High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Class172]

Very pleased that HS2 has been given the go-ahead. I was in the computer room in English at school, at 3:10, when I found out the news. I was originally on the BBC website to find something for my coursework when I saw it!

 

[Waverley125]

I believe it unlikely that Durham would ever be on the Hs2 route although the staion is well used and there is much demand foir London services. Currently it gets I believe one East Coast service two XC and two TPE services each hour each way. Now if you wanted to access HS2 you could get the train into Newcastle although that is doubling back on yourself if your southbound. Or you could head for Darlington. But these trains cant access both Darlington Bank top and your proposed parkway. So you either have to reduce the running through Bank Top or bring in more local trains which would run to a Teesside Parkway. But then your talking of one or even two local trains per hour running for an appreciable distance along HS2 line,. Unless I miss by guess allowing for slower local trains to join and run and and leave the HS2 line would eat up more space than an actual HS2 train just running along HS2.

Far simpler just to allow the already slowing down stopping HS2 train to run off the HS2 line an into Darlington Bank Top where it can pick up passengers and then rejoin the HS2 line further down. You also save the cost of building and staffing an HS2 parkway station and get more out if an existing asset which you cant get rid of in any normal event.


Looking at the site of Durham Tees Valley airport I am not sure how you would easily combine the runway which runs roughly east west and a not south Darlington Teeside line without needing two stations on the Tesside line, one for the HS2 parkway and another for the airport terminal. You could maybe move the terminal building, but not knowing much about airports and runways not sure how this would d work This might be a moot point as the airport is not doing well and currently only on train a week stops at the airport station. And as said before for the people of darlington you talking of trans in the middle of a field when they could be near the center of town.

As to your idea of it being a parkway fro Teesside. Teesside is not exactly a wealthy area. Walk into the centre and your in the land of Greggs the Bakers and Everything's a Pound. True there are some wealthy areas but consider that that Egglesclif is already a parkway station for Teesside with four Grand Central Trains a day and turn up and go fairs well below that of East Cost and then there are only station stops at Northallerton, Thirsk and York and then runs non stop to London. Yet every time I go through Eaglescliff there is only a sprinkling of passengers getting on Grand Central. Harldy a promising start for an HS2 parkway at Durham Tees Valley which would involve traveling much further and slightly north.

There are wealthy areas such as Gisborough to the south of Middlesbrough but again they already have a station which they can access. Northallerton which has the same Grand Central service and this time you have shaved about 15 min of the journey and its even closer to London. Why would these people want to drive back on themselves to catch a more expensive train at Teesside parkway?

Firstly, I never said the line would serve Durham, you're strawmanning me. The line very specifically would not serve Durham, it would probably head northwest, bisecting Durham & Chester le Street, and end up using the (now abandoned, but extant) eastern approach to Newcastle Central north of the Tyne.

I also have never said trains would serve Tees Valley Parkway (Durham Tees Valley airport is so called because it is in county Durham, not Durham itself, as I have said before, it's equidistant between Middlesbrough and Darlington) and Darlington Bank Top, I have said HS services would serve Tees Valley Parkway only, and all conventional services that currently serve DBT would still serve it. This is a pretty horrific argument John, given you're effectively saying 'If you did it this way, it would be bad'. But I'm not arguing to do it 'that way', I'm arguing to do it the way I've written it down.

Unless further clarification is needed, HS2 would be completely separate between Cross Gates (Leeds, where it leaves the ELL) & Newcaslte Central station. Tees Valley would have split-level interchange between the Tees Valley Metro & HS2, the line would not serve DBT or Durham, or use the ECML to get into Newcastle.

As for using DBT on it's own, that's great for Darlington, it's bugger all use for Teeside. which is why DTV is the best site for TVP. As for platforms being moved, bingo! Yes, this is quite clearly what I've said. the airport station is being moved closer to the terminal anyway, but I'd just assumed a very short tunnel under the runway & a station in a cutting with escalator/traveltor interchange.

As for Teeside not being particularly wealthy, yes. By bringing it onto the HS2 network you make the region as a whole more accessible, you create jobs, and you free up space on the classic lines for direct Middlesbrough-London services on a clockface timetable. Much better than the status quo. As for the good people of Guisborough, well, they might not use it to go south, but going North (To Newcastle) it would be of huge benefit, and would give Teeside the benefit it needs in fully integrating it into the northeast, which, because it's quite far away from Tyne & Wear (in a local sense), it currently isn't.

