High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Nym]

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

The cost of a through station at Heathrow was anything upwards of an additional £1bn for a four platform CTA through station.

The actual diversion of route off the prefered route including a stop is 10mins, and also reduces capacity.

If it is provided as a loop, it reduces capacity by forcing the mainline to slow down for the points turnouts in both directions, and the tight curves on the loop, mainly running in tunnels, causes the journey times to be long.

To summarise the times:

Based on a T6 station, that would cost £500 - 800mil for a 4 - 6 platform through station, on a loop, I'm sure my numbers may be slightly out here, I can't be arsed looking it up

2-3mins at full speed extra distance (as you mentioned)
2mins stopped in the station.
30 seconds braking (uncomfortable, more like 1min)
30 seconds accelarating (uncomfortable, more like 1min)
The loop would have a linespeed (thanks to curves) much lower than 360km/hr, more in the region of 250 - 200km/hr max. adding another 2mins

Not only this, but the points turnout speeds will 'bunch up' services where not many will be escaping (it doesn't matter so much at OOC because everything stops on opposing platforms so the points turnout is within the braking profile for the station, bhm intl. you can timetable alternate escapes so the paths aren't affected, only the linespeed) so you're then adding about 1 - 3mins to every other path in each direction, then theres waiting time for getting on / off the main route.

Add all this together and you have 10mins for on loop and about 2mins for direct services, and a bloddy orquard timetable.

 

[deltic]

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.

Fares are assumed to be in line with those charged on the classic network. As now yield management systems mean there will be massive variations in price paid based on demand for individual trains. As all analysis shows the UK offers the most expensive and the cheapest long distance rail tickets in western Europe for the type of service offered.

The business case for HS2 is heavily predicated on the very high values associated with "in work" trips but the vast majority of trips on HS2 are assumed to be "leisure" trips which includes commuting etc just as on the WCML.

 

[Nym]

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.

Euston's capacity could probably be pushed up to 36tph HS, with 12min occupation, 4mins crossover, 2mins entry and 2mins evacuation from each of the HS available platforms, so if the OOC box is built wide enough to allow additional pairs of platforms and an extra HS1 centre link, then you could effectively run two HS routes into Euston (OOC would have 10 HS platforms) but the only route I can see that as practical for would be High Speed South West & Wales, but I can't see that ever really needing more than 8 to 10tph, so it could use Euston, but it could be a push.

24tph Would be a realistic cap, allows you 30mins per service per platform, 15min occupancy, 5mins in 5mins out 5mins clear. Considering 24tph would mean something in the reigon of 4tph on each principal route, it's plenty.

The most I can honestly see running on HS2 is...

Euston to:
2tph Nottingham & Derby (Some extensions to Lincoln) (Call at TV Station and use CC Stock splitting there to serve C Nottingham and Derby Stations)
3tph Leeds (Some Extensions to Bradford, Skipton, etc)
2tph Doncaster & Beyond (1tph Edinburgh, 1tph Newcastle, 1tph Hull, 1tph Harrogate)

4tph Birmingham

3tph Manchester
3tph Liverpool via MSP (With 1tph Blackburn via Preston, 1tph Blackpool via Preston, 1tph Glasgow Central via Preston)
1tph Liverpool and Chester via Crewe and Stafford (Leaving at Rugley Jcn)

Heathrow (Calling at BSP)
1tph Newcastle via Leeds
1tph Manchester
1tph Liverpool & Preston
1tph Birmingham

Channel Tunnel
1tph Manchester, 1tph Leeds, 1tph Birmingham Paths Available

So that would be 18tph into Euston, 4tph to Heathrow and 3tph to the tunnel, and 25tph in the core (pathed for 26tph, don't ask, I worked out the pathing)

 

[amcluesent]

I'm expecting 'security' issues to be raised and we'll see airport style aggro in getting onto the trains with body-scanners, pat-downs, luggage inspections etc. so boarding times will likely be 30+ mins per trains. Maybe pax will be held in a pen 'platform side' before boarding.

