High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Go straight north from Leeds. If it's not worth the tiny diversion to serve Heathrow (apparently), and not worth going into central Sheffield (etc) then it's really not worth going out of the way to serve York...

Yes, because avoiding plowing straight through the middle of a national park is a pointless diversion?
If you want to avoid plowing through some sort of national park or AONB of some sort the only viable route is via York.
The terrain is easy, the land is cheap and so on.

But the route planning on this project has been completely nonsensical so far.

Also the Chilterns Tunnel will be 320kph will it not?

EDIT:

This timetable for the Sanyo-Tokaido Shinkansen shows that a N700 formed service completes the 67.2km between Kokura and Hakata(Fukuoka) in 18 minutes, and that is on a line with a top speed of only ~300kph.
This is roughly equivalent to the distance between central Edinburgh and Glasgow, and it appears that apart from the parts on the ends the railway would not have to be underground.

 

[Nym]

Sheffeild... Easy...

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=208537899835423960920.0004b6e76f98c8b416aec

 

[HSTEd]

Sheffeild... Easy...

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=208537899835423960920.0004b6e76f98c8b416aec

I considered that route when I did my "West Midlands Shinkansen" proposal but I thought the southern approach looks a little too bendy for through running at 320kph (which is what I was aiming for to get rid of this nonsense about slowing down for stations). Thats why I settled on the Meadowhall approach (thanks to its good transport links to Sheffield proper).

 

[Nym]

But for adding another 3 or 4mins by having the bendy bits in the braking and accelaration zones for Sheffeild Station, will only slow it down to about 250km/h and if most services are calling at Sheffo, I'd say the benifts of cutting Sheffeild C - London down by 1hr is much higher than adding 3 - 5mins onto Leeds & York.

And as soon as you get outside of Sheffeild Parkway you can wind out the curves as much as you want, provided you can slot between the villages, then pretty much follow the M1.

 

[HSTEd]

But for adding another 3 or 4mins by having the bendy bits in the braking and accelaration zones for Sheffeild Station, will only slow it down to about 250km/h and if most services are calling at Sheffo, I'd say the benifts of cutting Sheffeild C - London down by 1hr is much higher than adding 3 - 5mins onto Leeds & York.

And as soon as you get outside of Sheffeild Parkway you can wind out the curves as much as you want, provided you can slot between the villages, then pretty much follow the M1.

I was actually considering only a fraction of trains stopping at sheffield as part of my 2tph "all shacks" plan, which was still going to cut 40min off sheffield even with trains that stopped at Birmingham Int., EMA, Nottingham and Sheffield.

If you did go to Meadowhall you could always run an EMU shuttle timed to connect with the High Speed services, or put in some sort of turn-up-and-go people moving thing.

Oh and I worked it out using that tiemtable to get rough estimates, my proposed route to Glasgow comes out at ~750km which translates to roughly 3hr25 with five intermediate stops (Nottingham or Sheffield, Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh?).
Fast enough to thrash the airlines, and the major airline market is actually Edinburgh.

EDIT: Someone want to critique my approach for York?

Come in using the north side of the current ECML approach to York station, using what looks to be semi abandoned railway land for the second half of it, then go up on a viaduct over the avoiding lines, have a station on the viaduct over the current NRM carpark, then exit via the branch line alignment to Scunthorpe.

 

[Nym]

But most Sheffeildiens would see this as a pain to get to, hence why I'm looking at Nunnery Square, nice and close to Sheffeild Midland, and other services from three routes can run into it.

 

[Mike C]

That they hold a good working knowledge of all aspects concerning their project or thread of conversation so are in effect the only people who can actually make a good judgement regarding a practical method of operation?

No offence, but in my experience, they *think* they hold a good working knowlege and balanced view, hence entitling them to *think* they know better than others around them, when in reality, the best way forward is to play your strength when it is needed and allow others to do likewise in a balanced manner. You will find the best solution will exist this way.

It's the "Jack of all trades" that I find cause the biggest problems in a professional environment, making assumptions and filling in gaps where they *think* they understand something better than everyone or anyone else around them.

