High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[jon0844]

Nothing can be cast in stone as yet, from what rolling stock there will be to the actual timetables.

Nor will prices have been set, including those huge fares for rich company directors and MPs to be claimed back on expenses.

But, like anything, you need to come up with some proposals and aspirations and then nail down the finer detail in the future.

At least having the ability for single line running at night would be enough at this stage, even if there are no plans for night trains for some time (or ever). Remember, this line will be around for many years after we've gone.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

I wasn't referring to things like the Caledonian sleeper, which is probably not applicable to high speed rail over such short distances as found in the UK.
What I was refering to was simply running a regular trainset at night, perhaps (if feasible) with the lights turned down slightly.

Such late night trains run highly succesfully with journey times comparable to those on the Captive routes of HS2 (for instance Liverpool-Manchester).

Ofcourse if you could make a viable high speed capable classic compatible sleeper trainset it would allow the Highland Sleeper to leave London later, at a time comparable to that currently down by the Lowland....

 

[Deerfold]

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.

That seems a shame - and suggests a last train to Leeds at around 2230 and to Birmingham at 2310 - significantly earlier than current classic services.

I'd hoped for a few middle-of-the-night trains, though obviously not at the frequency of the day service.

 

[Planman]

What are peoples thoughts on building the northern bit first.

What advantages would there be ?

I appreciate the capacity arguments on the WCML, however these appear to revolve around paths rather than seats and seem to concentrate on commuter area such as Milton Keynes , Northampton and Bedford

 

[Deerfold]

What are peoples thoughts on building the northern bit first.

What advantages would there be ?

I appreciate the capacity arguments on the WCML, however these appear to revolve around paths rather than seats and seem to concentrate on commuter area such as Milton Keynes , Northampton and Bedford

What do you mean by "paths rather than seats"?

The Southern WCML is where the worst capacity problems are which will not be helped until the bypass is built. If HS2 is built that way round we'll have run out of room at times on the WCML before any relief from HS2 is felt.

Now it might be interesting to start from both ends (or all three), but it'd need more money allocating to it per year.

 

[jon0844]

I think if anything, you try and build more of it at the same time to bring the final opening date forward for the second phase.

But the southern end is where the capacity issues are worst, and the first phase will already help those on the WCML.

 

[WatcherZero]

Telegraph claims Boris deputy is demanding on his behalf an extra London station, more tunneling in London and dropping the connection to HS1.

 

[Ironside]

That seems a shame - and suggests a last train to Leeds at around 2230 and to Birmingham at 2310 - significantly earlier than current classic services.

I'd hoped for a few middle-of-the-night trains, though obviously not at the frequency of the day service.

As Paul Sidorczuk question points out my info is far from the final say on the matter. Perhaps a good question would be how many hours a day or week could a high speed line be kept open?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What are peoples thoughts on building the northern bit first.

What advantages would there be ?

I appreciate the capacity arguments on the WCML, however these appear to revolve around paths rather than seats and seem to concentrate on commuter area such as Milton Keynes , Northampton and Bedford

Advantages are the the extra capacity and speed between the midlands and northern stations, and the financial benefits associated with the construction getting under way sooner.

Disadvantages are that time and money has been spent planning the southern end which would not be paid for by revenue until later and it would give southern antis a false sence of victory which may lead to further hurdles and expense when it does come to build that part of the line.

In summary it would be good for the north but not for the Uk overall to change the direction of construction. I would however imagine that if the money could be accessed building both at the same time or at least the second phase started earlier their would be net benefits.

 

[Deerfold]

As Paul Sidorczuk question points out my info is far from the final say on the matter. Perhaps a good question would be how many hours a day or week could a high speed line be kept open?

Presumably if they kept one line open they could at least run a service every 90 minutes or so from Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham on that line whilst still only having trains running in one direction at a time.

 

[HowardGWR]

Telegraph claims Boris deputy is demanding on his behalf an extra London station, more tunneling in London and dropping the connection to HS1.