 

[jon0844]

Do you need security checks for using the 395s out of St Pancras? (answer: no)

 

[Tiny Tim]

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.

Far be it from me to accuse a British Government of trying to do things on the cheap! None of us can be sure how soon HS2 will start to fill up with traffic, my argument is that once slower services have taken up paths it will be difficult to get rid of them in favour of high speed trains that are the line's raison d'etre.

 

[deltic]

Still dont see the reason to serve Heathrow via a spur - some 2mill passengers arriving/departing Heathrow come from the West Midlands/North West and Yorkshire - if 50% of them can be persuaded to travel by train - which would be an impressive feat - that equates to 1,400 passengers a day in each direction. An hourly train service operating 14hrs an day would give just 100 people a train - it doesnt stack up.

 

[HSTEd]

The cost of a through station at Heathrow was anything upwards of an additional £1bn for a four platform CTA through station.

The actual diversion of route off the prefered route including a stop is 10mins, and also reduces capacity.

If it is provided as a loop, it reduces capacity by forcing the mainline to slow down for the points turnouts in both directions, and the tight curves on the loop, mainly running in tunnels, causes the journey times to be long.

To summarise the times:

Based on a T6 station, that would cost £500 - 800mil for a 4 - 6 platform through station, on a loop, I'm sure my numbers may be slightly out here, I can't be arsed looking it up

2-3mins at full speed extra distance (as you mentioned)
2mins stopped in the station.
30 seconds braking (uncomfortable, more like 1min)
30 seconds accelarating (uncomfortable, more like 1min)
The loop would have a linespeed (thanks to curves) much lower than 360km/hr, more in the region of 250 - 200km/hr max. adding another 2mins

Not only this, but the points turnout speeds will 'bunch up' services where not many will be escaping (it doesn't matter so much at OOC because everything stops on opposing platforms so the points turnout is within the braking profile for the station, bhm intl. you can timetable alternate escapes so the paths aren't affected, only the linespeed) so you're then adding about 1 - 3mins to every other path in each direction, then theres waiting time for getting on / off the main route.

Add all this together and you have 10mins for on loop and about 2mins for direct services, and a bloddy orquard timetable.

As I understand it swingnose crossings have now been developed which are rated for operation (atleast in the "straight on" position) at 300kph and turnoff speeds in excess of 100mph, which would seem to indicate that the only disadvantage for non stop services is the additional off axis distance to be travelled.

As for path usage, while it is true that a stopping train would require two paths, as moving block signalling allows a slower moving train to be closer to hte train front than a fast moving one, it would be possible for a train accelerating out of a loop to start moving as soon as points interlock was gained following the passage of a fast train.

This means it can start moving before its "path" catches up with the train and since a modern Shinkansen set can do 0-170mph in roughly 3 minutes (supposedly) there is not really likely to be "slow trains" clogging up the line.

 

[WatcherZero]

The number of passengers wanting to use a Heathrow stop is 2% in the first phase and 5% in the second phase according to market analysis. Its not worth routing via it when it could be on a spur.

Im reading through consultation response.

54,909 respondents (surprisingly low), 40% via website, 60% via post.
15,000 responses were part of organised campaigns (i.e. spam response where its preprinted mass printed and someone just signs)

Question 1, Do you think theres a case for HS2?
21,630 (39.4%) Yes
23,462 (42.7%) No
2,857 (5.2%) Dont know

13,840 Agreed there was a need for new capacity on rail lines
11,770 Believe HS2 will release more capacity on classic lines
13,371 Believe that it will increase economic growth
4,530 believe that it wont increase economic growth

Question 2 Do you believe the Y offers the best value for money?
15,257 said yes
1,108 yes with caveats
31,789 no

11,662 Believe its too expensive
12,768 Believe that faster trains would generate economic returns
7,487 Believe it would create jobs
4,163 Believe it would be bad for the economy
2,280 Believe demand is over estimated
2,599 Believe it unfairly puts the construction through their area while providing the benefits elsewhere
12,377 Believe the Y is the best shape with the majority wanting it to continue beyond the Y to Scotland and a significant number wanting more stations on the Y.
Notable numbers wanted it to serve one airport or another.

