High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Geezertronic]

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...!

I think you're missing the point of the previous comment which I believe was aimed at London to Glasgow services only

 

[Nym]

Just read back a few pages, theres a damn good prediction of the provision of Phase I Services over HS2, and Phase II services.

Phase I Sees 9tph up HS2 including services to Chester & Holyhead, Birmingham, Liverpool, Preston, Blackpool, Manchester and Glasgow, possibly Edinburgh
Phase II Sees 10tph up HS2 West for the same destinations. With 4tph up towards Sheffield, 2 continuing to Leeds and 2 continuing to York and onwards to Newcastle or Edinburgh or off HS2 destinations.

 

[sprinterguy]

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...!

It does allow for the reduction in the number of Intercity services out of Euston on the WCML as HS2 will serve the largest of the population centres along the route, which will make up a fair proportion of the passenger journeys on WCML services. Of course there will still be Pendolino services leaving Euston, but they are expected to be fewer in number and that aspect was covered by my post at #834 and I didn't think repeating it was necessary.

And the Holyhead services are expected to be transferred to HS2. According to Greengauge 21 anyway, although it doesn't feature in the DfT released documents.

 

[Nym]

And the Holyhead services are expected to be transferred to HS2.

Since it to be expected that HS2 CC Stock will be able to be hauled by a locomotive and driven from either end.

One could then argue that HS2 will bring London direct services to the provinces that haven't seen them for a long time. (Blackburn, Barrow etc.)

 

[Stats]

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...!

Agreed but you do remove the need for limited stop services that currently exist. In my view, Intercity services should be taken over by the London Midland franchise and operate as express regional services, e.g.
Euston - Watford Jnc - MK - Northampton - Rugby - Coventry - Birmingham - with some extending to Wovlerhampton/Shropshire
Euston - MK - Trent Valley - North West

Just read back a few pages, theres a damn good prediction of the provision of Phase I Services over HS2, and Phase II services.

Phase I Sees 9tph up HS2 including services to Chester & Holyhead, Birmingham, Liverpool, Preston, Blackpool, Manchester and Glasgow, possibly Edinburgh
Phase II Sees 10tph up HS2 West for the same destinations. With 4tph up towards Sheffield, 2 continuing to Leeds and 2 continuing to York and onwards to Newcastle or Edinburgh or off HS2 destinations.

The Economic case is based on
Phase I:
3 tph (4tph in peaks) Euston - OOC - B'ham Interchange - B'ham Curzon St
1 tph Euston - Stafford - Crewe - Runcorn - Liverpool
1 tph Euston - Warrington (?) - Liverpool
2 tph Euston - Warrington - Wigan - Preston (1 extends to Glasgow)
3 tph Euston - Stockport - Manchester (1 also stops at Wilmslow)

Phase II:
2 tph Euston - OOC - Stafford/Crewe - Runcorn - Liverpool
1 tph Euston - OOC - Preston - Glasgow/Edinburgh
1 tph Euston - OOC - Glasgow/Edinburgh
3 tph Euston - OOC - Birmingham stations
3 tph Euston - OOC - Manchester (1 non-stop from Old Oak Common - Manchester Piccadilly, 1 calling at Birmingham Interchange)
1 tph Heathrow - Birmingham I - Manchester stations
2 tph Birmingham - Manchester stations
1 tph Birmingham - Glasgow stopping all stations on WCML north of Manchester
1 tph Heathrow - East Midlands - South Yorks - Leeds
3 tph Euston - OOC - Birm'ham I/East Midlands - South Yorks - Leeds
2 tph Euston - OOC - York/Darlington - Newcastle
2 tph B'ham Curzon - East Midlands - South Yorks - Leeds
1 tph B'ham Curzon - East Midlands - South Yorks - York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle

 

[Nym]

Just because the economic case is based on that doesn't mean that's what will happen, and I've only specced services off Euston, and my diagramming uses splitting services.

That in phase II will divide at Sheffield (2tph), Manchester West Parkway(3tph) and Crewe(1tph), with 3tph Brum, 3tph Manc and 2tph Leeds not dividing.

CRE would take services for Preston Semi Fast & Chester, calling
Stafford (Platform extensions), Crewe (Platform Extension) SPLIT
Chester - etc to Holyhead
Warrington BQ - Wigan NW - Leyland - Preston or Warrington BQ - Earlstown - Liverpool or Warrington BQ - Earlstown - Newton - Manchester Victoria - Huddersfeild.

Manchester West Parkway taking:

3tph Liverpool L St
Splits with
1tph Blackpool North via Preston
1tph Glasgow Central via Preston
1tph Somewhere else via Preston, Manchester Victoria etc.

Similar deal at Sheffo.

Heathrow services for the NW splitting at Manchester South Parkway for Manchester and Somwhere else, either Liverpool or Preston
Heathrow from NE running from Newcastle and joining a service at either Sheffeild from Leeds or Birmingham S Parkway from Birmingham onto Heathrow.

