High Speed UK?

[Amy Worrall]

I've just become aware of the High Speed UK project, which is a suggestion of an alternative to HS2. They claim that it will both be cheaper an also connect more cities.

Map of the route:
http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/routediagrams.html

Their claimed advantages over HS2:
http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/hsukbenefits.html

We believe that the UK should have the best possible transport system, with new high speed railways at its core. High Speed UK offers the following benefits:

• All 9 primary cities of the Midlands, the North and Scotland directly interconnected by high speed trains running at hourly (or better) frequency.
• Direct hourly high speed services to Heathrow from all 9 primary cities of the Midlands, the North and Scotland.
• Many other regional cities (Bristol, Southampton, Reading, Oxford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Leicester, Derby, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Warrington) directly connected to all 9 primary cities.

• Intercity journey times reduced by average 40% across entire intercity network of the Midlands, the North and Scotland (whereas HS2 might manage 5%).
• Journey times to London equivalent to those of HS2.
• Step-change capacity enhancement on all main line corridors (except Great Western).
• 4 new tracks on critical London-Leicester section.
• Full interconnectivity between local and national high speed network.

• Easy access to HS1, achieved at minimal cost.
• High speed services accessing all existing intercity hubs – no new termini or parkway stations.
• Major regional growth generated through improved regional connectivity.
• Environmental damage minimised through following existing transport corridors.

• Step-change road-to-rail modal shift enabling potential 600Mt reduced CO2 emissions over 40 years, in broad compliance with targets of 2008 Climate Change Act (whereas HS2 will be no better than ‘carbon neutral’).

• Capital cost circa 25% less than HS2.
• As for profitability of the new High Speed UK network... not easy to estimate, but our fully integrated system beats both the existing railway and HS2 for operational efficiency, by an order of magnitude. This can only indicate more economic and profitable operation.

Can anyone tell me what the catch is?

Amy

 

[gordonthemoron]

it's too bendy to achieve the speeds of HS2 and would cost a lot more than HS2

 

[HSTEd]

How are they costing less?
There is an order of magnitude more trackwork here....

 

[higthomas]

Also seems to include proposals to send high-speed trains to many places off the network that won't really be compatible with running 3 tph to places like Birmingham and Manchester unless they are very infrequent, which won't really help anybody.

 

[HSTEd]

Well they are claiming a four track spine so that gives them 36 trains per hour to play with.

 

[pablo]

A vast integrated scheme; not comparable with HS2 Ltd's. Very good blueprint fo the next 100 years.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Any alternative schemes have the advantage of being mired in uncertainty as there is no need to worry about the actual specifics of cost and effect upon other things. If someone spent tens of millions of pounds on creating a >150,000 page environmental statement for HSUK a very different picture would emerge and the scheme would likely be killed stone dead. The cost of disruption to the existing rail and motorway network during construction would be spectacular and far higher than HS2 and this could easily nullify any cost savings from the different route or specification.

 

[Haydn1971]

How are they costing less?
There is an order of magnitude more trackwork here....

It's built on fairy dust !

As mentioned upthread, HS2 has a greater degree of confidence built in through the vast amounts already invested in route analysis, costings, environmental statements - we all may have reservations about parts of the scheme, but one thing is sure, it's had a serious amount of professional consideration invested so far, unlike all of the alternatives being put forward by these local interest groups

 

[LexyBoy]

A lot of work has gone in to this certainly. I must say that the Leeds-Liverpool spur does look attractive in the light of criticism of HS2 for not improving connectivity in the north.

Not sure how it's "10% less route length" than HS2 when the map has it going to Glasgow!

How are they costing less?
There is an order of magnitude more trackwork here....

The picture accompanying this question on the FAQ gives a clue

 

[HSTEd]

In other words - because they still believe the nonsense that upgrades are cheap?

 

[Deerfold]

Wow. They've managed to include Bradford Crossrail (and an additional Bradford Central station). Much as I'd like to see that, that won't come cheap.

Looking at their connection to HS1 it's via existing lines. That sugests they're planning a much thinner railway than HS2 - this will cut costs but will also cut capacity and comfort.

 

[Amy Worrall]

Wow. They've managed to include Bradford Crossrail (and an additional Bradford Central station). Much as I'd like to see that, that won't come cheap.