Question 3, Do you agree with the phased roll out and its links to Heathrow and HS1?
50% of respondents didnt answer this question of those that did
2,215 Agreed with phased rollout
564 agreed with caveats
26,197 disagreed with phased rollout

Many said the timescales were too long
13,961 wanted a Heathrow connection
323 agreed with caveats
3,146 wanted it to avoid Heathrow
15,123 wanted a link to HS1
347 with caveats
1,274 thought it shouldnt connect to HS1
Those that didnt cited insufficent demand while those that did particurlarly those in the North wanted improved access to the Continent. Significant responses were questioning if the connection has enough capacity and some wanted St Pancras to be a required interchange for all continental services.

Question 4, Do you agree with the principles, specifications and route to the West Midlands?
2,584 Agreed
552 agree with caveats
28,455 disagreed with the route
The majority of respondents disagreed with the principle of High Speed Rail while some argued it should be faster. Many believed there was too much capacity being built (train size and service frequency). Many believed in environmental terms the speed dictated the route rather than vice versa. This question is where the Chilterns brigade came out in full though it doesnt mention them specifically.

Question 5, Do you believe this is the best route?
52,427 responsded of which
2,178 Agreed
604 agree with caveats
28,163 disagree
Those that disagreed argued it should follow existing transport corridors and was too damaging to the environment. Those that agreed said environmental impact could be mitigated.
Surprising amount of Euston nimbys wanting other stations to be used. Many in Birmingham said Curzon Street wasnt close enough to the City Centre. Many comments thought mitigation was insufficent and 15,000 wanted specific mitigations (like tunneling) close to their various home addresses.

Question 6 Sustainability
Same general breakdown of those in favour, those answering every question no and those expressing caveats for their support. 4,284 believe it wont lower greenhouse gases. 3,170 believe it would do net environmental harm to 1,213 who believe it would be good for the environment. Most respondents from the Chilterns. Network Rail says a line will be net bad for the environment but can have its effects mitigated Environment Agency belives mitigations are sufficent though extra flooding prevention required. 3,046 wanted more information on noise impacts and suggested more tunneling. Very few responses in regard to the environmental impact of construction itself, a few concerned about slag piles and construction vehicles. A few concerned about it effect on farmland.

Question 7 Blight
36,036 responses but only 4,592 engaged with the specific proposals put forward. Most demanding more money in hardship payments and saying not enough people will qualify for compensation to be paid out.

 

[Nym]

deltic, if it's done properly it will be possible to abstract pax from air travel from MAN - LHR, ie. Code sharing with airlines, and offering a checked baggage service.

 

[HSTEd]

Far be it from me to accuse a British Government of trying to do things on the cheap! None of us can be sure how soon HS2 will start to fill up with traffic, my argument is that once slower services have taken up paths it will be difficult to get rid of them in favour of high speed trains that are the line's raison d'etre.

But I'm always being told that additional capacity is the line's raison d'etre.
If the line does 400m double deck trains then capacity is not an issue with 2tph "slow" in each direction on the line.

The opinion of many people not in Birmingham and London is that they will not benefit from this line in the slightest and it is an enormous subsidy for the two cities which benefit from most infrastructure projects, building intermediate stations with services would weaken this position and also reduce anti HS2 action along the route.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

How about 4-tracking south of Birmingham with three or four of stations serving various parts of the Chilterns and South Midlands? That way, as well as HS services, you can also have good, high speed trains north to the Birmingham and the North, and south to London. Chiltern residents can't complain of no benefits that way - even if it's only 7-8tpd at each intermediate station, it will benefit everyone on-route. I think selling it as just High Speed and High Speed only was wrong - by all means have it, but just put an incentive there for NIMBYs / opponents, and they have a lot less to complain about.