What - the two lord's solution without a HS1 connection? Seems daft to me.

 

[RichmondCommu]

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.

Even by your own outrageous standards that was quite a rant. You really are an interesting fellow. Having demanded that I find the time to reply to post 5070, you then follow it up with "I just can’t be bothered with you". However, of course you can't help yourself and soon revert to type, behaving like a cornered Toddler. If I were you I'd stop digging while you still retain some dignity.

It may have escaped you but Crossrail is not a high speed route and we British have very little experience in building high speed lines. Alstom (a French owned company) not only did much of the design work for HS1 but also provided the infrastructure. It's hard to see how this will change with the construction of HS2, especially given all the experience that Alstom / Seimens have. Not only that but you have conveniently forgotten that a German company provided the tunneling machines (and the technology) for Crossrail.

Would you care to highlight where and when I have told lies on this forum? Given all the highly knowledgeable posters on this forum it would be extremely foolish to start making things up, especially technical information. Indeed you might want to ask yourself what anyone would gain from telling lies on a forum where we are all here to learn and share information?

You will be pleased to know that I'm flying back to London later on today. Whoop whoop! Contrary to what you may want to believe, I'm very much in favour of HS2 but I do have concerns regarding its links to Classic Lines (i.e. joined up infrastructure) and the future of the Classic Lines and the population centres that they serve.

Although I seldom agree with HSTEd his posts always make for an interesting read and he certainly seems to know a fair amount about railway engineering. However, you seem to be only interested in throwing a hissy fit when people fail to recognise your own unique brand of sarcasm. Not to mention the Golf clap :roll:

 

[Chris125]

What are peoples thoughts on building the northern bit first.

What advantages would there be ?

None that would justify the delay to construction, as the second phase is several years behind the first in gaining parliamentary approval.

Not only is London-Birmingham more operationally effective and therefore viable in isolation, but as the primary argument is to relieve congestion on the existing network it makes sense to deal with the most urgent section first - the southern WCML.

Chris

 

[Carlisle]

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.

If that is the case then it will simply hand more ammunition to the anti brigade who will say Something like £40 billion spent and still no facility to get continental gauge freight stock north of London

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What - the two lord's solution without a HS1 connection? Seems daft to me.

I feel that I have to give my wholehearted support to your view on that particular matter. I cannot believe that such a suggestion ever saw the light of day..

 

[Planman]

Hi Chris,

I can understand people desire for HS2 as the gold standard, however now the main issue is capacity and not speed , maybe we can look at things in a slightly different way. It is very important to build a consensus and for all parties to feel that they are going to get something out of it

I am not an expert on these matters , especially infrastructure, however I would suggest the following:

1. build the northern part first.
2. Simultaneously build southern HS2 from just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway. to Birmingham
3. Build a new station just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway to link up with the East West line
4. Prior to this upgrade the line from Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Marylebone for upto 140 mph speed where possible, yes LUL have some of the line however I do not think it is impossible for them to give up control of the line and start their services nearer to London
5. Close all of the intermediate stations (possible exception Amersham)
6. Upgrade the Aylesbury Princes Risborough line to operate stopping services.
7. Run Javelins down the line until HS2 is operational then run them down the line and abandon the southern part of HS2.
8 4 track the EAST west line from Bicester to Bletchley
9 Put the electric line 2 track between Bedford and Bletchley
10. Upgrade the Chiltern Wycombe line to electric and 4 track where possible
11. Extend the disused Grand Central line up to Rugby and Leicester


The advantage of doing this way are:

1. The whole route opens much quicker
2. It is far cheaper
3. It provides for a significant capacity increase meaning traffic can come off the West Coast Mainline and be routed elsewhere
It provides a "joined up solution" making HS2 part of the normal network
4. It is far better for the environment
5. It provides high speed commuter route into London and west wards in an area which is poorly served
It offers flexibilty , especially for freight

I am sure that will provoke many comments. However if the politicians come along and say sorry guys we are NOT doing to give you the money you want to build the southern part of HS2 , how good an alternative would this be? With in cab signalling I believe you can get headways of 2.5 minutes

