HS2 Classic Compatible Stock - Class 373?

[Yew]

Dont forget that there are other systems between Ballasted track and Floatign concrete slab. Including Ladder track, cast in and booted sleeper, resiliant baseplate, embedded rail and Ashpalt base. These often fit in the gap between Ballasted and Floating slab, in Price, Performance, and Maintainability.

 

[HSTEd]

You're quite correct that spending billions on a financially unviable Maglev to Norwich just to confirm that we're better off building conventional HSR isn't going to happen, it's hard to think of a more colossal waste of money.

Chris

Do you have any actual data that it is worse value for money?

There is only one way to be sure and that is to build one.
And a hundred miles is hardly going to break the bank, especially if what they claim about the lack of need for earthworks for gradient reasons is true.

Construction experience in Shanghai would appear to place it in a similar price range as conventional HSR in China.

And frankly I doubt it would be more expensive than the ridiculous upgrades of the GEML that are often floated.

And you can't claim the network problems frmo building a line to Norwich would be a major issue since the GEML doesn't really interwork intercity passenger trains with any other route.

 

[Chris125]

Do you have any actual data that it is worse value for money?

Do you have any that would show it is better value, to the extent that it's worth building a multi-billion pound line which is fundamentally incompatible with the existing classic and high speed networks? It might be better value for money than some of the other daft ideas proposed for upgrading the GEML but being slightly less financially unviable is not much of an improvement.

Chris

 

[starrymarkb]

I haven't heard anything about the Elmsland test track being decommisioned, they are still testing new iterations of design vehicles so I don't know about that....

From the Local News...

Nach fast 28 Jahren ist nun endgültig Schluss. Das Aus der Transrapid-Versuchsanlage im Emsland wurde bereits im vergangenen Jahr beschlossen. Die rund 32 Kilometer lange Teststrecke soll noch in diesem Frühjahr abgerissen werden. Das einstige Vorzeigeprojekt deutscher Ingenieurkunst wird somit bald der Zerstörung preisgegeben.
Abbau kostet rund 40 Millionen Euro
Wann genau die Abrissarbeiten beginnen sollen, steht noch nicht fest. Vorher müsse noch geklärt werden, ob für den Rückbau ein eigenes Planfeststellungsverfahren notwendig ist, so Matthias Schmoll, Sprecher des Bundesverkehrsministeriums. Ein solches Verfahren würde den Abrisstermin weiter nach hinten verschieben. Der Abbau sei dann von der Betreibergesellschaft eigenverantwortlich umzusetzen. Die Kosten dafür - voraussichtlich rund 40 Millionen Euro - übernimmt der Bund.
Zentrum für Elektromobilität soll Arbeitsplätze retten
Ende des vergangenen Jahres war die Betriebsgenehmigung der Transrapid-Testanlage ausgelaufen, seitdem ist die Strecke stillgelegt. Eine erneute Verlängerung des Betriebs ist nicht mehr beantragt worden. Parallel zum Rückbau soll auf dem Gelände in Lathen (Landkreis Emsland) künftig ein Kompetenzzentrum für Elektromobilität entstehen. Der Bund trägt nach eigenen Angaben mehr als die Hälfte der Gesamtkosten von insgesamt 4 Millionen Euro. Der Landkreis Emsland hofft, dass dadurch ein Großteil der Arbeitsplätze bestehen bleiben kann. Wie viele der Mitarbeiter ihren Job dennoch verlieren, ist noch nicht bekannt.