I broadly agree with you that if HS2 is to be extended north to Scotland the way to do it is via the east coast. However I would have to wonder how may trains per hour could be generated north of the Leeds area. Well maybe four or five per hour if the line to Aberdeen is also given an classic compatible service. Nor sure how easy it would be to build and HS2 line between Glasgow and Edinburgh or whether a line from Glasgow by passing Edinburgh would be a better idea. But how much outlay could 5tph justify for and HS2 extension?


Your idea for a Leeds city center terminal looks doable and would have the advantage of being a brown field site but in my opinion its just far enough from Leeds Central to count as a separate station and give connectivity issues for anyone changing between the two.

But tunneling under the river would be expensive and there would as you say be quite a section where the speed is slow.

However if this station was just used as a terminus HS2 could join the ECML south of Doncaster and Scottish bound HS2 trains run up a widened Selby diversion and into York then the widened and upgraded ECML before swinging mildly to the left before Northalleton then across the ECML passing Darlington to the east, Durham to the west and rejoining the ECML south of Chester le Street. depending on capacity it would be possible to demolish a few houses in the ClS area and build a second viaduct and the four tracks alongside the Tyne Yard. Unfortunately the train would have to run slowly through Newcastle until just south of Cramlington then back in on a dedicated HS2 line to Scotland .


I cant imagine that the Scottish people would be to bothered about loosing a direct HS2 connection to Leeds if they get York instead and it would eliminate the slow running though Leeds and the cost of a tunnel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The line north of Leeds would firstly serve Newcastle as well, so at least 3tph there, plus a much quicker service to Scotland (90 minutes as opposed to 3.5 hours) would justify an increase in frequency. I don't imagine capacity would be used up straight away, but it would certainly go up after the line was built. Leeds-Newcastle in 30 mins, Sheffield-Newcastle in 50 mins and Nottingham-Newcastle in 80 mins would also create new journey markets which currently don't exist up the east coast.

As for the city centre station site, no. An exit on the corner of Meadow Lane & Waterlo street would be perfectly positioned for a pedestrian boulevard across Meadow Lane, and a new footbridge across the Aire, leading to a new southeastern City station entrance in the area bounded by Sovereign Street. A 2 minute walk maximum, Leeds City & Leeds Waterloo (HS) would be separate stations, but they'd be easily accessible from one to the other (rather like Wigan Wallgate & Wigan North Western). Yes, this would require slow speeds, but so does any station, and the benefits of city centre stations (see France) are much greater than those that are Parkways. So while there'd be a timeloss, the journey would be quicker, compensating for all those people who'd have to spend extra time on a slow train getting to your proposed parkway.

This is summed up nicely in your last paragraph, where 'getting York' for a time saving trades off the loss of the 3rd biggest city in the country. I'll say it again, York is 1/6th the size of Leeds, has about 20% the business population, and is mainly a tourist destination. Go to York station on a morning (or in fact any time of day) and see the sardine-tin trains heading into Leeds. Leeds is the major economic centre of Yorkshire, and it makes far more sense to serve Leeds than to serve York, especially given that you'd lose time to stop at York, so the overall time loss of stopping at Leeds (compared to stopping elsewhere) is pointless. Because really John, HS2 needs to stop where the people are. Because that's how railways get passengers. And while a faster connection to London would be good, a faster connection to Scotland would, to my mind, be much more beneficial.

 

[hstmatt]

What will happen to the wcml and ecml once hs2 is built. Will they be shut or will they continue to operate?

 

[jon0844]

Of course they won't be shut!!!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What will happen to the wcml and ecml once hs2 is built. Will they be shut or will they continue to operate?

Continue to operate, though with reduced IC trains on the WCML. I'm not even sure where the ECML comes into this...

 

[hstmatt]

So at euston for example will they share the platforms with hs2 trains. Sorry i dont know alot on hs2

 

[YorkshireBear]

Which would be a pointless after modal shift to public transport. You have to think long term.

Yes it will be eventually but theyve started building it now so they got to continue.... :/

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So at euston for example will they share the platforms with hs2 trains. Sorry i dont know alot on hs2

New station (or platforms at least) in the Euston station area for HS2.

 

[brad465]

Continue to operate, though with reduced IC trains on the WCML. I'm not even sure where the ECML comes into this...

When HS2 should be built to Leeds, from 2033 I'd imagine ECML services to Leeds would run less frequently and/or stop more often, and/or terminate earlier.

Can't remember if anyone has said this but... let the long wait begin!

 

[YorkshireBear]

When HS2 should be built to Leeds, from 2033 I'd imagine ECML services to Leeds would run less frequently and/or stop more often, and/or terminate earlier.

Can't remember if anyone has said this but... let the long wait begin!