They've got the Woodhead Tunnel in there too

 

[macka]

Reuse of the GCR alignment in several places like between Leicester and Rugby, too. This is basically what an enthusiast's ideal railway looks like, with the usual disregard of the realities facing the railway network today!

Notice how much of the west coast is left out, except for Manchester and Birmingham on spurs? This is despite the WCML being far more busy than the ECML and the MML.

 

[po8crg]

I've commented several times that the three key links in the English HS network are Birmingham-Manchester, Birmingham-Leeds and Leeds-Manchester. On which basis, HS2 gets 2/3 and HSUK gets 1/3 (Leeds-Manchester).

The excellent northbound connections from Birmingham that are key to HS2 are completely absent from HSUK, which is a much more London-centred plan.

 

[philjo]

The link on map T01 shows a proposed line from Radlett on MML to Hatfield on ECML which would be useful (also for Thameslink but unfortunately does not help for access to St albans from north Herts) but there is no mention about widening/bypassing Welwyn so I can't see how they would get the trains over the viaduct (given that Thameslink services will also be increasing the number of trains per hour)
It would be better to link Luton-airport-Stevenage as part of East-west as that would then be north of Welwyn (& at least 1 Thameslink per hour can go that way calling at St Albans.

I see the connection to HS1 proposes using existing tracks on NNL or MML (both of which are very busy !)

 

[asylumxl]

I've commented several times that the three key links in the English HS network are Birmingham-Manchester, Birmingham-Leeds and Leeds-Manchester. On which basis, HS2 gets 2/3 and HSUK gets 1/3 (Leeds-Manchester).

The excellent northbound connections from Birmingham that are key to HS2 are completely absent from HSUK, which is a much more London-centred plan.

And there was me thinking HS2 linked to London somewhere...

 

[LesF]

I'm catching up with this thread.
Amy Worrall, the catch is that the civil servants who dreamed up HS2 didn't think of HSUK so, being committed to their plan, they can't admit that HSUK is better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Gordonthemoron, HSUK is designed by an experienced rail engineer to run at 360km/h, same as HS2's running speed. I've been privy to drawings at 1:25000 showing the alignment, including transitions, that prove it works. Journey times from London to most cities are less than HS2 because it doesn't do a railtour of London via Old Oak Common before striking northwards. I'd prefer to reduce the design speed to 320km/h, as HS1, to reduce the cost, disruption and noise, but for the time being it's 360km/h in order to compete head on with HS2.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Old Oak Common ain't that far from the current WCML so hardly a detour

 

[LesF]

HSTed, Lexyboy, the route mileage of HSUK is less because it doesn't try to go both sides of the Pennines like HS2. The track mileage will be more due to having 4 tracks Euston-Leicester. The mileages are measured to Glasgow/Edinburgh as that is the goal.
Costs are less by having much less tunnel and using mainly existing city-centre stations. Tunnels form 12% of the construction cost of HS2, stations another 11% for the full Y. The west coast route to Scotland favoured by HS2 would mean some horrendous tunnels while HSUK uses the flatter route east of the Pennines.
higthomas, trains will not be sent off the network. HSUK IS a network where there will be 11 times as many town-town connections as with HS2. HS2 plan to run separate services London-B'ham, London-Manch, London-Sheff, London-Leeds, etc. That's horribly inefficient. HSUK connects cities in strings, increasing connectivity and giving more journey opportunities that will fill the trains and justify more frequent services.
Route analysis: it's obvious HS2 picked a route then sought to justify it, misrepresenting alternatives in order to discredit them. For example, they claim a 16 mile tunnel would be needed between OO Common and Luton. There's no need to drag all HS services through OOC. They assume that an east-of-Pennine route would have to go via Carstairs then swing back east to Edinburgh. HSUK has a sensible direct route Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow that also links those cites at high speed.
If you study HSUK with an open mind you are bound to find how superior it is. It would be madness to build the shockingly inadequate HS2. Credit is due to the civil service for their skill in hoodwinking parliament to back it. Civil servants let the government down over the WCML franchise, and they've let them down on a vastly bigger scale with HS2. It's a tragedy it's taking so long for the country to twig it.

 

[HSTEd]

Without OOC, how many billions would have to be expended building additional tube and local rail infrastructure into Euston?

4 tracking High Speed rail is pointless - in fact its worse than pointless, its a terrible idea.
There is a reason noone else has done this and where traffic has exceeded the capacity of a single route discussions have focussed on a new route.