 

[HSTEd]

How about 4-tracking south of Birmingham with three or four of stations serving various parts of the Chilterns and South Midlands? That way, as well as HS services, you can also have good, high speed trains north to the Birmingham and the North, and south to London. Chiltern residents can't complain of no benefits that way - even if it's only 7-8tpd at each intermediate station, it will benefit everyone on-route. I think selling it as just High Speed and High Speed only was wrong - by all means have it, but just put an incentive there for NIMBYs / opponents, and they have a lot less to complain about.

Four tracking is massive overkill when your trains can have 1300 seats and your slow and fast trains have the same time top speed. (~200mph).

 

[deltic]

deltic, if it's done properly it will be possible to abstract pax from air travel from MAN - LHR, ie. Code sharing with airlines, and offering a checked baggage service.

but that is only around 100 pass an hour - not going to fill a 400m train - seems a waste of a train path on a route that is going to be full on day one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The number of passengers wanting to use a Heathrow stop is 2% in the first phase and 5% in the second phase according to market analysis. Its not worth routing via it when it could be on a spur.

.

WatcherZero do you know what those numbers equate to on a daily each way basis?

 

[Nym]

As I understand it swingnose crossings have now been developed which are rated for operation (atleast in the "straight on" position) at 300kph and turnoff speeds in excess of 100mph, which would seem to indicate that the only disadvantage for non stop services is the additional off axis distance to be travelled.

As for path usage, while it is true that a stopping train would require two paths, as moving block signalling allows a slower moving train to be closer to hte train front than a fast moving one, it would be possible for a train accelerating out of a loop to start moving as soon as points interlock was gained following the passage of a fast train.

This means it can start moving before its "path" catches up with the train and since a modern Shinkansen set can do 0-170mph in roughly 3 minutes (supposedly) there is not really likely to be "slow trains" clogging up the line.

I was taking into account dynamic block signalling when working this out, it still slows down other services, if one is turning out at 160km/h and one approaches the rear of this at lets say 300km/h for the points turnout, it needs a good 2mins headway to give enough space for catching up in the declaration zone of the vehicle in front, and then for the points to change and interlock, if running with safety only envelope this can cause 2 or 3 services to need to slow down, twice, once for each turnout.

If it where a branch to Heathrow, it would be less of an issue, and I certainly don't have a problem with a Heathrow Branch, depending on the proximity of this junction to OOC and other PSRs for tunnels / conservation areas.

If you work on a convention of 2min headways (that being there are exactly two mins between each service running up or down) giving a capacity of 30tph, then it could present issues at any set of points with units catching up, or coming within 1min of each other and the network looks like an accordion.

If we work to an operational 24tph pathing, 2.5min headway, with say, a 1min 'reaction distance' it allows a 1.5min deceleration zone and interlock allowance, or so you'd think, you also need to include the amount of time it would take to emergency stop before the points in that time, so say, 40secs of catching up, 20secs to interlock, and 40secs safety margin (can you emergency stop from 300km/h in 40 seconds?) as you'd be slowing down from 360 or 400km/h linespeed for points anyway. If you can have a turnout speed of 225km/h or 260km/h then we shouldn't have issues with a network wide 24tph, (4tph Heathrow, 2tph HS1, 18tph Euston?)

 

[brad465]

Still dont see the reason to serve Heathrow via a spur - some 2mill passengers arriving/departing Heathrow come from the West Midlands/North West and Yorkshire - if 50% of them can be persuaded to travel by train - which would be an impressive feat - that equates to 1,400 passengers a day in each direction. An hourly train service operating 14hrs an day would give just 100 people a train - it doesnt stack up.

I agree. But also, if airports in the midlands, like Birmingham International, could be improved with more passengers persuaded not to use Heathrow, then less trains will be needed to accomodate passengers, which frees up space to have more trains running to/from other locations being served.