International paths run from Manchester Baring Street, Leeds, and Birmingham CZS, captive network only.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

Air Travel is a surprisingly small industry compared to the capacity of this route.

1300 seats an hour from one train is a lot.
Thats going on 20800 people per day, which is 7.6 million people per year in each direction, which translates to 15.2 million travellers total. (That is approaching the same total number of travellers that used the entire St Pancras complex last year)

One double deck running to Paris and Koln (combining 2 200m DD segments from Leeds and Manchester at Birmingham Int. and splitting them again at Lille) per hour is probably ample, with which component goes where alternating to give 1tp2h single seat service from each destination to each leg of HS2 is easily sufficient to be going on with.


Frankly I think Heathrow needs 2tph tops.
One tph Birmingham and then One tph Leeds/Manchester which splits at Birmingham Int.
If the Birmingham train is formed of three six coach CC components they could serve many other places you can think of.

 

[jon0844]

At least with the trains, you're pretty likely to be assured a service for a long time - and a regular service pattern that won't change because an airline decides to ditch a route for a more profitable one, or mess around with the timetables etc.

It's fine to have a low cost airline serving you, but what happens when they change or disappear? Nobody puts pressure on the airlines to run any particular route. Air travel for short haul is therefore not as sustainable as rail.

 

[johnb]

CRE would take services for Preston Semi Fast & Chester, calling
Stafford (Platform extensions), Crewe (Platform Extension) SPLIT
Chester - etc to Holyhead

Are you expecting electrification from Chester to Holyhead, or diesel locos hauling HS2 stock beyond Chester? Because I'll merrily eat my hat collection if either of those comes to pass.

 

[Trog]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero
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?

No its because they will be starting from Gtetna Geen.

 

[Zoe]

The M74 and A74(M) reached Gretna from Glasgow long before the last section of M6 was built from Carlisle to Gretna.

 

[Trog]

It'll be interesting to see what happens to LHR at that point.

A GWR working timetable that fell through a worm hole in space from the future. Mentions the yard there being used to sort traffic out for the new high speed M1 and M4 freight lines to the north and west.

 

[Stats]

Just because the economic case is based on that doesn't mean that's what will happen,[snip]and my diagramming uses splitting services.

Very true. HS2 is still a long way off and as Network Rail do more modelling the proposal may well be refined. Political pressure (regional lobbying) may also have a bearing on what services are delivered. However, I think the economic case is more probable then your suggestion. You will only get the benefits of HS with high frequency services to each destination. With such a high frequency you need to keep the network as constrainted as possible otherwise a small delay off the network could cause huge delays for the whole network. Splitting on a HS line is ludicrous, especially with such a high frequency as is being planned. The whole point is about quick point to point journeys. Waiting around in a station for 10+ minutes waiting for the connecting trains to arrive at the station and to be joined together is not going to appeal to anyone and will drastically weaken the benefits of the line.

Are you expecting electrification from Chester to Holyhead, or diesel locos hauling HS2 stock beyond Chester? Because I'll merrily eat my hat collection if either of those comes to pass.

Exactly.

 

[YorkshireBear]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...peed_rail_station_campaign_launched_1_4184291

NYM
Sheffield council seem to think your idea would be the better one. You should write to them and explain your proposal!

 

[HSTEd]

Very true. HS2 is still a long way off and as Network Rail do more modelling the proposal may well be refined. Political pressure (regional lobbying) may also have a bearing on what services are delivered. However, I think the economic case is more probable then your suggestion. You will only get the benefits of HS with high frequency services to each destination. With such a high frequency you need to keep the network as constrainted as possible otherwise a small delay off the network could cause huge delays for the whole network. Splitting on a HS line is ludicrous, especially with such a high frequency as is being planned. The whole point is about quick point to point journeys. Waiting around in a station for 10+ minutes waiting for the connecting trains to arrive at the station and to be joined together is not going to appeal to anyone and will drastically weaken the benefits of the line.

Exactly.

Splitting the International Services at Birmingham Int. for runs to Manchester and Leeds makes sense however, as over a 3hr30-4h00 a few minutes to split trains is not that much, especially not in an area which would presumably have platforms set aside.
It also makes far more efficient use of paths, which are the expensive thing to provide.

Additionally splitting the classic compatible services is important for the same reason, unless you want to squander paths running 6-8 coach single deck trains on the line independently which is silly.
And remember it is capacity that is important, not neccesarily getting to London five minutes faster, especially for the CC services which may go to places where the direct train, if one even exists, takes longer than you would find on the current "core" main lines.

 

[amcluesent]

High speed rail link 'at risk of derailment' because of 225mph trains

Secret research has been ordered into the safety of the Government's controversial HS2 rail scheme amid warnings that the high speeds proposed could cause catastrophic track failures and derailments.

Emails released under the Freedom of Information Act show that Andy Went, HS2's head of track, now a senior engineer at Network Rail responsible for HS2, is closely involved in the research.