Like I said though - don't take it personally, I don't know you, but this is my take on the subject.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No offence, but in my experience, they *think* they hold a good working knowlege and balanced view, hence entitling them to *think* they know better than others around them, when in reality, the best way forward is to play your strength when it is needed and allow others to do likewise in a balanced manner. You will find the best solution will exist this way.

It's the "Jack of all trades" that I find cause the biggest problems in a professional environment, making assumptions and filling in gaps where they *think* they understand something better than everyone or anyone else around them.

Like I said though - don't take it personally, I don't know you, but this is my take on the subject.

You say dont take it personally. But we all know where the jack of all trades statement was leading to 'master of none' which to me is a personal insult. Even though you didnt say it. And as nym says, saying no offence at the start of an offence doesnt make it not offensive....

This is a discussion about HS2 lets not turn it into insulting people or even professions. Come on....

 

[Nym]

No offence, but in my experience, they *think* they hold a good working knowlege and balanced view, hence entitling them to *think* they know better than others around them, when in reality, the best way forward is to play your strength when it is needed and allow others to do likewise in a balanced manner. You will find the best solution will exist this way.

It's the "Jack of all trades" that I find cause the biggest problems in a professional environment, making assumptions and filling in gaps where they *think* they understand something better than everyone or anyone else around them.

Like I said though - don't take it personally, I don't know you, but this is my take on the subject.

Try again...

You try and say you're not being offensive, yet it is being very offensive to anyone who doesn't specialise in one thing.

And having dealt with a number of specialists and experts, they tend to not have a clue about anything except their own specific field, an example being semiconductor substrate designers for power systems, there's only three in the whole country, but have very little clue as to how to implement anything about their components.

 

[Mike C]

And having dealt with a number of specialists and experts, they tend to not have a clue about anything except their own specific field, an example being semiconductor substrate designers for power systems, there's only three in the whole country, but have very little clue as to how to implement anything about their components.

I couldn't agree more. Both extremes have problems. It's often our job to bridge that gap.

Back to HS2 though - Am I correct in thinking the rolling stock depot proposed is going to be at Washwood Heath?

 

[HSTEd]

In science "jack of all trades" get a title of there own.

A "synthesist" as they help bring information to the attention of specialists who would never stumble on it otherwise which would otherwise be useful, and they can keep up with the specialist in many fields even if they can't stay ahead of them. If you know what I mean.

Anyway, back to HS2....

 

[JohnCarlson]

Yes, because avoiding plowing straight through the middle of a national park is a pointless diversion?
If you want to avoid plowing through some sort of national park or AONB of some sort the only viable route is via York.
The terrain is easy, the land is cheap and so on.

But the route planning on this project has been completely nonsensical so far.

Also the Chilterns Tunnel will be 320kph will it not?

EDIT:

This timetable for the Sanyo-Tokaido Shinkansen shows that a N700 formed service completes the 67.2km between Kokura and Hakata(Fukuoka) in 18 minutes, and that is on a line with a top speed of only ~300kph.
This is roughly equivalent to the distance between central Edinburgh and Glasgow, and it appears that apart from the parts on the ends the railway would not have to be underground.

I live in Newcastle and if someone is seriously going to build a high speed line from the city center all the way to Birmingham and London that's great.

However I believe the plan is for 8tph on the Birmingham Leeds section of which some would terminate at Leeds or go to places that are not Newcastle. If we are talking about 4tph for Scotland on the east coast I just cant see us getting a full on high speed route.

 

[Metroland]

But you do get reduced journey times, especially to the Midlands...(not saying you don't recognise this, but the benefits tend to be wider than 'businessmen save a few mins between London - Birmingham' which is often trotted out by the antis to deliberately mis-sell the project)

Others say it won't benefit commuter trains, but one of the latest reports says it will.

PASSENGERS on the West Coast Main Line, one of the busiest rail routes in Europe, could benefit from faster, more frequent trains, less crowding and better connections if the first phase of the proposed High Speed line between London and Birmingham goes ahead as planned, according to a new report from Network Rail and watchdog Passenger Focus.

The report says one of the biggest groups to benefit would be commuters travelling between Northampton, Milton Keynes, Watford and London, where the worst overcrowding is forecast in the coming years as demand for rail continues to grow. Initial analysis suggests up twelve trains an hour could operate on this important outer suburban route.