 

[YorkshireBear]

Hi Chris,

I can understand people desire for HS2 as the gold standard, however now the main issue is capacity and not speed , maybe we can look at things in a slightly different way. It is very important to build a consensus and for all parties to feel that they are going to get something out of it

I am not an expert on these matters , especially infrastructure, however I would suggest the following:

1. build the northern part first.
2. Simultaneously build southern HS2 from just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway. to Birmingham
3. Build a new station just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway to link up with the East West line
4. Prior to this upgrade the line from Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Marylebone for upto 140 mph speed where possible, yes LUL have some of the line however I do not think it is impossible for them to give up control of the line and start their services nearer to London
5. Close all of the intermediate stations (possible exception Amersham)
6. Upgrade the Aylesbury Princes Risborough line to operate stopping services.
7. Run Javelins down the line until HS2 is operational then run them down the line and abandon the southern part of HS2.
8 4 track the EAST west line from Bicester to Bletchley
9 Put the electric line 2 track between Bedford and Bletchley
10. Upgrade the Chiltern Wycombe line to electric and 4 track where possible
11. Extend the disused Grand Central line up to Rugby and Leicester


The advantage of doing this way are:

1. The whole route opens much quicker
2. It is far cheaper
3. It provides for a significant capacity increase meaning traffic can come off the West Coast Mainline and be routed elsewhere
It provides a "joined up solution" making HS2 part of the normal network
4. It is far better for the environment
5. It provides high speed commuter route into London and west wards in an area which is poorly served
It offers flexibilty , especially for freight

I am sure that will provoke many comments. However if the politicians come along and say sorry guys we are NOT doing to give you the money you want to build the southern part of HS2 , how good an alternative would this be? With in cab signalling I believe you can get headways of 2.5 minutes

Sorry no. That provides nothing near the same capacity as HS2 and also closes a fairly significant amount of stations in the process as well as cutting apart some of the underground? I don't see the sense behind what you are suggesting. Sorry.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could those readers of the October 2013 issue of Modern Railways offer their comments on the featured HS2 article coverage that features over the early pages of this issue.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Could those readers of the October 2013 issue of Modern Railways offer their comments on the featured HS2 article coverage that features over the early pages of this issue.

Seems to mostly just be presenting recent news articles rather than giving any opinion on it. Most of it has been linked to in these pages. There is however a small opinion bit at the start which goes on about the government finally realising it can't be sold on speed because that is a secondary benefit. Government have admitted that they sold it wrong before now.

 

[tbtc]

Hi Chris,

I can understand people desire for HS2 as the gold standard, however now the main issue is capacity and not speed , maybe we can look at things in a slightly different way. It is very important to build a consensus and for all parties to feel that they are going to get something out of it

I am not an expert on these matters , especially infrastructure, however I would suggest the following:

1. build the northern part first.
2. Simultaneously build southern HS2 from just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway. to Birmingham
3. Build a new station just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway to link up with the East West line
4. Prior to this upgrade the line from Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Marylebone for upto 140 mph speed where possible, yes LUL have some of the line however I do not think it is impossible for them to give up control of the line and start their services nearer to London
5. Close all of the intermediate stations (possible exception Amersham)
6. Upgrade the Aylesbury Princes Risborough line to operate stopping services.
7. Run Javelins down the line until HS2 is operational then run them down the line and abandon the southern part of HS2.
8 4 track the EAST west line from Bicester to Bletchley
9 Put the electric line 2 track between Bedford and Bletchley
10. Upgrade the Chiltern Wycombe line to electric and 4 track where possible
11. Extend the disused Grand Central line up to Rugby and Leicester


The advantage of doing this way are:

1. The whole route opens much quicker
2. It is far cheaper
3. It provides for a significant capacity increase meaning traffic can come off the West Coast Mainline and be routed elsewhere
It provides a "joined up solution" making HS2 part of the normal network
4. It is far better for the environment
5. It provides high speed commuter route into London and west wards in an area which is poorly served
It offers flexibilty , especially for freight

I am sure that will provoke many comments. However if the politicians come along and say sorry guys we are NOT doing to give you the money you want to build the southern part of HS2 , how good an alternative would this be? With in cab signalling I believe you can get headways of 2.5 minutes

So lots of stations lose their service (Stoke Mandeville, Rickmandsworth etc), everything gets crammed into Marylebone (one of the smallest termini in London)... just to avoid building a line through the southern part of the Chilterns?