 

[Nym]

How about 4-tracking south of Birmingham with three or four of stations serving various parts of the Chilterns and South Midlands? That way, as well as HS services, you can also have good, high speed trains north to the Birmingham and the North, and south to London. Chiltern residents can't complain of no benefits that way - even if it's only 7-8tpd at each intermediate station, it will benefit everyone on-route. I think selling it as just High Speed and High Speed only was wrong - by all means have it, but just put an incentive there for NIMBYs / opponents, and they have a lot less to complain about.

I've mentioned this many a time, 4 track between Birmingham S Parkway and OOC, network wide 36tph capacity all fast, or 30tph fast, slow & non-homogenous.

 

[ACE1888]

Excellent news for all Rail fans/personnel...FINALLY is 21st Century Britain waking up to Rail and public transport being the right way to go at last ???(I won't start on 'reversing Beeching'...:roll

 

[Nym]

Also, HS2 will be far from "Full from Day 1"

The only way that will happen is if we have complete tools pathing the services.

20tph isn't unattainable off Euston, neither is 24tph in the core with 4tph off Heathrow and 2tph off HS1 (or a combination of these) running 2 and 3 mins within eachother, half of all services calling at Birmingham S Parkway, with the fast services running 3 or 4mins behind the slows. (Allowing for the 'turnouts problem')

Note to HSTed, if we have proper pathing, then the turnouts at 160km/h shouldn't be a problem below 24tph core. (18 EUS 6 others), Northbound this would be every other service calling at Birmingham Parkway (Probably all Birmingham and Eastern services, 12tph)

 

[HSTEd]

I was taking into account dynamic block signalling when working this out, it still slows down other services, if one is turning out at 160km/h and one approaches the rear of this at lets say 300km/h for the points turnout, it needs a good 2mins headway to give enough space for catching up in the declaration zone of the vehicle in front, and then for the points to change and interlock, if running with safety only envelope this can cause 2 or 3 services to need to slow down, twice, once for each turnout.

If it where a branch to Heathrow, it would be less of an issue, and I certainly don't have a problem with a Heathrow Branch, depending on the proximity of this junction to OOC and other PSRs for tunnels / conservation areas.

If you work on a convention of 2min headways (that being there are exactly two mins between each service running up or down) giving a capacity of 30tph, then it could present issues at any set of points with units catching up, or coming within 1min of each other and the network looks like an accordion.

If we work to an operational 24tph pathing, 2.5min headway, with say, a 1min 'reaction distance' it allows a 1.5min deceleration zone and interlock allowance, or so you'd think, you also need to include the amount of time it would take to emergency stop before the points in that time, so say, 40secs of catching up, 20secs to interlock, and 40secs safety margin (can you emergency stop from 300km/h in 40 seconds?) as you'd be slowing down from 360 or 400km/h linespeed for points anyway. If you can have a turnout speed of 225km/h or 260km/h then we shouldn't have issues with a network wide 24tph, (4tph Heathrow, 2tph HS1, 18tph Euston?)

An E5-series Shinkansen set is rated to stop from 320kph in under 4000m, and that's with rheostatic/regenerative and friction braking systems only, as the train does not have linear eddy current brakes or the more esoteric air brakes developed for the "FastTech360" project.
That translates to under 45 seconds of full speed travel time.
So we could probably bring it down to about 35 seconds of full speed travel time with those technologies fitted. (Certainly the first one anyway, the latter isn't actually that effective).

As I understand it the reason turnout speeds are limited is because of the curve radius of the turn made on the diverging path these days, so if you really wanted you can probably get a diverging speed of 300kph, would be an extremely long turnout and probably very expensive though.

I was actually working on an allowance of 20tph thanks to me wanting 2tph "stopping trains" and as it is I can only find sufficient demand for 12tph at the current time (2 fast to the three terminii, 2 CC to MAN/LDS, 2 "slow" and 2 "semi fast").
I would also hope that before we go building a network all the way to Scotland that the base of the system had redundancy by building to the Birmingham-Leeds line from King's Cross.

