High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why doesn't the HS2 route near the Northern end have a link in to the Cross Country route? A simple junction at Tamworth or Lichfield would provide High Speed services to Sheffield and Derby.

This is kicked into the semi-long grass in the report.
Supposedly "too hard" at Lichfield (sharp curves, different levels, too close to the WCML junction), and "impractical" at Water Orton (too much property destruction).
It would also trigger electrification on to Yorkshire which is not on the horizon.
On top of which the time savings are not that great.

Probably get another look-in when the Y route/plans are published later this year.

 

[Holly]

... This means a new fleet of classic-compatible trains (200m or 9-car) to run on the WCML at NON-TILT speeds (currently 110mph max) as well as HS2.
...
Some of the projections imply a doubling of frequency on some routes (ie trains via both HS2 and Rugby). Sounds like an operational nightmare to me, particularly at places like Colwich.
Not sure it has been thought through properly.

Given that at least one additional route Birmingham / London via Banbury can have completed electrification by then (?), there would be huge benefits in first building a Northern section of HS2 (dedicated HS2 Birmingham Airport - Manchester airport plus WCML compatible links at each end). Cheaper, online sooner, more time to overcome Southern nimby delays.

 

[Waverley125]

I used Durham as an example to show that if you built a Tesside parkway station it would be difficult for people from Durham to access HS2 unless they doubled back on themselves and went to Newcastle. Darlinton Bank Top would get all the trains your parkway station would get plus a lot more. You wouldn't have the building costs of a parkway station and you wouldn't have the extra running costs. Indeed I wonder how much demand there would be at a Tesside Parkway station if all the existing trains still went to Bank Top?

I would guess a maximum of two trains per hour which means such a parkway station would incur hefty running costs when the whole thing need not be there at all. Using Bank Top as the HS2 station wouldn't significantly detract from Teessiders using it as its only about 5 minutes extra away on the same train you propose them using and of course five minutes less of your coming in from Bishop Auckland. And I suspect other connections for Teessiders such as buses would be much better at Bank Top.

If you not going to reduce the about of trains running through Bank Top you cant free up space for Middlesbrough London Trains.

Not sure how your parkway station would regenerate Teesside. Parkway stations can be good for people living in their area to get somewhere else but but much good for others coming the other way Teesside already has good connections to and from Leeds and London. Any time savings gained by using HS2 would be destroyed by having to change onto something else before getting into Teesside, so your Parkway station is really "Bugger all use isn't it. .

Durham's small, and in the middle of nowhere. Oh well.

Bank Top will stil have EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE AS IT DOES NOW Because there will no longer be a need for fast services to Newcastle & Edinburgh, so we could run, say, a half-hourly service south to LKX going north to Edinburgh & Newcastle, with the EDB service stopping at all current stations (i.e. Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar) and the Newcastle service calling at all those places plus Welwyn Garden City, Hitchin, St Neots, Huntingdon, Thirsk, Chester le Street and Prestonpans.

As for TVP, it's a lot easier to access than Bank Top for everyone who doesn't live in Darlington, given Bank Top is miles away, and the bus service is extremely poor. Putting TVP 1.5 miles southwest of Stockton with a metro service into Middlesbrough, Stockton, Thornaby, Billingham & Hartlepool will make it easily accessible for journeys south. I really don't understand how you think trains that went to TVP wouldn't go to Bank Top, as the Tees Valley line links Darlington-TVP-Middlesbrough/Hartlepool. Yes, 'classic' services would still go to Bank Top, but as TVP is designed to get feed-in from local trains, that's not really an issue.

Also, your 'time savings would be destroyed' argument is just rubbish. 1hr 45 mins to London & 20 mins to Leeds from TVP, let's call it 2 hrs / 40 mins right into centres. That's compared to 3hrs London / 1hr 40 mins Leeds today. An hour quicker, much better.

As for York, I made this very clear too but you refuse to understand. I OPPOSE GOING TO YORK INSTEAD OF GOING TO LEEDS. Also, I'd point out that YORK IS MILES OUT OF THE WAY, TVP ISN'T. this is really very simple John, try and get your head round it.

