High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

In my opinion:

1) The now "locked in" route is poorly chosen, it has been set to obtain the fastest end to end journey time between London and Birmingham without consideration that the line is, allegedly atleast, about "capacity" rather than outright speed and should therefore take in intermediate towns to allow more traffic to be transferred to it. The Japanese experience shows that, especially with moving block signalling, a mix of "stopping" and "express" traffic is feasible and the provision of stopping services would not prejudice the express service journey times significantly.

2) The choice of rolling stock that the government is apparently leaning towards making is wrong, with the line being about capacity on the London Birmingham axis the emphasis should be on ensuring that each trainset has the largest possible number of seats, we should therefore be favouring double decker trainsets.

3) I don't think any serious studies have been done on the financial viability of maintaining current service levels on the classic WCML after the construction of the line, especially with regards to ensuring "secondary" stations are not badly damaged in terms of long distance destinations.
Once end-to-end traffic has been abstracted they could require drastically increased subsidy payments.

 

[MK Tom]

In my opinion:

3) I don't think any serious studies have been done on the financial viability of maintaining current service levels on the classic WCML after the construction of the line, especially with regards to ensuring "secondary" stations are not badly damaged in terms of long distance destinations.
Once end-to-end traffic has been abstracted they could require drastically increased subsidy payments.

We're almost certainly going to end up with a situation where people still use slower WCML services for end-to-end journeys because HS2 will cost more. Likewise I anticipate that Chiltern's services to Moor Street will still be operating and will still be well used. There's a market that will pay a lot to travel fast and there's a market that will use more time to travel cheaply. So I don't think there's any doubt that intercity services will still operate on the WCML, my concern is that Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Coventry (two of those being >300,000 population cities by that time) will lose fast journey times and intercity features like buffets and all the rest.

 

[RobShipway]

EU TSI 2008/17/EC mandates 1435mm nominal gauge for all new/upgraded cat I/II/III lines over 200kph in the EU. End of story.

Alternatives are as laughable as British triumphs like HOTOL in aerospace or the AGR nuclear reactors (or even APT).
The Chinese have pots of money (much of it ours) to experiment; we do not.
We couldn't even keep the Birmingham monorail going.
Even if it worked on an A-B basis Euston-Birmingham, it would not integrate with classic lines or as a network, or into Europe.

I am going to give what I believe is good reasoning for having HS2, which is it will cut down on the need when fully built to Glasgow/Edingburgh that it will cut down the CO2 emissions of this country so it will stop the need for people to flying North top South or South to North within the UK when the Journey can be done quicker.

For example TV presenter Lorraine Kelly I believe lives North of Edingburgh and flies down from Edingburgh Airport each Sunday afternoon to do her show Monday - Thursday in London and then flies back on the Friday. This journey in total I believe takes her about 5 hours, but would have caused a lot of CO2 emissions in flying in the plane backwards and forwards.

When HS2 is complete, MS Kelly should be able to do the same journey within 3.5 hours hopefully, with no or very little CO2 emissions caused to the environment.

It will also enable thos that work abroad in say France/Germany rather than flying from the likes Birmingahm or Manchester hopefully eventually to travel to a point such that they can travel down HS2, on to HS1 and then on to mainland europe in less time then it takes them to travel now. Again, this means that those people are using a lot less CO2 emissions in travelling.

 

[JohnCarlson]

I am going to give what I believe is good reasoning for having HS2, which is it will cut down on the need when fully built to Glasgow/Edingburgh that it will cut down the CO2 emissions of this country so it will stop the need for people to flying North top South or South to North within the UK when the Journey can be done quicker.

For example TV presenter Lorraine Kelly I believe lives North of Edingburgh and flies down from Edingburgh Airport each Sunday afternoon to do her show Monday - Thursday in London and then flies back on the Friday. This journey in total I believe takes her about 5 hours, but would have caused a lot of CO2 emissions in flying in the plane backwards and forwards.

When HS2 is complete, MS Kelly should be able to do the same journey within 3.5 hours hopefully, with no or very little CO2 emissions caused to the environment.

It will also enable thos that work abroad in say France/Germany rather than flying from the likes Birmingahm or Manchester hopefully eventually to travel to a point such that they can travel down HS2, on to HS1 and then on to mainland europe in less time then it takes them to travel now. Again, this means that those people are using a lot less CO2 emissions in travelling.

"Help us to cut down on Lorraine Kelly emissions," could be quite a selling point for HS2.

 

[Badger]

If Ms Kelly really cared about CO2 emissions she'd be getting the train regardless. The journey time between air and train is negligible (isn't the train quicker than 5 hours anyway?) so it sounds like such a journey would be for luxury rather than speed or environmental reasons.