Two twin track routes via separate alignments allow for different station options that would not be feasible with a four track route.

ALSO:
This proposal appears to say there will be no expansion of Euston.... how will it provide huge numbers of 400m platforms in that case without massive reconstruction that makes Double Deck Up look simple? Without masses of full TSI length platforms it cannot hope to handle the passenger loadings.

 

[gordonthemoron]

it's a troll

 

[LexyBoy]

HSTed, Lexyboy, the route mileage of HSUK is less because it doesn't try to go both sides of the Pennines like HS2.

London-Glasgow is roughly 430 miles. HS2 is 330 miles in total...

The basic route looks good to me (as someone with a casual interest, not an expert) but there seem to be many things which haven't been thought of. The odd billion or so to build an extra tunnel, or rebuild a city centre station, would add up quickly I'd think.

 

[Deerfold]

Thanks for replying LesF.

I'm interested to know if you're still including Bradford Crossrail despite a shopping centre going up in the way and how you intend to get any more trains into Leeds station.

Are the trains planned to be conventional UK width? If so there's much lower capacity.
How long are they planned to be?

EDIT: I see from another thread you'e planning on having a combination of widths - I struggle to see how many places the wider trains will fit without huge works disrupting existing lines. Few platforms will currently take 400m long trains too.

 

[joeykins82]

From what I can tell the end game of HSUK's plan is basically the same as HS2 (mix of compatible and captive train sets) but they want a different alignment via Leicester with no West Coast route, and reckon that it's doable within existing city centre stations in Birmingham (New Street), Sheffield and Leeds.

They also want an Outer London interchange at Brent Cross (connections with some Thameslink services maybe) instead of Old Oak Common (connections with Crossrail 1 and probably London Overground).

I can only assume that the people who drew it up and promote it use the southern halves of the MML & ECML regularly and are feeling hard done by.

 

[LesF]

Lots of points to answer.
Deerfold: If the Bradford Westfield shopping centre is built without taking the opportunity of solving Bradford's railway apartheid (no connection between the principle stations) then everyone loses.
New railways will be built to UIC-C gauge to comply with TSI's. Trains running entirely on UIC will be Eurogauge. Trains running any part of their journey on UK gauge will obviously be UK gauge. That's true for any plan - HS2, HSUK or the M40 aligned "Intercity Connect" published by a consortium of companies.
Scotland is included in the plan because it's no use building a bit of railway, then looking at the next stage and saying, "If only we'd thought we wouldn't have built it like that". A national plan is essential. You can vary it as the pattern of demand becomes apparent, but you are bound to get it wrong if you start with half a plan.
LexyBoy: The cost of HSUK was estimated item by item using the costs per item for HS2.
HSTed: the means of dispersal from Euston is by people mover/new tube line to St P and Tottenham Court Rd (Crossrail).
If 4-tracking a HS line is "a terrible idea" why was it proposed by HS2 in their 2010 command paper, then quietly ignored ever since? Perhaps because they knew it would be inadequate with 2 tracks, but then found it wouldn't work with 4? Having committed themselves to HS2 they could hardly say "Oh, dear, we got it all wrong". So they stumble on. 5 years after they were appointed, they have no plan to connect to HS1, they've abandoned 2 plans for Euston, and I don't think they have a firm plan to connect to H'row - it would need separate services and they have no paths to carry them.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Lots of points to answer.
Deerfold: If the Bradford Westfield shopping centre is built without taking the opportunity of solving Bradford's railway apartheid (no connection between the principle stations) then everyone loses.

I believe that it is a terrible shame that the Westfield is being built without provision for Bradford Crossrail - even just building a concrete box in the basement would be enough to guarantee that it can happen in future.

Scotland is included in the plan because it's no use building a bit of railway, then looking at the next stage and saying, "If only we'd thought we wouldn't have built it like that". A national plan is essential. You can vary it as the pattern of demand becomes apparent, but you are bound to get it wrong if you start with half a plan.

The plans from the Scottish Government are now tied to the plans of HS2 Ltd and the DfT. The scope of the entire route will be planned before any detailed design on the E&G HSR line begins as otherwise it would indeed run the risk of being incompatible with future plans. If I had to guess I would say that the entire line north of the Border would be planned as one stage and would be legislated for through a Hybrid Bill in the Scottish Parliament, with the line from Wigan to Carlisle and York to Newcastle done as a Phase 3 bill in Westminster. In such a plan I would then hope that the station works in Carlisle are done simultaneously, through a TWAO, with the Scottish section so that there would be a place to split and join the 400m classic-compatibles going to and from London.