Would be interested in the reactions of those in the Chilterns - good news is that they won't have a new railway built (vast majority in cuttings, tunnels), bad news is that they'd have no trains to use in their local towns any more.

 

[Deerfold]

Hi Chris,

I can understand people desire for HS2 as the gold standard, however now the main issue is capacity and not speed , maybe we can look at things in a slightly different way. It is very important to build a consensus and for all parties to feel that they are going to get something out of it

I am not an expert on these matters , especially infrastructure, however I would suggest the following:

1. build the northern part first.

Have you read the comments to the first time you suggested this? If the main issue is capacity then this would mean the Southern sections should be built first. By Northern part do you mean Leeds-Birmingham, Manchester-Birmingham or both?

2. Simultaneously build southern HS2 from just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway. to Birmingham
3. Build a new station just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway to link up with the East West line
4. Prior to this upgrade the line from Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Marylebone for upto 140 mph speed where possible, yes LUL have some of the line however I do not
think it is impossible for them to give up control of the line and start their services nearer to London
5. Close all of the intermediate stations (possible exception Amersham)

Now that would give people in the Chilterns something to complain about!
Lots of closures of popular stations so increasing car traffic in the area.
How much would this cost?

6. Upgrade the Aylesbury Princes Risborough line to operate stopping services.
7. Run Javelins down the line until HS2 is operational then run them down the line and abandon the southern part of HS2.
8 4 track the EAST west line from Bicester to Bletchley
9 Put the electric line 2 track between Bedford and Bletchley
10. Upgrade the Chiltern Wycombe line to electric and 4 track where possible
11. Extend the disused Grand Central line up to Rugby and Leicester

The advantage of doing this way are:

1. The whole route opens much quicker
2. It is far cheaper

Is it though?

3. It provides for a significant capacity increase meaning traffic can come off the West Coast Mainline and be routed elsewhere
It provides a "joined up solution" making HS2 part of the normal network

It's a far smaller capacity increase than with the current plans.

Trains would be far shorter, narrower and possibly less high than the proposed HS2 stock unless you're basically rebuilding the entire line.

I'm not sure how much cheaper it'd be.

4. It is far better for the environment
5. It provides high speed commuter route into London and west wards in an area which is poorly served
It offers flexibilty , especially for freight

You want freight on it too? Are you planning on also stopping it in West London?

 

[The Ham]

1. The whole route opens much quicker

Maybe, but that may or may not be that much of anadvantage, depends on what other benefits it brings.

2. It is far cheaper

Maybe, but then it depends on what advantages there are in spending the extra, also it depends on if it is a medium term solution, as if you still have to build HS2 in its origianal form 10-15 years later then it would work out much more expensive (and that assumes that it does cost less to build, which we only have your word on).

3. It provides for a significant capacity increase meaning traffic can come off the West Coast Mainline and be routed elsewhere

This is only an advantage if it is better to run trains on the alternitive route, as if it takes more time than at present then it's a none starter

It provides a "joined up solution" making HS2 part of the normal network

HS2 will be linked to the rest of the network, however increasing the number of links to the network will reduce the amount of capacity that you can use. i.e. the more junctions you put on a motorway the lower the capacity of the motorway, the longer the journey time in busy traffic, the more prone to congestion and the higher the risk of accidents. Its the same with IC or HS lines.