HS2 claims it will be able to run up to 18 trains an hour – one every three minutes 20 seconds - along the core route, more than on any other such high-speed line in the world.

If the trains had to be slower, frequencies would have to be reduced, putting at risk the promised service to many destinations.
Running at the industry standard of 186mph would cut the £34 billion scheme's already shrinking benefit-cost ratio by 15 per cent.

 

[WatcherZero]

Trains have already been run at those speeds, basic research identifying a potential problem and the degree of engineering recitification required. There will be dozens of reserach products studying different aspects of rail technology underway to inform final specification of materials and structures.

 

[exile]

Ludicrous. High Speed Trains on dedicated track have proved to be far safer that conventional trains due to the lack of conflicting movements, level crossings and the like.

NB I'm not convinced by the case for HS2 but to try to torpedo it on "safety" grounds is nonsense. Cost and environmental factors are the strongest arguments against.

 

[Nym]

OK, bringing the science to the matter, if the're worried about the natural frequency of the rails causing problems, increase the stiffness of the rails and therefore their natural frequency. Simples!

As usual one of these wonderful 'peer reviewed articles' is utter crap for the most part and this has been blown out of proportion by an ill informed news reporter.

They have already mentioned the likes of making the ground stiffer to prevent the natural frequency being reached (this already happens on many parts of the network when you hear rails twanging with a HS train passing over it) one may also make use of sacrifical dampers in exteme circumstances to increase the relative stiffness of the rails to the ground by reducing the force transmissability at the natural frequencies, moving these frequencies elsewhere.

 

[swt_passenger]

Most of Southampton University's 'secret' rail research is described on their website. McNaughton of HS2 Ltd is one of their 'visiting professors'.

Gilligan is just continuing his blatant attempts to damage the project, presumably as required by his editor...

 

[NSEFAN]

I think someone should point out this video to Mr Gilligan.

If a TGV can run at 360mph for a short period, it must be possible to run at a "slow" 225mph on a regular basis.

 

[HSTEd]

Also, why would frequencies have to be reduced if the trains were to run slower.....

The stopping distances, and thus spacings, could be shorter, although they could be far shorter now....

EDIT:

The proposed central sheffield approach prevents through running at 360kph, at which point my proposals to put an underground station in Nottingham suddenly don't seem so extreme if they are willing to sacrifice the performance to that degree.

 

[Nym]

Where is the propsed central sheffeild approach documented?

 

[HSTEd]

Where is the propsed central sheffeild approach documented?

I meant the one you suggested, which is the only that makes any sense for the Sheffield Victoria site.

 

[Nym]

Ahhh, thanks

Well, I can't see any other land that you can draw a straight(ish) line through sheffeild with and fit 400m platforms in other than Nunnery Square, but as you know, I'd favour an HS2, Supertram and NR interchange station at Nunnery Square and an NR station at Victoria. With the route to penistone re-opened as part of a local hardship mitigation scheme, and then some pressure taken off Sheffeild Midland with services from Rotherham, Penistone and Lincoln using Nunnery Square and Victoria. Woodborn road would proberbly need diverting to create enough space for a big enough station, 4 high speed platforms, 2 supertram, and up to 6 NR, but it would proberbly need a two level station to acheive this without having silly gradients on one side for the HS lines to grade seperate from the NR ones. The space under the HS station being used for car parking off Sheffeild Parkway. Nunnery Depot would just have to move somwhere else, Meadowhall perhaps...

Either way, I'd have NR and HS services running there, some NR services terminating, some running through to Midland and some running through to Penistone (local hardship mitigation, we're running a line through here, so we'll give you some stations on your own line to make up for it) Stations at Victoria (if we can find space with 2 track W10 and 2 track UIC GC too, might need to level the Hilton), Possibly Rutland Road, Herries Road for Hillsbrough Stadium, Halifax Road, Oughtbrigdge (with microrider bus link), Stocksbridge (Inital Terminus), and possibly close the gap to Penistone.

In the other direction, logic dictates the services that will run through Nunnery Sq, and any additionals such as to bring Rotherham's service frequency up significantly will terminate there due to lack of space at Midland. (Or run through to Victoria and Stocksbridge)

 

[Chris125]

Andrew Gilligan plumbing new depths i see...

Chris

 

[jon0844]

Gilligan is just continuing his blatant attempts to damage the project, presumably as required by his editor...

I knew it would be the Telegraph even before I moved the mouse over the hyperlink. It couldn't be anything, or indeed anyone, else.

 

[HSTEd]

On a peripherally related note, are we likely to see a new TOPS group being opened up for the captive high speed multiple units? Perhaps Cl6xx?
The captive nature of the trains would make the different number useful to distinguish them from Cl373 or Cl395 units.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Oh Nym Not sure if i mentioned this. But sheffield council are goign to compaign for the station to do what you wanted to do as they believe it should serve the city centre. So get a word in

 

[Nym]

email Sheffeild City Council and demand a job from them saying t'was my idea, and do a full analysis for them?