Google Translation (My German isn't good enough for technical)

After nearly 28 years, is finally closing. From the Transrapid Test Facility in Emsland was decided in the past year. The approximately 32-kilometer test track will be demolished later this spring. The former flagship of German engineering is so soon abandoned to destruction.
Mining costs around 40 million euros
Begin exactly when the demolition work is expected, is not yet known. Previously had to be clarified whether to decommission its own zoning procedure is necessary, says Matthias Schmoll, spokesman for the Federal Ministry of Transport. Such a process would postpone the demolition date further back. The reduction was then implemented independently of the operating company. The costs - expected to be around 40 million euros - the federal government assumes.
Centre for Electromobility will save jobs
Late last year, the operating license of the Transrapid test facility had expired, since the track is closed. A further extension of the operation was no longer applied. Parallel to the dismantling should continue at the site in Lathen (Emsland) is a center of excellence for electric mobility arise. The federal government contributes by its own account for more than half of the total cost of 4 million euros. The Emsland district hopes this most of the jobs can be maintained. How many of the employees lose their jobs is still not yet known.

 

[D365]

I must commend Google Translate, it isn't too bad! There were plans for a Transrapid from the unused second tunnel under Münich Airport to Hauptbahnhof with a journey time of 10 minutes, looks like that won't be revived for a very long time... I'm hoping for various U-Bahn extensions to relieve the S-Bahn lines, but that's for another discussion...

 

[HSTEd]

I must commend Google Translate, it isn't too bad! There were plans for a Transrapid from the unused second tunnel under Münich Airport to Hauptbahnhof with a journey time of 10 minutes, looks like that won't be revived for a very long time... I'm hoping for various U-Bahn extensions to relieve the S-Bahn lines, but that's for another discussion...

Well the argument could be made that they don't really need a dedicated test track anyway any more, there is a test track in China and then they can always run test trains on the operational track in Shanghai.

So I am not sure it is really that big a condemnation of the technology.

As to the "incompatibility" issue.... when was the last time long distance GEML trains worked through onto another main line?

 

[Yew]

It would be interesting to see a Maglev in britain, Purely to act as a testbed for the future, If it was built to an international standard, then it could be easier the source carriages than our current railway, as it would not be restricted by loading guage, so we could use a train designed anywhere in the world.

 

[LE Greys]

As to the "incompatibility" issue.... when was the last time long distance GEML trains worked through onto another main line?

Last summer, when some ran through to Yarmouth.

<EDIT> I just noticed he said main line.

 

[transmanche]

As to the "incompatibility" issue.... when was the last time long distance GEML trains worked through onto another main line?

2002, London Crosslink, Norwich to Basingtoke?

 

[HSTEd]

Last summer, when some ran through to Yarmouth.

<EDIT> I just noticed he said main line.

Well if running through to Great Yarmouth is such a big thing, its only 27km of extra route (with a journey time of around seven minutes even with only ~350kph top speed, including acceleration and decelleration) which probably means the extension could be a single track spur, since I doubt you would need more than 3 units an hour (could have a second platform if you wanted to do intercity length turnarounds).

Such a route could also pass very close to Berney Arms if we wanted an interchange... :P

With no tunnels and probably no bridges (since the guideway can supposedly go for 60m spans and 20m height using the normal components) it wouldn't cost that much extra.

And wasn't Crosslink one of those things that was never really succesful, which is I assume why it doesn't run any more... although that might just be NLL congestion more than anything.

 

[TGV]

1. 373s were cleared for 125mph on ECML between Grantham and Knebworth
2. 3307/8 was indeed pulled to Glasgow Central with twin class 37s.

 

[Chris125]

Well if running through to Great Yarmouth is such a big thing, its only 27km of extra route...

That is hardly the makings of a viable business case! Of course it's not a 'big thing' but it's illustrative of the problems with using Maglev as the basis of a network.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

That is hardly the makings of a viable business case! Of course it's not a 'big thing' but it's illustrative of the problems with using Maglev as the basis of a network.

Chris

People always say through trains to secondary destinations like this are pointless and changing trains isn't much of a hardship, until this logic is applied to a service they like... this is a problem.

Even if 27km of guideway is not a viable investment proposition you would probably save so much time on the London-Norwich segment that changing trains to a local for Great Yarmouth would still save you lots of time end to end.

 

[Chris125]

People always say through trains to secondary destinations like this are pointless and changing trains isn't much of a hardship, until this logic is applied to a service they like... this is a problem.