As for route, probably near NNE, head up west of wetherby, then turn slightly east & dead straight to TVP. From TVP you'd head north, then turn slightly west (bisecting Durham & Chester le Street), then continue a gentle curve northeast, passing between Beamish & Stanley, reaching the Tyne between Blaydon & Swalwell and then turning sharply east to use the disused eastern approach. And yes. This would involve running slowly. Because trains would be stopping. At Newcastle. Which is kind of why we're building a railway line to Newcastle in the first place.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Durham's small, and in the middle of nowhere. Oh well.

Bank Top will stil have EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE AS IT DOES NOW Because there will no longer be a need for fast services to Newcastle & Edinburgh, so we could run, say, a half-hourly service south to LKX going north to Edinburgh & Newcastle, with the EDB service stopping at all current stations (i.e. Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar) and the Newcastle service calling at all those places plus Welwyn Garden City, Hitchin, St Neots, Huntingdon, Thirsk, Chester le Street and Prestonpans.

As for TVP, it's a lot easier to access than Bank Top for everyone who doesn't live in Darlington, given Bank Top is miles away, and the bus service is extremely poor. Putting TVP 1.5 miles southwest of Stockton with a metro service into Middlesbrough, Stockton, Thornaby, Billingham & Hartlepool will make it easily accessible for journeys south. I really don't understand how you think trains that went to TVP wouldn't go to Bank Top, as the Tees Valley line links Darlington-TVP-Middlesbrough/Hartlepool. Yes, 'classic' services would still go to Bank Top, but as TVP is designed to get feed-in from local trains, that's not really an issue.

Also, your 'time savings would be destroyed' argument is just rubbish. 1hr 45 mins to London & 20 mins to Leeds from TVP, let's call it 2 hrs / 40 mins right into centres. That's compared to 3hrs London / 1hr 40 mins Leeds today. An hour quicker, much better.

As for York, I made this very clear too but you refuse to understand. I OPPOSE GOING TO YORK INSTEAD OF GOING TO LEEDS. Also, I'd point out that YORK IS MILES OUT OF THE WAY, TVP ISN'T. this is really very simple John, try and get your head round it.

As for route, probably near NNE, head up west of wetherby, then turn slightly east & dead straight to TVP. From TVP you'd head north, then turn slightly west (bisecting Durham & Chester le Street), then continue a gentle curve northeast, passing between Beamish & Stanley, reaching the Tyne between Blaydon & Swalwell and then turning sharply east to use the disused eastern approach. And yes. This would involve running slowly. Because trains would be stopping. At Newcastle. Which is kind of why we're building a railway line to Newcastle in the first place.

I feel I have already said all I wish to say on this subject and as there seem to be only the two of us contributing to this particular discussion, which frankly is at least one more who is still interested, I am going to even up the numbers and drop out.

Best

John

 

[brad465]

I feel I have already said all I wish to say on this subject and as there seem to be only the two of us contributing to this particular discussion, which frankly is at least one more who is still interested, I am going to even up the numbers and drop out.

Best

John

Most of everything behind HS2 has now been said I would say, even though the approval was just 2 days ago.

 

[trainfanatic]

I have never seen any discussion regarding the gauge that the line would be built to...ie 4' = 8 1/2" standard UK / Continental gauge.

Are there any arguments for or against a deviation from this Gauge?

Did I K Brunel get it right when he built a lot of the GWR to a 7' - 00" gauge?

 

[Crispy75]

Building new railways with a different track gauge would be idiotic in the extreme, unless you specifically wanted to restrict operational flexibility and increase the cost of the rolling stock.

IKB may have been on to something with broad gauge, but that's irrelevant now.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Most of everything behind HS2 has now been said I would say, even though the approval was just 2 days ago.

The aproval of Round One you maen. There is still a long way to go.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have never seen any discussion regarding the gauge that the line would be built to...ie 4' = 8 1/2" standard UK / Continental gauge.

