HS2 going to have 3+2 seating?!

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, Shinkansen captive rolling stock would be off the shelf too - just off a different shelf.

A less local and far more niche shelf.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it really though? Crippled I mean.

Capacity is reduced in standard class from 5 abreast to 4 - reducing capacity to 80% of what it could have been.
A drop of 20%.

So they have simply selected a "standard" cross section that is used across many nations, just the same as eurocodes and many other standards that things are designed to.

But in this case there is absolutely no reason to select that standard, no perational benefits accrue from doing so as there will never be significant cross channel operations to benefit from identical loading gauges.
So they chose a restrictive standard for no reason other than because it was the one defined by the EU.

No, it's built to a recognised standard used by many nations - I'd suggest your statement is simply euro hysteria and nothing else.

Yes, but its not a very good standard - and the only reason they can give for selecting it is because its the EU defined one.

The massive advantage of this is that captive rolling stock is completely off the shelf. This will save a fortune.

How many high speed trainsets were ordered by European railways last year?
I would wager a bet that Japan and China probably ordered more vehicles and greater aggregate train length.
And was this also the cheap captive rolling stock that is so much cheaper that HS2 repeatedly cuts the savings estimates for its production - to the point where it now appears unlikely any will be ordered at all?

To be fair, Shinkansen captive rolling stock would be off the shelf too - just off a different shelf.

Probably more off the shelf than in Europe to be honest - at least the Japanese have a higher degree of fleet standardisation.

A less local and far more niche shelf.

What does locality have to do with it?
We order trains from Japan all the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What does locality have to do with it?
We order trains from Japan all the time.

We wouldn't want to end up *having* to order from Japan. Japanese gauge is as non-standard as ours. There lies cost.

UIC gauge, OTOH, is very, very common. There lies lower cost.

 

[HSTEd]

We wouldn't want to end up *having* to order from Japan. Japanese gauge is as non-standard as ours. There lies cost.

UIC gauge, OTOH, is very, very common. There lies lower cost.

The Japanese gauge which is very similar to the one that applies in Russia and China?
And why does it lie lower cost? Making a train wider is not particularily expensive.
Siemens also builds wider trains for the Russians.
EDIT:
And even if the rolling stock is substantially more expensive, which I doubt, it still has 20% higher capacity than the UIC compatible stock - which means that when HS2 hits its load ceiling it will do so later than it would have otherwise done.
20% of a new high speed line is an awful lot of money.

EDIT #2:
In 2011 Russian railways ordered 20 Sapsans in a ~€600m deal, or roughly €30m per set.
IN 2010 Morrocan railways signed a contract for 14 fairly standard TGVs for ~€400m, or roughly €28.6m per set.
Considering the Sapsans are longer this shows the prices are generally comparable (and yes I know this is not apples to apples, but it provides an order of magnitude comparison)

 

[najaB]

Capacity is reduced in standard class from 5 abreast to 4 - reducing capacity to 80% of what it could have been.
A drop of 20%.

Or they could have gone for an even wider gauge and we could have had six-abreast, or even wider had seven-abreast, or....

I ask again, is HS2 really crippled by being four-abreast?

 

[najaB]

...which means that when HS2 hits its load ceiling it will do so later than it would have otherwise done....

If. Passenger numbers can't grow forever.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or they could have gone for an even wider gauge and we could have had six-abreast, or even wider had seven-abreast, or....

I ask again, is HS2 really crippled by being four-abreast?

I think most passengers would argue it is a positive benefit. Nobody likes a middle seat.

 

[HSTEd]

Or they could have gone for an even wider gauge and we could have had six-abreast, or even wider had seven-abreast, or....

I ask again, is HS2 really crippled by being four-abreast?

Which would definitely be none standard and would run into stability issues rather rapidly.
Japanese gauge clearly has no stability issues to speak of at the speeds we are talking about.

I think most passengers would argue it is a positive benefit. Nobody likes a middle seat.

Nobody likes 20% higher fares either.

 

[HSTEd]

If. Passenger numbers can't grow forever.

Population growth is running a couple of percent anyway - so that level of passenger growth is in principle possible forever.
And if we take a look at the passenger-km per capita in Japan on rail we see we have a long way to go yet before we top out.

EDIT:

Attention mods, the double post collapsing thing doesn't appear to be working for whatever reason.

 

[Haydn1971]

Capacity is reduced in standard class from 5 abreast to 4 - reducing capacity to 80% of what it could have been. A drop of 20%.

Reduced ??? How can it be reduced when it was never proposed ?