Other key beneficiaries would be passengers travelling between the major towns and cities of the West Midlands, and also between London and destinations in the Trent Valley. There are also likely to be opportunities to improve connectivity between the south end of the route and towns and cities further the north as well as more room for goods to be moved by rail.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2012/01/20-report-confirms-benefits-of-hs2.html

 

[WatcherZero]

I couldn't agree more. Both extremes have problems. It's often our job to bridge that gap.

Back to HS2 though - Am I correct in thinking the rolling stock depot proposed is going to be at Washwood Heath?

Washwood Heath Depot
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05304issue2.pdf

Calvert (Buckinghamshire) Infrastructure Maintenence Depot
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05302issue2.pdf

 

[RichW1]

I'm all for HS2 but I will predict this....

They will regret building so much to a 2 track spec. Even with longer trains, is anyone seriously suggesting all major city traffic can be removed from the West Coast, Midland and East Coast lines on to HS2? Even with longer trains and 3-5 minute headways you're talking about a population belt in 2011 of around 30million people and more and god knows what it will be by 2026 and 2032 repectively.

Yet already capacity is constrained on the Paris - Lyon route and France wouldn't know what a big metropolitan area is outside Paris. So, we want to build the same 2 track section albeit with bigger clearances for higher speeds and swallow at least 13-15 times the traffic volume on the southern end of the HS2 route? Sorry to be so down on this but this seems a step too far for 2 tracks to me; swallowing 3 main lines major cities on to just 2 tracks.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm all for HS2 but I will predict this....

They will regret building so much to a 2 track spec. Even with longer trains, is anyone seriously suggesting all major city traffic can be removed from the West Coast, Midland and East Coast lines on to HS2? Even with longer trains and 3-5 minute headways you're talking about a population belt in 2011 of around 30million people and more and god knows what it will be by 2026 and 2032 repectively.

Yet already capacity is constrained on the Paris - Lyon route and France wouldn't know what a big metropolitan area is outside Paris. So, we want to build the same 2 track section albeit with bigger clearances for higher speeds and swallow at least 13-15 times the traffic volume on the southern end of the HS2 route? Sorry to be so down on this but this seems a step too far for 2 tracks to me; swallowing 3 main lines major cities on to just 2 tracks.

Conventional trains don't get 1300 seats (400m double deck set).
We are potentially looking at the equivalent of three two track mainlines.
And mainlines where the slowest trains will be doing 180mph (atleast) so the paths are far more efficiently used.

 

[RichW1]

Conventional trains don't get 1300 seats (400m double deck set).
We are potentially looking at the equivalent of three two track mainlines.
And mainlines where the slowest trains will be doing 180mph (atleast) so the paths are far more efficiently used.

I bow to your thoughts dear HSTEd and cross my fingers and hope it will be more than enough to cope. After I wrote it I thought about the Shinkansen that already swallows such a population belt and then some.

 

[Nym]

Will be 18tph paths available in the core;

Down to Euston...

Birmingham will use up 3tph
Stuff on the Northern WCML will use 7tph (by my check, with massive increase in service provisions, 1tph Chester, 3tph Liverpool, 3tph Preston & Beyond, 3tph Manchester, 1tph Bradford and/or Huddersfield via Manchetser, Manchester using 400m units, Liverpool & Preston using 200m units splitting at Manchester West Parkway and Chester running via Rugley & Crewe)
If one provides 4tph on the traditional ECML path via Sheffeild, with the ability to split services at Sheffeild (If we go with the Nunnery Square Plan) one will be able to have 2tph to Leeds as double decker 400m units, with the other 2tph running as classic compatible and splitting at Sheffeild or York. With one part of these 2tph serving the ECML north of York, and the other part of these serving routes on 'spokes' from Sheffeild.

Still leaves 4tph spare for international and Heathrow / Gatwick services. And will keep 2tph to Sheffeild, 2tph to Leeds, 2tph Fast to York, and serve more off route destinations.

 

[Chris125]

By concentrating on Intercity travel, using dedicated lines down and into the capital, and making use of 400m double deck trains the HS2 network has more potential capacity than Paris-Lyon for example - i really dont think capacity is a big issue.