 

[Nym]

While I do agree with the route in principal, it's a nice route, I don't agree with the specification of tracks.

I beleive that between OOC and Euston it should be 2 track, as is currently specified, since this section of track has a lower linespeed it can have much higher capacity on a two track section, something in the region of 28 to 32tph.

I then believe that from Old Oak Common to Birmingham International should be 4 track throughout. There are then many less worries about providing stations on route for other settlements. So I would have stations on longish loops from the 'relief lines' and possibly the fast lines at some stations at:

Amersham (Parkway on the A43)
or
Alesbury
or
Heathrow Junction

EWR Interchange (With a link to EWR to serve Bichester and MKC using Classic Compatable sets)
Brackley (Parkway)
Leamington Spa (Parkway)

Principal station being the EWR Interchange, and 4tph slow to Birmingham, 4tph slow to EWR and leaving here.

Slows would also take care of non-homogenous international stock, such as using the NoL or standard E* sets that run at 186 rather than 225, slows would run on looped path fallbacks into the 8tph pattern (7.5mins in loop).

Would mean that at Stage I opening, International services could run on Day 1 from Manchester and Birmingham (provided the new station at Manchester is built to house the international and 430m platforms at Baring St, would solve the capacity issues at Piccadilly platforms as well, if the full HS2 approach is built between Longsight and Piccadilly, including segregated tracks for the Styal Branch and grade seperation of Slade Lane Junction).

So we'd be in a position of having 16tph pathable on the 'slows' and anything up to 20tph on the fasts, assuming 4tph will be for Heathrow and up to 3tph for HS1, it would mean that Euston would be seeing 31tph, call it 30, and that can be done with 12 platforms, provided cleaning and re-loading is done at terminals rather than Euston.

This would also enable HSx (Great Western) to have it's approaches intergrated into Euston, by diverging at 'Heathrow Junction' just outside the M25, with Stage I of HSx heading down to Didcot Junction with a station at High Wycome. This would be very nice, but you'd not have space for services to be honest when you get to HS2b or c opening..

Where I can fill 7tph to Rugley, 3tph to Birmingham, 6tph on the Leeds Branch, Internationals, slows and everything would fill the tracks rather quick.

 

[amcluesent]

Anyone who listened to 'More or Less' on R4 this week would know the basic flaws in HS2

1) The benefits model assumes 10 times growth in demand. To travel to Brum? Really?
2) The time saving benefits assumes that business types can't do ANY work on the train. A nonsense as they're all laptops\Balckberries
3) The discount rate is a very low 3.5%, most private companies use a discount rate more like 10% to 15% for risky projects
4) There will be the inevitable overruns and milking from suppliers who see a boondoogle.
5) Apparently the HS1-HS2 interface is pax lugging their belongings down the narrow pavement of the Euston Road!

This is just an EU mandated white elephant, the only sure outcome being to rob every taxpayer in Britain of £2000.

 

[HSTEd]

3) The discount rate is a very low 3.5%, most private companies use a discount rate more like 10% to 15% for risky projects

The private sector does not have access to 30-year bond yields which are now falling below 3%

 

[sprinterguy]

Anyone who listened to 'More or Less' on R4 this week would know the basic flaws in HS2

1) The benefits model assumes 10 times growth in demand. To travel to Brum? Really?

Not just to Birmingham. HS2 does seem to be providing a considerable amount of additional capacity between the principal cities it will serve though. It depends largely on whether trains are 200 metres or 400 metres in length.

 

[Nym]

5) Apparently the HS1-HS2 interface is pax lugging their belongings down the narrow pavement of the Euston Road!

Have you actually looked at the plans from the consultancy firm?

There is facility for direct services from HS2 to HS1, and the track layout also allows for a shuttle between Old Oak Common and St Pancras.

 

[Geezertronic]

Anyone who listened to 'More or Less' on R4 this week would know the basic flaws in HS2

1) The benefits model assumes 10 times growth in demand. To travel to Brum? Really?

Anyone who has bothered to read up on HS2 will understand that HS2 is not and never has been specifically about trains between London and Birmingham. The connection to the WCML around Lichfield should be a dead givaway for anyone that cares to notice...

 

[deltic]

Anyone who listened to 'More or Less' on R4 this week would know the basic flaws in HS2

1) The benefits model assumes 10 times growth in demand. To travel to Brum? Really?
2) The time saving benefits assumes that business types can't do ANY work on the train. A nonsense as they're all laptops\Balckberries
3) The discount rate is a very low 3.5%, most private companies use a discount rate more like 10% to 15% for risky projects
4) There will be the inevitable overruns and milking from suppliers who see a boondoogle.
5) Apparently the HS1-HS2 interface is pax lugging their belongings down the narrow pavement of the Euston Road!