But in this case there is absolutely no reason to select that standard, no perational benefits accrue from doing so as there will never be significant cross channel operations to benefit from identical loading gauges.

There's every reason, the gauging has impact on the structure, components, jigs for construction, shipping of completed trains and so on.

So they chose a restrictive standard for no reason other than because it was the one defined by the EU.

Restrictive in your opinion perhaps ? And last I looked, the UK was part of the EU and that comes with agreement to use standards across Europe to simplify many processes of design - if one nation goes off on a tangent, building different sized trains for no good reason, it makes it difficult for everyone in the supply chain, making them build parts that are specific for a smaller market, thus increasing costs - we've already got huge problems with existing loading gauges across the EU, why on earth continue that with a new isolated rail system.

Yes, but its not a very good standard - and the only reason they can give for selecting it is because its the EU defined one.

And the UK is part of the EU, so "we" defined the standard.

How many high speed trainsets were ordered by European railways last year? I would wager a bet that Japan and China probably ordered more vehicles and greater aggregate train length.

China appears to operate a mix of European, Japanese and home grown trains, which suggests a horrific mix of standards on their network. Also, the Chinese haven't got the greatest record on rail safety. Japan has a maximum loading gauge width of 3.4m vs 3.15m of the TSI specification, I'm not clear if the 3.4m is a static or dynamic width, but it's very close and suggests that 2+3 seating on HS2 to Japanese standards would result in awfully narrow seats.

Probably more off the shelf than in Europe to be honest - at least the Japanese have a higher degree of fleet standardisation.

High speed maybe, but from what I've read, the various private operators have a huge variance in loading gauges, which would suggest lots of non standard trains on the Japanese network.

What does locality have to do with it? We order trains from Japan all the time.

Hmm... 29 Class 395's were ordered from Japan and were very much a loss leader product for Hitachi with eyes to a much bigger contract win. The IEP/AT300 is clearly a product that has gone through a lot of development work to ensure it works on the wider UK network, contains a lot of UK content and is primarily intended to be a UK assembled product - Hitachi appear to have done such a good job that they have now secured more orders than they can deliver via the UK facility. Other than that, I can't recall any off the shelf Japanese trains on the UK network.

 

[miami]

Is there any benefit to building structures with a lower clearance? If you need 4.5 metres height under a bridge or in a tunnel, why not build for 5.5m instead? If you need a 1.2m gap between tracks why not build for a 2m gap?

Platforms are different of course, but replacing a dozen platforms in 40 years time would be cheaper than rebuilding tunnels and bridges.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nobody likes 20% higher fares either.

That would only be the effect if the trains always run 100% full.

 

[HSTEd]

There's every reason, the gauging has impact on the structure, components, jigs for construction, shipping of completed trains and so on.

None of which are likely to be deal breakers considering the enormous cost of this project.
Spending a few million more shipping the slightly larger trains makes almost no difference in the long run.

Restrictive in your opinion perhaps ? And last I looked, the UK was part of the EU and that comes with agreement to use standards across Europe to simplify many processes of design - if one nation goes off on a tangent, building different sized trains for no good reason, it makes it difficult for everyone in the supply chain, making them build parts that are specific for a smaller market, thus increasing costs - we've already got huge problems with existing loading gauges across the EU, why on earth continue that with a new isolated rail system.

Because those costs, whilst real, are small compared to the enormous costs of this project.
Standardisation at any cost leads to suboptimal solutions in many cases - I believe this to be one of them.
And there is a good reason to proceed with the largest possible loading gauge, it increases capacity, and since this scheme is supposedly all about capacity then why are we not taking steps to maximise said capacity?

And the UK is part of the EU, so "we" defined the standard.

Doesn't change the fact that using this standard, designed for interoperability with European railways, is pointless when it will never interoperate with them.

China appears to operate a mix of European, Japanese and home grown trains, which suggests a horrific mix of standards on their network. Also, the Chinese haven't got the greatest record on rail safety. Japan has a maximum loading gauge width of 3.4m vs 3.15m of the TSI specification, I'm not clear if the 3.4m is a static or dynamic width, but it's very close and suggests that 2+3 seating on HS2 to Japanese standards would result in awfully narrow seats.

25cm is nothing?

Add two inches to each of the 3+2 seats on a Class 350 and you end up with seats comparable in size to normal British standard class seats.
REmember that is also width with 25m cars.

High speed maybe, but from what I've read, the various private operators have a huge variance in loading gauges, which would suggest lots of non standard trains on the Japanese network.

YEs, but we are talking about HSR.......