That said, if it did become one there are plenty of options available to increase it - for example you could probably justify extending the y-network to cities like Liverpool and Newcastle and even Glasgow, reducing the need for single deck classic compatible trains while spreading the benefits to an even wider area.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

I have my doubts about whether HS2 in its current form would ever be full, especially as you are unlikely to be able to find demand for more than hourly International or Heathrow trains.

 

[johnb]

HSTEd: at the point where oil scarcity has made short-haul air travel economically unviable where there are alternatives (which is likely to be in 20ish years' time, ie not long after phase I of HS2 opens), there'll be more than hourly demand for international trains. It'll be interesting to see what happens to LHR at that point.

 

[Metroland]

Keith Brown, the Transport Minister, revealed that HS2, the company set up by the Department of Transport to draw up feasibility plans for high-speed rail south of the Border, has now been asked to examine proposals to extend services to Scotland.

Brown says the link to Scotland "will happen" and has the potential to be up and running before the London-Birmingham link.

Two years ago, Network Rail estimated that journey times from London to Glasgow could be more than halved to little more than two hours with a new high-speed link.

Less than two weeks ago, phase one of the £33 billion high-speed rail network connecting London and Birmingham was given the go-ahead by the Government and should be running by 2026.

UK Transport Secretary Justine Greening – who has called the line "the most significant transport infrastructure project since the building of the motorways" – said a second phase would reach Manchester and Leeds by about 2033. A consultation on the second phase will be launched in 2014.

The first phase will shave half an hour off journeys between London and both Glasgow and Edinburgh, which currently take about four hours and 30 minutes. The second phase will save a further half-hour

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...speed-rail-link-to-scotland-drawn-up.16544594

 

[ValleyLines142]

It isn't, but London to Glasgow trains, and London to Liverpool trains, will use HS2 Stage 1 as far as Lichfield. I think it is also the intention for Glasgow trains to be able to use the Manchester leg of HS2 Stage 2 thanks to a spur connecting back onto the WCML in the vicinity of Wigan.

Clearly the current journey times from London to Liverpool/Glasgow isn't good enough if HS2 is set to reach that stage (as far as Lichfield as you mention)?

However, something has to be done to aid the capacity constraints on the southern WCML - it can't cope with anymore growth.

I see. I wonder how HS2 will help this though?

 

[sprinterguy]

I see. I wonder how HS2 will help this though?

Because HS2 will remove the long distance journeys between major cities from the WCML allowing the number of faster Pendolino services out of Euston to be reduced and for more regular stops to be added to the remaining services. This will also mean that there will be more paths for additional regional Desiro services. It's a pretty big part of the whole reason for HS2.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Because HS2 will remove the long distance journeys between major cities from the WCML allowing the number of faster Pendolino services out of Euston to be reduced and for more regular stops to be added to the remaining services. This will also mean that there will be more paths for additional regional Desiro services. It's a pretty big part of the whole reason for HS2.

Ah I get you. I don't know much about it really so wasn't sure. As long as people get from A to B and that there is a good frequency and capacity then I'm all for it.

 

[sprinterguy]

Clearly the current journey times from London to Liverpool/Glasgow isn't good enough if HS2 is set to reach that stage (as far as Lichfield as you mention)?

All the Euston Pendolino departures each hour that operate at present are essentially going to be moved to HS2 as soon as it opens.

 

[ValleyLines142]

All the Euston Pendolino departures each hour that operate at present are essentially going to be moved to HS2 as soon as it opens.

Right

 

[WatcherZero]

Scottish Transport Minister Keith Brown claims that a Scottish HS2 connection could reach England before the London-Birmingham phase one was completed.

 

[Geezertronic]

Scottish Transport Minister Keith Brown claims that a Scottish HS2 connection could reach England before the London-Birmingham phase one was completed.

That's what MetroLand linked to above, why would that be though? Less NIMBYs?

 

[Philip Elliott]

All the Euston Pendolino departures each hour that operate at present are essentially going to be moved to HS2 as soon as it opens.

Not again. HS2 misses most of the key population centres en route therefore not reducing the need for intercity trains out of Euston never mind Holyhead...!