I currently don't support a Heathrow diversion of the main line as I dont believe the passenger demand is there unlike the major commuting towns between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds.

 

[brad465]

Will the line and stock be designed to allow tilting trains to help speeds stay up, or will the line be straight enough with curve nature being made to not need this.

 

[HSTEd]

Will the line and stock be designed to allow tilting trains to help speeds stay up, or will the line be straight enough with curve nature being made to not need this.

It will be straight enough not to need this, its not that hard when you are building the line from scratch.

Course in fifty years we might find ourselves using tilting trains like the Japanese do on the first Shinkansen route.

 

[Ivo]

How about 4-tracking south of Birmingham with three or four of stations serving various parts of the Chilterns and South Midlands? That way, as well as HS services, you can also have good, high speed trains north to the Birmingham and the North, and south to London. Chiltern residents can't complain of no benefits that way - even if it's only 7-8tpd at each intermediate station, it will benefit everyone on-route. I think selling it as just High Speed and High Speed only was wrong - by all means have it, but just put an incentive there for NIMBYs / opponents, and they have a lot less to complain about.

*cough* BICESTER *cough*

The long-forgotten town that actually makes for a perfect opportunity to give a high-speed link for us lot down here, and across the wider EWRL route. I guess a call somewhere around either Amersham or High Wycombe wouldn't hurt either, although there are potential tunnelling issues.

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

A theoretical question...

If everywhere in the north "needs" a link to Manchester Airport, should HS2 serve said airport would people then say that everywhere in the south needs a link to Manchester Airport as well? Or, at the very least, would everywhere in the north suddenly need a link to Birmingham International or Heathrow?

 

[Tiny Tim]

The opinion of many people not in Birmingham and London is that they will not benefit from this line in the slightest and it is an enormous subsidy for the two cities which benefit from most infrastructure projects, building intermediate stations with services would weaken this position and also reduce anti HS2 action along the route.

Unfortunately, there is some evidence that existing conurbations are the main beneficiaries of high speed railways. I suspect that there's not much that can be done to change that. Adding too many unnecessary stops to HS2 (and I include Heathrow amongst these) will reduce the line's capacity as well as increase journey times, neither of which is desirable.

 

[Nym]

Well, if you're really clever with pathing, you could also fit in 4tph 'stopping' provided the're in long loops.

I can see space for one intermediate stop at the crossing of EWR, provided there is a nice big branch off the A41 to a massive car park, running through to Milton Keynes.

Possibly at Alesbury or Ammersham too, would need to be some sodding clever pathing though.

Would be much easier if, say, there where one intermediate station, at say the crossing of EWR, or maybe two intermediate stations.

If you have 6tph allocated to 'slow' services, and place the platforms between the fast running lines, and having the 'slow' services only run to one station at at time, say 3tph to EWR Interchange, these would run on to Birmingham, but would have a long dwell time so to fit into the next 'slow' path, 10mins later. 6tph would work if you're running with a 12tph 'core' frequency, if you up this to say 18tph 'core' frequency then the 'slow' paths would run at either 9tph or 6tph again, with 12tph or 6tph fast, 12tph or 6tph fast calling at BSP and the 6tph slow, making an overall 24tph, if 6 'fasts' call at BSP, then it would look like this up the mainline at any point...

 

[HSTEd]

Also, HS2 will be far from "Full from Day 1"

The only way that will happen is if we have complete tools pathing the services.