Do they? And your missing the point anyway - the issue isn't Great Yarmouth, it's Maglev's inability to serve towns or even cities which don't justify the building of a new line to them either initially or longer term.

As far as im aware it isn't any cheaper than conventional HSR and even if it was, you'd lose those savings having to build a larger network. Maglev might be faster but that does not make it better, especially when the core reason for building high speed lines in this country is to relieve the existing network.

Chris

 

[LE Greys]

Do they? And your missing the point anyway - the issue isn't Great Yarmouth, it's Maglev's inability to serve towns or even cities which don't justify the building of a new line to them either initially or longer term.

As far as im aware it isn't any cheaper than conventional HSR and even if it was, you'd lose those savings having to build a larger network. Maglev might be faster but that does not make it better, especially when the core reason for building high speed lines in this country is to relieve the existing network.

Chris

I absolutely agree. I'd say suppliment the existing network, but that's a question of semantics. If we were starting from scratch (say Lunar Railways) then I'd start with a maglev, but we aren't.

 

[HSTEd]

Do they? And your missing the point anyway - the issue isn't Great Yarmouth, it's Maglev's inability to serve towns or even cities which don't justify the building of a new line to them either initially or longer term.

Not with a single seat service, no.
But with the cross platform interchanges that people on this forum are always going on about, it can serve as wide a set of destinations as conventional HSR and do it faster.

As far as im aware it isn't any cheaper than conventional HSR and even if it was, you'd lose those savings having to build a larger network. Maglev might be faster but that does not make it better, especially when the core reason for building high speed lines in this country is to relieve the existing network.

Chris

The core reason for building high speed lines in this country is to provide connections between a very small number of points, such as London to Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds.
The much vaunted "classic compatible" services are just political point-scoring by HS2 Ltd in an attempt to spread the appeal of the service.
They are almost certainly not going to be viable without swingeing cuts to the normal classic services which would never be tolerated.

High speed rail can't serve places like Rugby, Coventry and Leicester because they don't justify lines connecting to them.
I also have to question where on earth the capacity on the northern main lines is going to come from to support all these duplicate services that they talk about running. (Especially since they love promising freight paths and new local train paths to everyone, which they can't possibly provide)

Either the southern ECML and WCML have to become a commuter line or they are going to have to spend billions on upgrades, upgrades that should be included in the price of the project if they include classic compatible trains in the specification. (And note I am not some Anti-HS2 person, I am broadly pro HS2 but I don't like people weaseling with figures).

I absolutely agree. I'd say suppliment the existing network, but that's a question of semantics. If we were starting from scratch (say Lunar Railways) then I'd start with a maglev, but we aren't.

The vast majority of the traffic on high speed lines in this country will be entirely on high speed metals (as HS2 will not use conventional tracks anywhere on the 'Y').

This rather removes the often cited network effect.
And since there is no need for interworking between the Norwich-London line and the rest of the network (since it doesn't happen) then there is little to be lost in building a testbed route to get actual data rather than subjective statements.
The potential journey time reductions surely make it an option that has to be seriously considered (less than half an hour to Norwich even with a couple of stops if you don't divert the line to serve Diss/Stowmarket), not dismissed almost out of hand in a report by the government in 2007.

 

[Chris125]

The much vaunted "classic compatible" services are just political point-scoring by HS2 Ltd in an attempt to spread the appeal of the service.

So the Classic Compatible services to Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh etc are just 'political point scoring'? :roll:

The core reason for building high speed lines in this country is to provide connections between a very small number of points, such as London to Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds. They are almost certainly not going to be viable without swingeing cuts to the normal classic services which would never be tolerated.

As has been said time after time the core reason for building HS2 is capacity, moving long distance passengers off the congested southern sections of the WCML and ECML.

...and that's all i have to say on the matter. If you want to believe that Great Yarmouth justified Maglev or that HS2 is going to lead to 'swingeing cuts' to normal services i doubt there's anything i can say to change your mind.