4. It is far better for the environment

Have you undertaken an EIA to be able to prove this, there are a lot of route miles of extra track that have to be laid, possibly many more than would be required to build HS2

5. It provides high speed commuter route into London and west wards in an area which is poorly served

It's either a HS line or a commuter route, if it's both then it will just get filled up in a few more years and HS2 would need to be done anyway (like the WCML)

It offers flexibilty , especially for freight

until it is full

One final point on you list of works required

8 4 track the EAST west line from Bicester to Bletchley

Although a lot of this route runs trhough open country side there will be places (like Winslow and Bicester) where doing so would cause massive disruption in that major desissions (read increase in costs) would need to be made about which side of the tracks you widen on.

 

[billio]

Could those readers of the October 2013 issue of Modern Railways offer their comments on the featured HS2 article coverage that features over the early pages of this issue.

I found that the article by Roger Ford was far more interesting: "Time to revisit the need for speed".

HS2 appears to be a "silver bullet" solving all sorts of problems in the railway network. The far more pragmatic issues raised by Roger Ford seem to address these network wide issues in a much more practical form because the ideas can be applied anywhere. HS2 provides it's improvements in a very limited number of scenarios and whilst it has very sexy speed improvements, taking a more holistic view of the time taken for people to travel from A to B is probably more important in determining whether people will change their mode of transport, or to generate an impact on the local economy.

I always wonder if the amazing reductions in journey times to/from York via HS2 are purely so that those with expensive homes in the pleasant Yorkshire countryside can get to and from work in London so much quicker. I don't see how this helps regenerate, or benefits, the North. Please explain. In my opinion, quicker travel between Northern cities and towns is much more likely to achieve a benefit for the North. Places that are currently well outside an even moderate speed rail network can be drawn into the new services.

 

[HowardGWR]

I found that the article by Roger Ford was far more interesting: "Time to revisit the need for speed".

HS2 appears to be a "silver bullet" solving all sorts of problems in the railway network. The far more pragmatic issues raised by Roger Ford seem to address these network wide issues in a much more practical form because the ideas can be applied anywhere. HS2 provides it's improvements in a very limited number of scenarios and whilst it has very sexy speed improvements, taking a more holistic view of the time taken for people to travel from A to B is probably more important in determining whether people will change their mode of transport, or to generate an impact on the local economy.

I always wonder if the amazing reductions in journey times to/from York via HS2 are purely so that those with expensive homes in the pleasant Yorkshire countryside can get to and from work in London so much quicker. I don't see how this helps regenerate, or benefits, the North. Please explain. In my opinion, quicker travel between Northern cities and towns is much more likely to achieve a benefit for the North. Places that are currently well outside an even moderate speed rail network can be drawn into the new services.

Replying to the speed point, Mr Ford is of course correct, but that is not how the COBA calculation works. The benefit of any transport initiative is measured almost exclusively in time savings but note, only for the stretch in question. The time savings are graded in value. Someone travelling on firms business delivers a far greater financial benefit of time saved than a person travelling for leisure or social reasons. IIRC, commuting is worth more than the latter too. Savings in collision costs are also calculated, but these are a particle of the time savings. A fatality costs over £1m, a serious injury £60,000 and a 'slight' one a couple of thou. As these are rare events generally, that part of the benefit will not be decisive.

Then of course we have the 'wider economic benefits'. These did not exist when I was involved with all this (about 1993) so i am not knowledgeable about that black art.

What the anti HS2 people are trying to say now is that COBA is wrong and that these highly valuable firms business travellers can work at their computers so the time savings are less valuable than they used to be.

Going back to Mr Ford's 'holistic' approach, he does point out that if you are driving, you cannot be working on your computer, so if the comparison is between car and train, HS2 will be attractive, regardless of time taken. However that is not how COBA at present (AFAIK) works. The comparison is between (say) departing from Euston on a Pendolino and alighting at Piccadilly and the same trip on HS2. The time saved is what will give the benefit to HS2 and how you get to Euston and how you end your journey from Piccadilly is irrelevant.