From the HS2 spec (Arup):
standard track gauge, GC loading gauge (same as Channel Tunnel and HS1).
400kph in the open, track centres 4.5m apart, max gradient 2.5%, max horizontal curvature 10km, max vertical curvature 56km.
320kph in Chiltern tunnels
225kph in London tunnels
230kph turnouts (I assume this is for the delta junctions)
ETCS, capacity for 20tph, service planning 15tph

 

[brad465]

From the HS2 spec (Arup):
standard track gauge, GC loading gauge (same as Channel Tunnel and HS1).
400kph in the open, track centres 4.5m apart, max gradient 2.5%, max horizontal curvature 10km, max vertical curvature 56km.
320kph in Chiltern tunnels
225kph in London tunnels
230kph turnouts (I assume this is for the delta junctions)
ETCS, capacity for 20tph, service planning 15tph

Assuming slower speeds in the tunnels is due to air resistance, wouldn't it be possible to make the tunnels wider? The London tunnels won't make much difference as most trains will speed up/slow down in that area anyway.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Building new railways with a different track gauge would be idiotic in the extreme, unless you specifically wanted to restrict operational flexibility and increase the cost of the rolling stock.

IKB may have been on to something with broad gauge, but that's irrelevant now.

Building new railways to a larger gauge doesn't mean that the trains have to be bigger too but it does allow bigger trains from over seas railways to use the new line. That would mean that HS2 trains could leave the HS2 network at Leeds and continue to Newcastle. In terms of trains fitting into exisiting platforms wouldn't it make sense to split trains as the SNCF do with their TGV's?

 

[unam3d]

I came across this article 'Why HS2 is a good thing, and how everyone who opposes high speed rail in the UK is missing something fundamental' and it seemed to cover some interesting points.

With regard to profitability, cutting out all ‘unprofitable’ services would mean only running peak time trains; but who would use railways if only peak time trains ran? When running rail network, you will always need to run some services at a loss. It’s the very nature of running a clock-face timetable with trains every 20 minutes – it means a comprehensive, seamless service is offered (thereby increasing passengers overall) – and it means rail users can travel when they like. It’s why a fully-privatised railway network would never work, and it’s why we use the franchise system we do today. Train operating companies must, in return for subsidy, adhere to strict guidelines about the service they run, and how they run it. In short – railways do not see a clear cut return on investment in a business sense. Nobody should expect this of HS2 – but it will have far-reaching broader and wider economic benefits, as I will try to explain in this piece.

What do people make of it?

 

[Metroland]

Well there's no doubt some of the objections are completely bizzare. For a start it's as important as building of the motorways in the 60s and 70s. Would the same people object and say we should have gone forward with the old A road system? It's about making the country attractive to business and therefore job creation so we can compete on an international stage. Moving goods and people above is central to a modern industrialised economy. If you don't like it, where's the plan B that is not being done already like superfast broadband?

Let's take one point at a time:

Cost: It is expensive, there is no doubt about that. But it would be even more expensive to build a new motorway network, which would take up far more land and require far more demolition.

At £32 billion over 20 years, this works out £1.6 billion per year no more than is being currently spent on other rail capital projects.

This assumes all money will come from the public, it's likely some will be private.

Although this seems like a big figure, to put this into perspective: It's more or less the same as free bus passes, which cost £1.3 billion per year.

The NHS costs £104 billion per year, EU costs £7.9 billion per year, Education £67 billion, the Welfare state and Pensions £204 billion, The Trident nuclear system costs £1.5 billion every year, and debt interest is £43 billion.

So this project is small fry, and HAS to prove it makes money back, unlike much government spending, for example on Welfare. So what other things do people suggest we spend money on that show a return?

Time Savings and Economy: It's not about London - Birmingham, the whole network will serve most of the population of England, the great conurbations and capital city. The only significant cities that are not being served are in S Wales and the west, and recently GWML electrification has been approved. So most people can look forward to better rail services. Even if the line does not go north of Preston and York, it will be significantly quicker to get not just from Glasgow and Newcastle to London, but also places like Birmingham to Leeds. Time savings mean business and people can get access to jobs and services, where they couldn't do before so easily. They also attract people from other modes which mean the project creates more fares revenue. Incidentally, the TOC that operates it is expected to pay premiums.