Chris

 

[YorkshireBear]

They are almost certainly not going to be viable without swingeing cuts to the normal classic services which would never be tolerated.


I also have to question where on earth the capacity on the northern main lines is going to come from to support all these duplicate services that they talk about running. (Especially since they love promising freight paths and new local train paths to everyone, which they can't possibly provide)

Here is an example for you.

say 2 trains an hour extend beyond leeds to newcastle. What paths are they going to take i hear you say.
The paths used by the current East Coast services to London. Simples....

 

[HSTEd]

Here is an example for you.

say 2 trains an hour extend beyond leeds to newcastle. What paths are they going to take i hear you say.
The paths used by the current East Coast services to London. Simples....

But yet, supposedly, those current services will not be withdrawn, supporters of HS2 always claim that the stations on the southern ECML will not be left to rot, but they must be if they are to realise these benefits.

They are caught in a contradiction.

EDIT:

Additionally if HS2 is really just about "capacity" as people claim, CC services would not exist, they are an inefficient use of paths, HS2s service frequency would be all double decker trains operating 6tph to all three destinations.
In reality is a combination of things.


And everyone seems to be implying that I think conventional high speed rail is a mistake..... all I want to do is build a testbed somewhere which has a chance of paying for it eventually but is out of the way of where the conventional network will be built.
I can't see many better options than London-Norwich.

I am all for high speed rail but we should properly evaluate all possible technologies. (And I myself believe the Shinkansen model to be more appropriate).

 

[YorkshireBear]

But yet, supposedly, those current services will not be withdrawn, supporters of HS2 always claim that the stations on the southern ECML will not be left to rot, but they must be if they are to realise these benefits.

They are caught in a contradiction.

Hull to London will still require services and Lincoln could get more. York to London services could operate stopping Doncaster, Retford, Newark, Grantham, Peterbrough, London KX. Thats easily possible with the paths, and if all services do it or a variety of it you could gain an extra path. Same for Leeds, wakefield will still need services, maybe Bradford could gain new faster services.

 

[TheGrew]

In my head surely the best use of high speed rail in the UK would to handle the point to point flows take Euston-Birmingham as an example. What I fully expect is that when HS2 is finished that the current 3TPH Virgin services would be reduced to maybe 2TPH with a increased stopping pattern modelled in such a way to provide better connectivity to places like Hemel Hempsted and Leighton Buzzard by providing them with fast (maybe even non-stop) Euston services.

On the Manchester route we might well see places like places on the trent valley line get a regular fast service reinstated. Or even to re-route the service via Wilmslow to run Blackpool for example.

I guess what I am trying to say is that with HSR handling the point to point speed the current fast services can slow down to offer better and faster connectivity to intermediate stops on the existing fast lines.

 

[starrymarkb]

As an Example LGV Atlantique runs Paris to Tours. TGV services using the line will branch off (or continue afterwards) to Brest, Rennes, Bordeaux and other destinations on the coast using the classic lines.

After all what's to stop a UK Sized TGV running to any Electrified station?

In Germany some ICE routes don't touch a high speed line...

 

[LE Greys]

Hull to London will still require services and Lincoln could get more. York to London services could operate stopping Doncaster, Retford, Newark, Grantham, Peterbrough, London KX. Thats easily possible with the paths, and if all services do it or a variety of it you could gain an extra path. Same for Leeds, wakefield will still need services, maybe Bradford could gain new faster services.

Yes, but without the Leeds passengers, is it still cost-effective to operate this as a main line service, or is reduced to multiple-unit semi-fast operation? Does it retain a buffet? How does this service retain its passengers when on-board standards are declining?

Also, how does this affect the economy of places such as Peterborough and Doncaster? Without the direct trains to Scotland, it suddenly becomes less attractive to companies as a well-connected base, especially if the line gets downgraded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As an Example LGV Atlantique runs Paris to Tours. TGV services using the line will branch off (or continue afterwards) to Brest, Rennes, Bordeaux and other destinations on the coast using the classic lines.