These arguments are old friends of mine. when I was fighting road schemes in the 90s, we used to be able to prove that a bypass would merely shove the rush hour queue further down the road, but COBA takes no cognisance of such argument. Just that stretch was relevant.

As I say, I am OOD on all this but hopefully my points are food for thought.

My attitude is that if it is patently necessary that we need new lines, for goodness sake get on with their construction. The motorway traffic we see now has to come off them, as otherwise we will not fulfill our environmental duty to our grandchildren. Now, how big a railway do you need for that!!!

 

[WatcherZero]

Possible WCML franchise style fiasco for the Dft in the appointment of David Higgins as head of HS2, the Government didnt follow Civil Service guidelines and appointed him without asking headhunters to find the best candidate or considering a single alternative individual for the position.

 

[Chris125]

It may be irregular but it's not comparable to the franchise debacle, according to the Independent

"A Department for Transport spokesman said this weekend that Sir David's recruitment was "completely above board". Sir David Normington, Commissioner for Public Appointments, agreed that HS2 could hire Sir David without a competition to "ensure a smooth and swift transition", which is allowable in exceptional circumstances."

Chris

 

[Johnuk123]

http://news.sky.com/story/1151599/hs2-should-be-put-on-hold-mps-committee-says

The HS2 rail project has "serious shortcomings" and should be put on hold, according to a powerful Commons committee.

Personally I am broadly in favour but I doubt even the first part will ever be built.
Every time another "no to HS2" story appears it's chances diminish.

 

[Ironside]

http://news.sky.com/story/1151599/hs2-should-be-put-on-hold-mps-committee-says

Personally I am broadly in favour but I doubt even the first part will ever be built.
Every time another "no to HS2" story appears it's chances diminish.

The treasury sub committee are always wining to very little effect and I don't agree that every each article written will have much effect.

The next hurdle will be on 15-16 October when the Antis get to try an appeal in the supreme court.

 

[HowardGWR]

The treasury sub committee are always wining to very little effect and I don't agree that every each article written will have much effect.

The next hurdle will be on 15-16 October when the Antis get to try an appeal in the supreme court.

I think you meant 'whining' but some of them do look as though they enjoy a good lunch!

Yes, am I right that only one issue is left to the antis, which is that a EIS to EU standards has not been produced? I don't know the detail, but I would be astonished if the promoters had not taken care of that on such a large project.

Perhaps the case will be not that the EIS is non-existent, but that it is flawed sufficiently to argue that it is useless? Is that it?

 

[Ironside]

I think you meant 'whining' but some of them do look as though they enjoy a good lunch!

Yes, am I right that only one issue is left to the antis, which is that a EIS to EU standards has not been produced? I don't know the detail, but I would be astonished if the promoters had not taken care of that on such a large project.

Perhaps the case will be not that the EIS is non-existent, but that it is flawed sufficiently to argue that it is useless? Is that it?

The EIA (environment impact assessment ) will not be completed and published until just before the the hybrid bill is put before parliament. A draft environment statement was published in May and was open to consultation for a month. The anti campaign can only now challenge on whether further environment reviews are needed etc. The following article expands in more detail.

http://www.thelawyer.com/news/pract...as-supreme-court-battle-looms/3010159.article

 

[HowardGWR]

The EIA (environment impact assessment ) will not be completed and published until just before the the hybrid bill is put before parliament. A draft environment statement was published in May and was open to consultation for a month. The anti campaign can only now challenge on whether further environment reviews are needed etc. The following article expands in more detail.

http://www.thelawyer.com/news/pract...as-supreme-court-battle-looms/3010159.article

That's very helpful Ironside thank you. I hope DfT do better than I did in a recent case, where we were represented by Landmark (not their fault I hasten to add, but not being able even to have the case heard was a bitter blow).

It would appear that judges have been told to be very strict on what they allow to go forward to court. We were advised our case was a cast iron one too.

I cannot see, on the evidence so far presented, that the scheme progress could be held unlawful when there is no indication that the EIA will not be done?