LexyBoy: The cost of HSUK was estimated item by item using the costs per item for HS2.

Reasonable. However, are you applying the same financial accounting to the scheme? Much of the increase in cost seen in recent years is simply extra contingency funding.

HSTed: the means of dispersal from Euston is by people mover/new tube line to St P and Tottenham Court Rd (Crossrail).

You would be loading all those HS2 passengers - luggage, wheelchairs and all - onto the busiest stretch of the whole of Crossrail. At Old Oak Common there will be empty or not-full trains available for the large numbers of passengers switching from HS2 to Crossrail. It is true that the plans for Crossrail 2 would see HS2 passengers loading on in the middle of the line but this is reasonable when each train has had a whole third of its passengers leave already for Crossrail 1 at OOC.

If 4-tracking a HS line is "a terrible idea" why was it proposed by HS2 in their 2010 command paper, then quietly ignored ever since? Perhaps because they knew it would be inadequate with 2 tracks, but then found it wouldn't work with 4? Having committed themselves to HS2 they could hardly say "Oh, dear, we got it all wrong". So they stumble on. 5 years after they were appointed, they have no plan to connect to HS1, they've abandoned 2 plans for Euston, and I don't think they have a firm plan to connect to H'row - it would need separate services and they have no paths to carry them.

HS2 Ltd did no such thing. They said that the optimum solution would be to provide a separate second line from London to the East Midlands, and that they would not recommend passive provision for four-tracking HS2. Try to find a precedent for a four-tracked high speed (dedicated) rail line and you're not going to find any.

Four-tracking HS2
6.1.60 We have considered the possibility of laying four tracks along the HS2 alignment, thereby increasing its long term capacity, to 30+ train paths per hour in each direction, rather than the maximum of 18 we assume for a two track railway. However, for the following reasons we have not pursued this option:
• The level of demand we have assumed – with growth continuing to 2033 and then levelling off – does not appear to support such a substantial increase in capacity. That is not to say that the demand may not materialise at some point after the next 25-30 years. However it does suggest that HS2 would need initially to bear a substantial degree of additional cost and environmental impact on the basis that the demand may materialise. We do not believe this to be a credible position.
• Were a second trunk into London to be justified, there are compelling reasons to believe that its optimal alignment would not follow the same as that of HS2. Firstly, a more easterly leg would enable high speed rail to address a broader market, and bring with it the possibility of further improved journey times to destinations east of the Pennines. Secondly, we believe there is no plausible site for the approximately 20-platform station that would be required to serve a four track high speed railway operating at full capacity, and nor is there a surface alignment into London that could support a four-track HS2. Were HS2 to be four-tracked to a point somewhere
outside London, the second pair of tracks would need to enter London entirely in tunnel and terminate at a different station (although it is worth restating here that our analysis of the possible sites in central London suggests there is no obvious location for a second high speed terminal). A further reason for preferring a second route alignment is the added resilience it would give to a national network.
6.1.61 In short, a decision to four-track HS2 would need to be made against the backdrop of considerable uncertainty about future demand, and when other potentially superior options exist should the demand materialise. For these reasons we have recommended as part of our proposals for HS2 that it remain only a two-track railway. If demand materialises, a second leg could be built from the East Midlands to London.

 

[LesF]

joeykins82, your analysis is fair. The authors of HSUK are Yorkshiremen. They may feel hard done by HS2, but so may the people of Leicester, Coventry, Stoke, Wolverhampton, Derby, Nottingham, Wakefield, Newcastle, and numerous other places that would get no benefit from HS2, including many who would suffer worse services. See highspeeduk.com for an analysis of each city's prospects.
HSTed: I don't have full info on Euston but consider the following: HS2 themselves are struggling with it. The design of the throat seems to be critical. Some commuter services can be rerouted onto Xrail. 3tph can go through Hrow without visiting Euston. Some services can go to/through St P instead of Euston. HS2 are assuming only 2tph at each platform while 3tph should be OK. Extending existing plats to 400m is not a problem. There is room for more plats within Euston (3 I think). I have suggested 2 new plats under Melton St/Cardington St adjacent to Eust. No loss of property and only temporary closure of the street. I'd like to go further (though this is not part of HSUK) and make them through plats with tunnels under the shallow tube line at Euston Rd, running to a terminus under Smithfield Market, adjacent to the new booking hall at Farringdon, the crossroads between Xrail and Thameslink and much more central than Euston. Smithfield is due for major redevelopment and is largely disused.