This is just an EU mandated white elephant, the only sure outcome being to rob every taxpayer in Britain of £2000.

1 - no it doesnt - growth is assumed to be less than that seen in last decade
2 - this is an issue - latest research shows that 25% of on-board time is found to be productive - but the method used is consistent with all other transport schemes
3 - discount rate is that used for all public sector investment projects - the very nature of public sector projects is that they are projects private sector would not make
4 - HS1 was delivered on time and to budget - Crossrail is presently coming in under budget - benefit of HS2 is that it is new build - problem with upgrading existing routes eg WCML and LUL PPP is no-one really knows the condition of infrastructure being upgraded hence costs tend to spiral out of control
5 - incorrect - although there is little economic benefit in making link to HS1 if we maintain our present crazy security regime.

While I have some concerns with HS2 the view that is has been drawn up a bunch of people in the pub who know nothing about railways and havent thought of all the issues is way off the mark. We may all like a four track railway that calls at every town on the way but even the present scheme barely achieves an adequate benefit cost ratio - a scheme that costs 50% as much that delivers an extra 25% benefits will fail every economic and financial test going.

 

[NSEFAN]

This is just an EU mandated white elephant, the only sure outcome being to rob every taxpayer in Britain of £2000.

By that logic, the unemployed population of the UK are also robbing you. In fact, they are robbing you of considerably more money than HS2, since unemployment costs more per year than HS2 will.

For a different perspective, the whole of HS2 (London-Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds) will cost the same as the UK's annual military spending.

 

[Tiny Tim]

New passenger routes do create new business, but 10 times? That seems wildly optimistic and does the case for HS2 no favours. The Channel Tunnel made similarly outrageous predictions, and were very wrong indeed.

 

[yorksrob]

problem with upgrading existing routes eg WCML and LUL PPP is no-one really knows the condition of infrastructure being upgraded hence costs tend to spiral out of control

One thing I don't understand about this debate is that surely existing lines need to be upgraded anyway. The WCML is the main example quoted, and yet it would have had to have been done with or without HS2. I'm gussing that the WCML will effectively have to be upgraded /rebuilt again in 40 - 50 years time regardless of whether HS2 is there or not.

 

[deltic]

One thing I don't understand about this debate is that surely existing lines need to be upgraded anyway. The WCML is the main example quoted, and yet it would have had to have been done with or without HS2. I'm gussing that the WCML will effectively have to be upgraded /rebuilt again in 40 - 50 years time regardless of whether HS2 is there or not.

There is a difference between maintaining the railway in a steady state and upgrading both in terms of cost and requirements for upgrades to meet latest rules and regulations.

 

[HSTEd]

And as for arguments that stopping trains would reduce capacity, the lines would still have such insanely high capacity (20tph fast and 10tph slow potentially with moving block signalling) that I would happy to pay for additional ones going out via every feasible route.

Two two track lines is considerably better for the economy than one four track line, since they can go to different places and when your trains can have 1300 seats its questionable hwo many "local" trains are required.

 

[deltic]

And as for arguments that stopping trains would reduce capacity, the lines would still have such insanely high capacity (20tph fast and 10tph slow potentially with moving block signalling) that I would happy to pay for additional ones going out via every feasible route.

Two two track lines is considerably better for the economy than one four track line, since they can go to different places and when your trains can have 1300 seats its questionable hwo many "local" trains are required.

I'm sure HS2 will be delighted you will be sending them a £10bn cheque!

 

[yorksrob]

There is a difference between maintaining the railway in a steady state and upgrading both in terms of cost and requirements for upgrades to meet latest rules and regulations.

I wonder how much of the cost of the WCML upgrade was over and above what the cost would have been for a steady state renewal. I'm not disagreeing with you - I've just never seen a comparison.

 

[jon0844]

One thing I don't understand about this debate is that surely existing lines need to be upgraded anyway. The WCML is the main example quoted, and yet it would have had to have been done with or without HS2. I'm gussing that the WCML will effectively have to be upgraded /rebuilt again in 40 - 50 years time regardless of whether HS2 is there or not.

Yes I am sure that will be the case, but with HS2 nearby (and other routes) the work could perhaps be done a little easier by diverting a number of trains away - and keeping shuttles for local stations. This could enable the work to be ongoing, rather than at nights/weekends for which a lot of time is just taking control/handing back the railway.