Well it will allow leeds to maybe hence its service to East Anglia or improve local services on leeds doncaster line. These are the indirect beenfits no one seems to talk about when talking about HS2 (by no one that does not include us lot)

 

[Ascot]

Absolute brilliant news HS2 is going ahead even if it will take a large number of years . With planned journey times it is going to be a considerable difference both time and money!

Note: My post may be controversial to those outside the Birmingham-London business market.

 

[brad465]

Well it will allow leeds to maybe hence its service to East Anglia or improve local services on leeds doncaster line. These are the indirect beenfits no one seems to talk about when talking about HS2 (by no one that does not include us lot)

Well yeah, by 2025 I reckon the environmental campaigns start flooding in again the extension (if any), and at the moment most people, as you say, people are only talking about capacity, economy and environmental factors.

 

[Tiny Tim]

HS2 has effectively unlimited funding.

That's absolutely correct, although the Treasury would naturally deny it. Should HS2 run out of money before the construction is finished the government would be obliged to ensure it's completion by one means or another. Just imagine the international embarrassment if HS2 was left half-built, the rails running out in a field 20 miles south of Birmingham. I'm afraid the taxpayer is effectively the financial guarantor for HS2. And it's not exactly unknown for major civil engineering projects to go wildly over budget.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Inevitably, HS2 cannot be all things to all men. Diverting the line to take in more towns merely slows down what is supposed to be a high speed line. Running fast services alongside stopping trains is a system more appropriate to a Victorian railway than a 21st century one. Putting stopping trains into loops whilst expresses pass by? Why not go the whole hog and make it steam-hauled and light everything with oil lamps. Mixing fast and slow trains (as our great-grandparents knew) only works if you've got four tracks to play with. As this is unlikely to happen, we're stuck with a high speed line with limited stops. Judging by the Dutch experience of this as mentioned in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...50m-lesson-for-Britains-rail-enthusiasts.html

We could be in trouble.

Of course slow and fast workings can go together - look at HS1 - SE services calling at Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, followed by E* services, some running non-stop, some calling at either EBD / AFK. Either way, it works perfectly well!

 

[brad465]

Of course slow and fast workings can go together - look at HS1 - SE services calling at Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, followed by E* services, some running non-stop, some calling at either EBD / AFK. Either way, it works perfectly well!

Id like to know how many fast services there are, in terms of no. of stations stopped at, considering the only stations are at Birmingham, then Manchester and Leeds when built (possibly Heathrow, which would be possible to bypass)

 

[Nym]

E* Services are nowhere near as intensive as HS2's fast services will be though, mentioned before, chances are, you're looking a minimum of 9tph for 'West Coast' services up HS2 and probably 4tph for 'East Midlands & East Coast' services off Euston. (3tph Birmingham, 3tph Manchester, 3tph Liverpool, 1tph Glasgow, 1tph Blackpool, 1tph Chester, 2tph Leeds, 1tph Newcastle Central, 1tph Edinburgh, 1tph Hull, 1tph Harrogate) (Yes, I do know that adds up to more than 13tph, read up for an explanation...)

And HS2b L, R & H opening (Left, Right, Heathrow) will probably see this increase to 14tph between OOC and Euston, and more between OOC / Heathrow and BSP...

 

[Trog]

Of course slow and fast workings can go together

Only to a certain point a slow train in a fast service, or a fast train in an otherwise slow service uses up more line capacity than the trains moving at the lines average speed. As you have to leave a gap in the service in front of a fast train, or a gap behind a slow train. So the fast train does not catch up with the train in front, or the slow train hold up the train behind.

While there is spare capacity this is OK, but once the line gets busy it becomes more and more efficient for the trains to all run at more or less the same speed.

You can mitigate this effect by looping slower trains to allow faster ones to pass them, but as the service becomes more intense, the time taken for the train to enter and leave the loops becomes a problem. Hence why the points for the fast line loop at Milton Keynes are so far south of the station, so the stopping train can do most of its slowing down once it is off the main running line.

 

[RYS]

Is the Birmingham International station still going to happen? If so, what sort of service pattern to people expect it to see?

 

[mr_jrt]

Whilst the tunnel in Ruislip is a welcome change, it's a shame that it doesn't extend from Northolt Junction to link up with the already-planned tunnel that emerges at North Acton. I see the New North mainline as too valuable a future alignment for a Crossrail link from OOC to the Chiltern line. Whilst this could be sunk in tunnel instead, it's also far more likely to be viable for stations which are far cheaper on the surface

 

[HSTEd]

Well I have further refined my "West Midlands Shinkansen" proposal.