 

[LexyBoy]

LexyBoy: The cost of HSUK was estimated item by item using the costs per item for HS2.

In addition to the valid contingency point, can you be sure that you have identified all the potential cost "items" that would arise? Do you know, for example, the intricacies of the geology on the planned route, or where utilities, roads etc would have to be moved? Where existing routes are planned what upgrades would be required, bearing in mind the likely service levels in 20 years time?

Do your plans include the significant upgrades in London's transport network to support a large increase in traffic at Euston (St P/KX can be assumed to be as busy as at present with an increased regional service).

 

[HSTEd]

HSTed: the means of dispersal from Euston is by people mover/new tube line to St P and Tottenham Court Rd (Crossrail).

So we are building another tube line on top of Crossrail 2?
Have you priced ten billion pounds more into the budget to cover the cost of that?

Considering that the non contigency budget for HS2 is under £20bn you will have difficulty being cheaper once you account for it.

If 4-tracking a HS line is "a terrible idea" why was it proposed by HS2 in their 2010 command paper, then quietly ignored ever since? Perhaps because they knew it would be inadequate with 2 tracks, but then found it wouldn't work with 4? Having committed themselves to HS2 they could hardly say "Oh, dear, we got it all wrong". So they stumble on. 5 years after they were appointed, they have no plan to connect to HS1, they've abandoned 2 plans for Euston, and I don't think they have a firm plan to connect to H'row - it would need separate services and they have no paths to carry them.

Because it wasn't proposed - I know because I read that paper cover to cover when it was first released.
Additionally the reason there is no firm proposal for Heathrow connectino is that HS2 have decided (and I agree) that there is no business case. But the politicians don't listen and are probably going to insist on it anyway.

It just robs paths from the main scheme to essentially no gain.
You can't fill trains to Heathrow.

HSTed: I don't have full info on Euston but consider the following: HS2 themselves are struggling with it. The design of the throat seems to be critical. Some commuter services can be rerouted onto Xrail. 3tph can go through Hrow without visiting Euston.

So you throw away expensively procured paths on the HS2 core to fill them with air out of Heathrow?
Crossrail rerouting sounds great until people actually try to come to terms with the mechanics of it.
You will bury the line under WCML passengers just when it needs to disperse HS2 passengers - it may be by far the highest capacity deep underground line ever built in London but it is not a bottomless well of capacity.

Some services can go to/through St P instead of Euston. HS2 are assuming only 2tph at each platform while 3tph should be OK.

And what happens when a train fails in a platform - you will be pushing the platforms far closer to the point where you end up with complete collapse in the service.
Going from 9 platforms to 6 means you must be prepared to run the service with 5.

Extending existing plats to 400m is not a problem. There is room for more plats within Euston (3 I think). I have suggested 2 new plats under Melton St/Cardington St adjacent to Eust. No loss of property and only temporary closure of the street. I'd like to go further (though this is not part of HSUK) and make them through plats with tunnels under the shallow tube line at Euston Rd, running to a terminus under Smithfield Market, adjacent to the new booking hall at Farringdon, the crossroads between Xrail and Thameslink and much more central than Euston. Smithfield is due for major redevelopment and is largely disused.

All that sounds absurdly expensive.

And that is before we talk about HSUK keeping that pointless connection along Camden Road which will achieve nothing, cost billions, cripple plans to improve the London Overground and probably demand another hourly path be thrown away for illusory 'international services'.

 

[LexyBoy]

Crossrail rerouting sounds great until people actually try to come to terms with the mechanics of it.
You will bury the line under WCML passengers just when it needs to disperse HS2 passengers - it may be by far the highest capacity deep underground line ever built in London but it is not a bottomless well of capacity.

Indeed - it's likely to be pretty much at capacity from day one, even as plans stand. If you're in London pick up a Metro or visit any of the stations along the route and you'll see how much high-density housing is being built on the basis of being on Crossrail.