HS2 will ultimately help the WCML get upgraded when the time comes, and possibly the ECML too.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes I am sure that will be the case, but with HS2 nearby (and other routes) the work could perhaps be done a little easier by diverting a number of trains away - and keeping shuttles for local stations. This could enable the work to be ongoing, rather than at nights/weekends for which a lot of time is just taking control/handing back the railway.

HS2 will ultimately help the WCML get upgraded when the time comes, and possibly the ECML too.

Yes, that's a good point.

 

[Tiny Tim]

I'm seriously disappointed in the BBC's 'More or Less', it's usually very good at exposing lazy use of statistics and the like. The plans for HS2, easily available on the net, show the HS1/HS2 link, it's clearly marked. I suppose it's a mistake having any faith in journalists.

 

[Rational Plan]

And as for arguments that stopping trains would reduce capacity, the lines would still have such insanely high capacity (20tph fast and 10tph slow potentially with moving block signalling) that I would happy to pay for additional ones going out via every feasible route.

Two two track lines is considerably better for the economy than one four track line, since they can go to different places and when your trains can have 1300 seats its questionable hwo many "local" trains are required.

Why do you keep saying it will have 30 trains an hour. There are no high speed train lines that exceed 14 trains an hour. They are being ambitious by saying they plan to squeeze 18 an hour down the line. This is not a metro!

 

[tbtc]

It would also help if anyone who is against HS2 could come up with alternatives. I am not mad keen on it myself, but I accept that we need more capacity and it is preferable to build a new, modern line rather than try and continually upgrade traditional lines.

Spouting some of the rubbish that has been quote din the media has done their argument no favours at all.

This is a big flaw.

Easy to complain about the £35bn, but I've not seen any realistic alternative to the general concept of HS2 (aside from some quibbling over the minor details).

Common "complaints":

• HS2 goes too near where I live (impossible to build a line from London to Manchester/Leeds that won't go past some houses)
• HS2 won't help people in Norwich/ Swansea/ Bournemouth etc (HS2 is the next stage of High Speed rail, after HS1 in Kent - it's not going to be the only infrastructure improvement over the next generation - e.g. GWML electrification)
• It should use the Great Central route (and miss out on the busy Birmingham market?)

The money isn't available to spend on other railway projects, so it'd be naive to suggest that the Government would allow this, but even if they did then any improvements elsewhere (Welwyn) would create months of disruption to existing journeys and would only create further bottlenecks further up the line.

 

[HSTEd]

Why do you keep saying it will have 30 trains an hour. There are no high speed train lines that exceed 14 trains an hour. They are being ambitious by saying they plan to squeeze 18 an hour down the line. This is not a metro!

Because that is what the signalling system could allow, this shows that even with "stopping" trains, they would not significantly effect the capacity of the line as the defined headway would come into effect first (3 minutes or whatever).

Moving block allows much madness.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes but their saying the capacity will be 18 WITH moving block.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes but their saying the capacity will be 18 WITH moving block.

This can be attributed to the fact I did my estimates using trains built for insane acceleration performance (Shinkansens) which are also designed for extremely rapid decelleration in an emergency (because of the whole earthquake threat), this means that I could push the margins rather closer.

And timetabling for 18 trains per hour is a lot different from having a physical capacity of 18 trains per hour.

 

[Nym]

Yes but their saying the capacity will be 18 WITH moving block.

Their estimates use the limit of TVM430 Signalling with modifications, not a true dynamic multiblock extented system that could easilly run at 30tph with intercommunication and semi ATO.

 

[Rational Plan]

Their estimates use the limit of TVM430 Signalling with modifications, not a true dynamic multiblock extented system that could easilly run at 30tph with intercommunication and semi ATO.

But no one has proposed such a system. Considering the mess of ertms (or whatever it's called) I don't think anyone is in a hurry. What you going to do ? Give Thales a few billion, and say 'hope for the best'!

I have not read any articles about moving block making that much difference at high speed compared to low speed railways. I'm sure I've read that the latest tech will only add one or two trains an hour on express routes. It makes a bigger difference on slower lines .

Also Shinkansens lines only run with 12 trains an hour.
.

 

[Nym]

But no one has proposed such a system. Considering the mess of ertms (or whatever it's called) I don't think anyone is in a hurry. What you going to do ? Give Thales a few billion, and say 'hope for the best'!

I have not read any articles about moving block making that much difference at high speed compared to low speed railways. I'm sure I've read that the latest tech will only add one or two trains an hour on express routes. It makes a bigger difference on slower lines .

Also Shinkansens lines only run with 12 trains an hour.
.

Sarcasm like that doesn't work on a jack of all trades electrical engineer specialising in embedded software...

Personally, I'd design it myself rather than giving it to Thales thanks very much, about 6 months solid development and I'd have the whole system designed and ready...