After all what's to stop a UK Sized TGV running to any Electrified station?

In Germany some ICE routes don't touch a high speed line...

Exactly how I'd do things! You can always build the high speed line later (as happens with LGV Rhine-Rhone) the important thing is to retain the through service as part of a single national network.

 

[TGV]

As an Example LGV Atlantique runs Paris to Tours. TGV services using the line will branch off (or continue afterwards) to Brest, Rennes, Bordeaux and other destinations on the coast using the classic lines.

After all what's to stop a UK Sized TGV running to any Electrified station?

In Germany some ICE routes don't touch a high speed line...

Agreed. I've been trying to sell this idea on here for literally years.

 

[HSTEd]

France seems to have a very different pattern of development to the UK though.
And its population density is rather lower.

It seems to have fairly distinct urban centres with vast tracts of almost empty farmland in between them.

What we have in the UK is more of a "smear" of development, the only places in England you get as empty as much of France seems to be is in East Anglia really.

The TGV model just doesn't seem to fit to me, I think the Shinkansen one (the multiple stop mixed fast/slow model, not neccesarily the entirely isolated network) fits best.

(As to the ECML recieving improved services.... it is almost certain that the post HS2 phase 2 Intercity service would be reduced to an hourly all shacks service to York, there just arent passenger numbers to support anything more intensive)

 

[LE Greys]

France seems to have a very different pattern of development to the UK though.
And its population density is rather lower.

It seems to have fairly distinct urban centres with vast tracts of almost empty farmland in between them.

What we have in the UK is more of a "smear" of development, the only places in England you get as empty as much of France seems to be is in East Anglia really.

The TGV model just doesn't seem to fit to me, I think the Shinkansen one (the multiple stop mixed fast/slow model, not neccesarily the entirely isolated network) fits best.

(As to the ECML recieving improved services.... it is almost certain that the post HS2 phase 2 Intercity service would be reduced to an hourly all shacks service to York, there just arent passenger numbers to support anything more intensive)

I'd say the UK is more like Germany in terms of development and settlement patterns, which is again why I favour the German model for high speed rail. German cities tend to cluster in a manner similar to the West Midlands or West Riding, and so on, with the Rhur being the obvious example.

(And people wonder why I'm sceptical about HS2. However, it's more likely that the line will suburbanise.)

 

[starrymarkb]

The TGV model just doesn't seem to fit to me, I think the Shinkansen one (the multiple stop mixed fast/slow model, not neccesarily the entirely isolated network) fits best.

Again see Germany

 

[Manchester77]

If we really want trains from HS2 to travel onto classic lines to Galsgow etc I have an idea:-
Hopefully HS1 and HS2 will have a link, if so my plan will work. If not then I have an alternative
HS1&2 connection:-
With the connection between the two lines journeys between the continent and cities in northern England will be possible. In effect regional Eurostar
Use new purpose built HS trains for national HS2 journeys such as Manchester to London. Use the 373s on regional Eurostar and the E320s on Eurostar?
That's my plan however I see that they will all have different top speeds.
373 - 186 mph
E320 - 199 mph
HS2 trains - 250ish mph
And also more E320s would be needed
And when this happens E320s will probably be out placed with a newer train which would probably be more desirable for Euro*
Also the 373s will be getting on at this point and so they may need a replacement so it probably wouldn't work...

Prepares to be penalised.................

 

[starrymarkb]

Snip

Only way Regional E* would work is if the UK was in Schengen so the E*s can be used for intermediate journeys both in the UK and on the Continent as well

 

[LE Greys]

Only way Regional E* would work is if the UK was in Schengen so the E*s can be used for intermediate journeys both in the UK and on the Continent as well

I agree. AIUI, that was the original plan, with Kenny O as passport control (later becoming Stratford) so anyone without valid papers would be turfed off there at an unadvertised stop. Political pressure to maintain border controls might have prevented that from happening. IMO, it's not difficult to reintroduce the idea (we've got to use Stratford International for something after all) but it would be difficult to get it past the media.