20tph isn't unattainable off Euston, neither is 24tph in the core with 4tph off Heathrow and 2tph off HS1 (or a combination of these) running 2 and 3 mins within eachother, half of all services calling at Birmingham S Parkway, with the fast services running 3 or 4mins behind the slows. (Allowing for the 'turnouts problem')

Note to HSTed, if we have proper pathing, then the turnouts at 160km/h shouldn't be a problem below 24tph core. (18 EUS 6 others), Northbound this would be every other service calling at Birmingham Parkway (Probably all Birmingham and Eastern services, 12tph)

Yes, but my "West Midlands Shinkansen" concept has six intermediate stations between London and Birmingham, which is four more compared to the currently projected route (Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry) with two trains per hour stopping all shacks and the others running fast between Euston and Birmingham Int.

Course if your were to flight the services properly we could probably fit ~14-16 fast and 2tph slow using these technologies.

 

[The Decapod]

They're sticking to the idea that HS2 will be designed for 250 mph operation despite suggesting that more of the line could be built in tunnels.

Presumably there are additional problems associated with trains entering and running in a tunnel at 250 mph due to air resistance and sudden pressure changes.

If the trains have to slow to, say, 150 mph or less to run through each tunnel, that would somewhat defeat the object of the 250 mph line.

My prediction is that if HS2 is ever built, it will not be a 250 mph line but one where trains run no faster than they do on the HS1 Chunnel link - which is quite fast enough anyway!

I think HS2 is being pursued not because of the needs of the travelling public, but because of the needs of the ailing construction industry.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but my "West Midlands Shinkansen" concept has six intermediate stations between London and Birmingham, which is four more compared to the currently projected route (Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry) with two trains per hour stopping all shacks and the others running fast between Euston and Birmingham Int.

Course if your were to flight the services properly we could probably fit ~14-16 fast and 2tph slow using these technologies.

We could, if we use loops and 'gaps' running atop an 18tph pathed core, 9tph 'slows' would be possible if the loops run at something like 240km/h turnouts.

Or if we run a 20tph core, then flighting and long loops could run 5tph stopping, although it would mean running one into the loop at the same time as running out out of the loop.

If you run on the 20tph core model, and flight these in 4tph batches, you could have 5tph stoppers.

Each batch running something like...

Fast, 1min gap, Fast, 3min gap, BSP Call, 2min gap, BSP Call, 2min gap, Slow, 4min gap.

If you allow 2min to slow down, 4mins stopped, 2min to speed up, that paths in between the fasts nicely. But, each call would add 12mins to the journey time. You could run a bit tighter, make it less than 10mins per stopper start and stop. Possibly flight (the paths, not the services!) in groups of three, by track at Birmingham S Parkway...

ie. Fast, 3mins, Fast Caller, 1mins, Slow Caller, 2mins, run a core service of 20tph, 10tph would be fast up to Manchester South Parkway (Pathing wise), 4tph into Birmingham and 6tph up the East? Then have 5tph 'slow' and 5tph spare slow paths.

My optimistic service patterns demand 5tph Birmingham, 6tph East, 9tph West. Including Heathrow and HS1 services (1 each per route).

8 groups of three plus one would be easyer to path once you get up to a potential 24tph core. Or for 16tph eight groups of two plus one (opening operations?)

Fast, 2min, Fast BSP, 1min, Fast BSP, 1min, Stopper, 2min. (Additional time around fast to interlock high speed points off mainline) That would give a potential operation, including slow services of 32tph.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Longer turnout curves, swingnose points, moving block signalling and improved train braking will all make it easier to fit stopping train paths in between high speed services, but it isn't an efficient use of HS2. Extended turnout curves will, in any case, be impractical at many stations and loops. HS2 needs to make up it's mind if it's Arthur or Martha; As a twin track route it's either a dedicated high speed line or a Victorian railway punching over it's weight.

 

[jon0844]

Question 7 Blight
36,036 responses but only 4,592 engaged with the specific proposals put forward. Most demanding more money in hardship payments and saying not enough people will qualify for compensation to be paid out.

There was a lady interviewed today that had put in £1k of her own money to fight HS2 and she pretty much implied she wanted more compensation.

So, I guess a few people are just after money - which will then make them take another 'view' of the project.