Stations on the Core Section:
London Euston - 0km
Old Oak Common - 7.6km
Milton Keynes - 83km
Northampton - 108km
Rugby - 138km
Coventry - 157km
Birmingham International - 172km
Birmingham - 190km

On the Manchester section:
Stafford Parkway - 220km
Stoke on Trent High Speed - 241km
Manchester Airport High Speed - 284km
Manchester Piccadilly Mayfield Complex - 299km

On the Leeds section:
East Midlands Airport High Speed - 224km
Nottingham High Speed - 241km
Sheffield Meadowhall Interchange - 298km
South Leeds Parkway - 333km
Leeds - 344km

KMZ Package containing these routes and station location proposals

The proposed station service from Euston would be the following:

2tph non stop to Leeds
2tph non stop to Manchester
2tph non stop to Birmingham
2tph non stop to Leeds (Classic Compatible)
2tph non stop to Manchester (Classic Compatible)
2tph "slow" stopping all stations to Birmingham
1tph "semi fast" running non stop to Birmingham Int. and then all shacks to Leeds
1tph "semi fast" running non stop to Birmingham Int. and then all shacks to Manchester

Example travel times for the Euston services would be:-
Birmingham (fast) - 48 minutes
Birmingham (slow) - 78 minutes assuming Shinkansen dwell times
Manchester (fast) - 69 minutes
Nottingham (semi fast) - 70 minutes
Sheffield (semi fast) - 89 minutes
Leeds (fast) - 79 minutes

All Classic Compatible trains would travel on the high speed line in 400m formations and all non classic compatible trains would be formed of 400m long double decker stock for maximum capacity with minimum paths.

2600 seats per hour to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester is almost certainly enough as that is equivalent Pendolinos per hour with no intermediate stops to each destination (actually more to the latter two destinations as this does include the Classic Compatible trains) .And the classic WCML services will apparently continue.

Also 500th post in the thread.

 

[amcluesent]

HS2: Right lines but the wrong route

Very sensible commentary in the Standard. Four obvious flaws in HS2

1) It doesn't terminate at St Pancras for easy transfer to Eurostar
2) Not routed to a Heathrow Parkway station
3) Must run alongside the M40, making use of that corridor so as to keep to a minimum the further destruction
4) It should take in Birmingham Airport and the National Exhibition Centre and finish in the city centre

A colossal waste of money in a vanity project, from which the lawyers will make ££ in enquiries.

hopefully when the true multi-£££B overrun costs of the Olympics are leaked, we'll decide Broken Britain can't afford HS2.

 

[Nym]

1) There's no space at St Pancras unless you pave over The British Library
2) Routing via Heathrow decreases the CBR significantly thanks to extended journey times, HeX and XR already serve Heathrow
3) M40 Corridor is too curvey for a high speed alignment, and slews very far off route too, extending journey times
4) It IS stopping at the NEC and Birmingham Airport, what does that station next to the M42 look like???

They also mention links into XR at Heathrow Hub, what the hell do you think that massive station at Old Oak Common is for???

 

[HSTEd]

1) There's no space at St Pancras unless you pave over The British Library
2) Routing via Heathrow decreases the CBR significantly thanks to extended journey times, HeX and XR already serve Heathrow
3) M40 Corridor is too curvey for a high speed alignment, and slews very far off route too, extending journey times
4) It IS stopping at the NEC and Birmingham Airport, what does that station next to the M42 look like???

They also mention links into XR at Heathrow Hub, what the hell do you think that massive station at Old Oak Common is for???

Heathrow Airport is far too far off-axis, by comparison the other intermediate railway stations I propose are right next to the "straight line" route.
It would also require massive tunnelling unless you are going to take it out Paddington.

 

[Nym]

Isn't that what I just said? OK, to make it clearer, it's a sodding long way to divert via Heathrow or Heathrow Hub... Adds about 10mins onto journey times.

There will be a Heathrow Link, beyond the Heathrow Express and Crossrail links at Old Oak Common by a branch to Heathrow for terminating services WHEN HS2b comes into being.

Just to note, the article contradicts its self, and the reporter clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

Of these factors, the key to success is to route the line directly via Heathrow and to create there what is know as the Heathrow Hub, a new development just to the north of the existing Heathrow perimeter. This is a proposal developed by Arup, the consultants, and others that would in effect be a combined station and check-in terminal at which passengers would disembark, check in, go through security and
then travel - having got rid of their luggage in pods to their designated departure gates within the existing Heathrow layout.

Yes, ARUP did propose this, they also said that it would adversely affect journey times, and wouldn't be a recommended alignment unless serving Heathrow was a project specification.

