from say 10 or 11pm until 5-6am. I know some routes have some trains in between, but for Intercity routes they don't.

I'd hope that the line would be set up to allow single track working for engineering work, thus allowing for freight and the odd passenger service.

While a fairly long wait might seem to counter the high-speed argument, it would be useful for people who might need to be somewhere very early in the morning (say for a flight) and can now travel in the small hours and quickly.

 

[AndyLandy]

I'd like to see provision for one or two trains during the night, to reduce the wait from say 10 or 11pm until 5-6am. I know some routes have some trains in between, but for Intercity routes they don't.

I'd hope that the line would be set up to allow single track working for engineering work, thus allowing for freight and the odd passenger service.

While a fairly long wait might seem to counter the high-speed argument, it would be useful for people who might need to be somewhere very early in the morning (say for a flight) and can now travel in the small hours and quickly.

This makes a great deal of sense to me. If we're building a 21st century railway, we should probably design it to not need to be switched off every night for six hours for maintenance.

Clearly it will need maintenance, and out-of-hours is the time to do it, but as you say, things like single-track operation to allow 1 or 2 tph in the small hours would be a great idea.

 

[jon0844]

Even if people argue there would be little demand, surely the line needs to be available for as much as possible for freight in the years to come.

I know a lot of freight will use the classic lines when they become less congested, but surely there are plans for freight along HS2 as well?

 

[HSTEd]

Why bother?

Additional late night passenger trains are a better bet I think.

 

[Ironside]

Even if people argue there would be little demand, surely the line needs to be available for as much as possible for freight in the years to come.

I know a lot of freight will use the classic lines when they become less congested, but surely there are plans for freight along HS2 as well?

I think their are no current plans for freight on hs2 because the current number of paths will allready be allocated for passenger trains and currently HS2 say they won't be running trains between midnight and I think five am.

 

[edwin_m]

Single line is possible but I think overnight passenger trains are unlikely, simply because there are hardly any today over what the UK considers to be "long" distances. The faster journey times on HS2 make it that much easy to travel late or early in the day without needing an overnight train.

Unlike other countries with high speed lines, running freight on ours gives the advantage of allowing European gauge wagons to access more of the country. There are a couple of night freights on HS1 to Dagenham and it would be interesting to see if there is scope for any more via HS2. They wouldn't need to run at passenger speeds and there would be few enough of them and enough slack in the schedules to allow for some sections of single line working. One possible problem is that if curves are canted for a particular speed based on passenger use, freight trains running at much lower speeds cause a lot of rail wear.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Currently HS2 say they won't be running trains between midnight and I think five am.

That is indeed a forward-looking statement to make when the operational time for HS2 is so very many years into the future. Does this commitment not to run night trains in the times that you state form a part of the current HS2 policy ?

 

[Tobbes]

I'm surprised that there isn't a plan to use HS2 for postals overnight - 1 track open seems very sensible.

 

[Ironside]

That is indeed a forward-looking statement to make when the operational time for HS2 is so very many years into the future. Does this commitment not to runs night trains in the times that you state form a part of the current HS2 policy ?

I struggle to remember where I read it, I believe it was either a greenguage 21, HS2 ltd or govt document and the wording suggested it was an intention. So it's not a cast in stone statement that I can in anyway back up with a reference and even if I could there would be enough riggle room in the statement for a later authority to change this policy at a later stage.