Capacity: The project adds significantly more capacity to the rail network, far more than can be achieved by upgrades. This frees up space on classic lines for commuters and freight to. Some say more should be spent on roads because more travel is by road. Yes, that's because there are 24 times more roads than railways. Nevertheless, the WCML has a large modal share between principal centres, and with an asset this important it would be irresponsible to do nothing, which in the long term will affect the economy. There is still strong growth in rail, down to better services, fuel prices and road congestion.

Environment: 50% of the London-Birmingham route will be in tunnels, just over 1 mile will be through the Chilterns overground. When HS2 is built, like HS1, it is unlikely most people living nearby will even notice it. And it's still less carbon intensive than the alternatives. A new 6-8 lane motorway would take up far more space, and require far more demolition. Far more land is lost every year through other road, house, and commercial building.

The role of technology: We have internet everywhere now, where is the evidence people are travelling less? IBM did a recent study and concluded, because people make new social and business contacts they would otherwise not make, they travel more.

 

[MK Tom]

Building new railways to a larger gauge doesn't mean that the trains have to be bigger too but it does allow bigger trains from over seas railways to use the new line. That would mean that HS2 trains could leave the HS2 network at Leeds and continue to Newcastle. In terms of trains fitting into exisiting platforms wouldn't it make sense to split trains as the SNCF do with their TGV's?

Are we confusing gauge with loading gauge here? Because people above seem to be talking about broad gauge, which is obviously as one guy pointed out a pretty insane idea, whereas this seems to be talking about wider loading gauges which is IMO a pretty sensible idea.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Assuming slower speeds in the tunnels is due to air resistance, wouldn't it be possible to make the tunnels wider?

How would widening the bore diameter of tunnels affect the project in financial terms and would this pose any significant constructional and infrastructural problems in the areas where this would occur?

 

[Nym]

How would widening the bore diameter of tunnels affect the project in financial terms and would this pose any significant constructional and infrastructural problems in the areas where this would occur?

Significantly, and for not that much gain...

The speed you can push through a tunnel is an inverse exponent of the size of the bore, so if you increase it by a fair whack, you can't go that much faster, where you can have systems like LU running with very little clearance still at ~50mph.

To take anything over ~300km/hr you also need to change the construction of the tunnel lining, concrete is only so strong.

The capital costs of the TBMs will be higher too as they'd be a non-standard and bigger size.

 

[tbtc]

A high speed transpennine line definitely should be on the table at some point, there is certainly demand between Manchester and leeds to justify the double decker train capability

It needs something longer than a diddy 185, that's for sure...

 

[Nym]

Or to be honest, you could just run 6 or 8 coach units on expresses 4tph and 2tph semi fasts at 3 to 6tph... And of course lengthen the clader valley services.

 

[Andyjs247]

It's quite true that, in comparison to everything else, Curzon Street is not really central Birmingham. As an outsider I've always considered Moor Street/ Park Street to be the boundary of the sort of central area. However while Curzon Street is at Millenium Point, the proposed station opens out onto Moor Street thus making it part of central Birmingham. It's all part of the Big City Plan which aims to spread the shopping district towards Digbeth and such.

Millenium Point / Curzon Street are only not central Birmingham due to the large amount of empty land seperating the two - land which is empty only (presumably) in reservation for HS2.

Using the following site: http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

New Street to Moor Street: 250m
New Street to proposed Curzon Street entrance: 300m
New Street to former Curzon Street entrance: 650m
New Street to Millenium Point: 700m

You can see therefore where the confusion may lie, the former Curzon Street station is a fair distance away - but the new station's doors much closer.

Personally I think much of Birmingham should be demolished to make way for a giant station which would replace Curzon Street and Moor Street with a new "New Street" in the middle, serving all three lines. Is there honestly anything that can't be easily replaced between Bordesley Street and Albert Street?

Here, like this:

http://bb.ohsk.net/uploads/birminghamcentralstation.png

Nothing says Big City Plan more than a Birmingham Central Station.

I grew up in Birmingham and have always disliked New Street Station. However, it's a difficult nut to crack. Location apart (btw the station is not actually in New Street), the constricted site and dungeon-like ambience have little to recommend and I've often thought the ideal solution would have to be something rather bold - build a completely new station a little further east at Proof House Junction and nearer to Lawley Street (with terminal platforms for HS2 and through platforms for longer distance XC and VT services as well as through platforms for cross-city and local services.