All this is so logical it is hard to see why it would be a problem. The Heathrow Hub increases the airport's capacity while reducing its environmental impacts. It makes virtually
no difference to the overall journey time to Birmingham, and will probably work out cheaper in overall construction cost.

Wrong, it adds 10mins to journey times, as reported by ARUP in the very report he is referencing.

Now they are in power, the Conservatives in the Coalition have adopted the route Labour first suggested. Labour's response to this, would you believe, has been to switch its support from the original route once favoured by the Tories. It now backs the Heathrow
hub idea.

This is the route suggested by ARUP, and HS2 Ltd. not any government!

 

[amcluesent]

It would also require massive tunnelling unless you are going to take it out Paddington.

HS2 to St Pancras to be tunnelled from the western suburbs, offset by less tunnelling on the M40 route.

 

[swt_passenger]

... and the so called Curzon St station has its passenger entrance in Moor St, as near to Birmingham City Centre as is practical.

Still beats me why the DfT keep referring to the position of the platform ends...

How about we rename a few major London Stations?
Waterloo = Upper Marsh
or Marylebone = Rossmore Rd
or Kings Cross = Wharfedale Rd

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have been following this thread with interest and all the debate is based on route and operational matters. But there seems very little discussion as to the affordability of these services cost-wise to the members of the travelling public. Much discussion has been made today in political circles about the business case that has been mooted as the raison d'etre of this product, but the current thinking on that line of reasoning would suggest that much of this projected passenger traffic would be company employee based, subsidised by the company. We all know of the obscene travel costs from Manchester to London these days and can anyone honestly believe that over the next 20 years, there will be any diminution of this ultra-high level of the fares structure. This railway project is there for the transportation of passengers...not just there for the glorification of railway infrastructure projects.

 

[HSTEd]

Isn't that what I just said? OK, to make it clearer, it's a sodding long way to divert via Heathrow or Heathrow Hub... Adds about 10mins onto journey times.

There will be a Heathrow Link, beyond the Heathrow Express and Crossrail links at Old Oak Common by a branch to Heathrow for terminating services WHEN HS2b comes into being.

Just to note, the article contradicts its self, and the reporter clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yeah, I was agreeing with you but hit the wrong quote button by mistake.
Does 10 minutes really make such a difference to the BCR?
I thought the whole idea was "capacity capacity capacity" with the speed as a bonus.

And how is it ten minutes?
I make it ten extra kilometres which would be like 2-3 minutes tops on non stop trains.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Of course slow and fast workings can go together - look at HS1 - SE services calling at Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, followed by E* services, some running non-stop, some calling at either EBD / AFK. Either way, it works perfectly well!

Yes, fast and slow trains share the tracks on other high speed lines, and that's my point. If HS2 is to fulfil it's potential as a truly modern railway do we want stopping trains taking up paths? I think once more stations are built there will be, over time, irresistible public pressure to provide a more regular service to them. HS2 won't have unlimited paths, even with moving block signalling. Vigilance will be required to stop HS2 developing the same congestive problems that the present East and West Coast lines suffer. Paths will also need to be preserved for services to and from the extended HS2. The CTRL (HS1) doesn't presently run anywhere near to capacity, so it can easily cope with a mixture of fast and not-so-fast traffic.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, fast and slow trains share the tracks on other high speed lines, and that's my point. If HS2 is to fulfil it's potential as a truly modern railway do we want stopping trains taking up paths? I think once more stations are built there will be, over time, irresistible public pressure to provide a more regular service to them. HS2 won't have unlimited paths, even with moving block signalling. Vigilance will be required to stop HS2 developing the same congestive problems that the present East and West Coast lines suffer. Paths will also need to be preserved for services to and from the extended HS2. The CTRL (HS1) doesn't presently run anywhere near to capacity, so it can easily cope with a mixture of fast and not-so-fast traffic.

The only way HS2 will be overloaded is if the government attempt to do a High Speed network on the cheap by only using Euston as a terminus rather than shelling out for a second London to the north line.
They would almost certainly run into interchange capacity issues at Euston before paths become an issue.

In the meantime HS2 needs as many trains as possible running on it as rapidly as possible to improve the financial and political case, we can build a HS3 to Nottingham or somewhere out of King's Cross or wherever later to provide capacity for a Scottish connection if we need it.

Once the need to go via Birmingham is eliminated the line can be built rather more cheaply through easier terrain.

Also note that in my proposal the "slow" and "fast" rolling stock would be identical and interchangeable, being a double deck 400m unit with 75% or more of the axles motored for insane acceleration rates. There would be no speed differential for large parts of the journey unlike on current mainlines, and there would be no freight which is the real killer congestionwise.