Much as I'd like to start with a bulldozer at New Street, I do think retaining the existing station just for suburban commuter traffic might be a better option. A new station (why not call it Birmingham Central?) would also have more convenient road access from the middle ring-road entrance. Current XC and VT services would not generally stop at the existing New Street but pass through, thereby alleviating some of the capacity issues. It could even be downsized, removing some platforms no longer required as not all services would stop there.

Proof House Junction would need to be remodelled and simplified I believe. The Cross-city line services, which currently need to cross from the Stour to the Derby lines and vice versa, could be routed via the Derby lines if they were diverted from Aston via a new chord at Washwood Heath linking in from the Stechford line and avoided Duddeston. This would free up space to build the through platforms around Proof House Junction.

Curzon Street is the wrong name for the new station (neither is Fazeley Street ideal as it is hardly a major thoroughfare). I would keep the entrance on Moor Street but call it Birmingham Central - possibly linked by travelator as some of the through platforms would be some distance away. I would also build a direct link to Moor Street station. And can we have a nice bright airy station without a car-park on top - put the parking underneath with access from Lawley Street.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Nym]

It would be much better at New St if some prat didn't build a shopping centre on top of it...

There where plans for somthing like that a few years back, a new station on the site pretty much where the HS2 station will be...

 

[Andyjs247]

Same issue with Snow Hill. I vaguely remember the original GW station, albeit in a sorry derelict state. I suppose I should be glad it was reopened but the replacement is too small and also submerged beneath a car park. If only...

 

[Geezertronic]

Being a Brummie, I feel a bit embarassed asking this - but is there any reason why Moor Street couldn't become the HS Terminal rather than building a new one next door with a different name? Is it just the positioning of the new HS station doesn't line up with Moor Street or isn't close enough?

 

[Nym]

Got it in one there, doesn't line up with the approaches.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Building new railways with a different track gauge would be idiotic in the extreme, unless you specifically wanted to restrict operational flexibility and increase the cost of the rolling stock.

IKB may have been on to something with broad gauge, but that's irrelevant now.

The question isn't how far apart the rails should be, but why are we still using them? Dare I whisper "Monorail"?

 

[Nym]

No, because you loose all compatability with the existing network, and create an isolated network that has much lower CBRs due to pax having to make a modal or stock change to use the new services beyond the route it seves.

 

[Tiny Tim]

No, because you loose all compatability with the existing network, and create an isolated network that has much lower CBRs due to pax having to make a modal or stock change to use the new services beyond the route it seves.

The first railways were exactly that. But at least someone had the balls to build them.

 

[Bald Rick]

Earlier in the thread there were quite a few comments on how we must be 'the embarrasment of Europe" etc. for the length of time it will take to get HS2 into service. So I did a bit of reseacrh to see how our friends in France have done:

Nimes / Montpellier bypass
60km new line + 20km links
Declaration of Public Utility (equivalent stage as Royal Assent for the act here) May 2005. Opens Dec 2016.

LGV Brittany - Pays de Loire
182km new line in open country with no stations
Ministerial Approval (similar to this week's announcement) Jan 2006. DUP Oct 2007. Construction starts this year. In service Dec 2016 or 2017.

So in both cases 6 years + from ministerial approval to starting work. Not so different.

 

[NSEFAN]

The first railways were exactly that. But at least someone had the balls to build them.

Things were different back then. During the railway boom, people would have not been afraid to throw money at such projects.

Sadly, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to invest stupidly large amounts of money in the railways these days (in this country at least). I find it amazing that the government is actually willing to embark on a project like HS2.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Things were different back then. During the railway boom, people would have not been afraid to throw money at such projects.

Sadly, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to invest stupidly large amounts of money in the railways these days (in this country at least). I find it amazing that the government is actually willing to embark on a project like HS2.

But someone started it. Just the same as someone started to electrify the railways. And that didn't work with anything else.

 

[Nym]

It did though, you can run diesel trains on electrified lines, and you can run electric trains on non-electrified tracks by simply attaching a locomotive...