 

[Haydn1971]

Is there any benefit to building structures with a lower clearance? If you need 4.5 metres height under a bridge or in a tunnel, why not build for 5.5m instead? If you need a 1.2m gap between tracks why not build for a 2m gap?

Primarily costs - having done feasibility stage coatings for structures, the earthworks can cost more than the structure. Assuming a maximum 6% grade for an all purpose single carriageway, adding 0.8m to a clearance adds about 17m to the length of an embankment approach for a road, motorways have a maximum grade of 3%, so I'm simplistic terms, would add and extra 35m length, across a 38m ish formation width, starts being a lot of extra material to shift, multiply these figures by 100's of bridges across a route could run to 10's millions on a project.

We used to build in future proofing to roads, but experience has demonstrated that unless a scheme is going to be extended almost immediately, the future proofing is often inappropriate for future needs - for example, we build a bridge wide enough for widening to a dual carriageway, then something comes along that requires more width, such as a junction near the future proofed junction - thus a new structure is required anyways. I recently heard that gantries on a Smart Motorway project that are only 15 years old, are being replaced because no one can find the "as built" drawings and calcs, thus no one can demonstrate that the existing relatively new gantries are safe to carry the proposed load without destructive testing.

 

[HSTEd]

Railways are not subject to anything like the same dimension growth as roads though - where a new project might gain them several metres.

We already know what the largest plausible loading gauge is - standard gauge tracks impose serious stability limits that prohibit going much larger than AAR Plate H.

The isolated system argument would also allow relaxations in the TSI mandated maximum gradients - along the lines of the derogations obtained in Germany for their more mountainous routes and in recognition that very high power multiple unit style trains laugh in the face of 2.5% slopes.
4% even is feasible.

 

[absolutelymilk]

It seems to me that there are indeed costs associated with going to the Shinkansen gauge, HSTed seems to think these will be minimal compared with the extra capacity gained (12% increase in width, which could allow for slightly tight 3+2 instead of roomy 2+2) but everyone else seems to think they will be considerable.

However my question is whether the Shinkansen gauge was ever considered by HS2, even momentarily, and did they do any back of the envelope calculations about what the extra costs would be?

 

[HSTEd]

It seems to me that there are indeed costs associated with going to the Shinkansen gauge, HSTed seems to think these will be minimal compared with the extra capacity gained (12% increase in width, which could allow for slightly tight 3+2 instead of roomy 2+2) but everyone else seems to think they will be considerable.

It wouldn't be particularily tight to do so - the seats end up comparable or wider than standard class British seats on British trains.

Increasing the width of the line by roughly 1m in total (gauge is 40-50cm wider each track) is unlikely to make huge differences to the cost as the right-of-way will be constructed with generous dimensions for access and aerodynamic reasons anyway. (Tunnels are huge anyway to hold down passage overpressures and they will not skimp on access width), and it has to be remembered in open terrain it is just more earth moving.
Roads do not tend to cost £100m/km+ so these costs that would be significant for a road project are nothing for rail ones.
EDIT:

I looked up the old HS2 Cost/Risk model document from 2011 - entire price of Phase 1 Earthworks, Roads and such is only £585m.

However my question is whether the Shinkansen gauge was ever considered by HS2, even momentarily, and did they do any back of the envelope calculations about what the extra costs would be?

No - I made an FoI request for any information about that. They responded that no such calculations had ever been done as they are committed to using the standards laid out in the TSIs - even though no interoperation is ever going to happen.

 

[Haydn1971]

However my question is whether the Shinkansen gauge was ever considered by HS2, even momentarily, and did they do any back of the envelope calculations about what the extra costs would be?

That's a question that only a select few people will know and probably be never released into the public domain. More to the point, TSI is a EU standard, regardless of the UK's future place in the EU, given its geographic location in the EU, it would be foolish to use standards of a single nation on the far side of the planet (Japan) vs the standards used by dozens of nations within driving distance of the UK (EU). Furthermore, it's recognised that the typical Japanese physique is a lot smaller than the typical western physique, so that 200mm difference in train width isn't necessarily going to translate into a UK 2+3 seating arrangement. I would also suggest that HS2's adoption of 400m long units and complete segregation has played a part in the mitigation against the use of 2+3 seating too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wouldn't be particularily tight to do so - the seats end up comparable or wider than standard class British seats on British trains.

But "comparable" won't do. Standard class seats on most British trains are still a bit too narrow even in 2+2 formation. This is made acceptable by the fact that bigger people can lean towards the window or into the aisle. With a middle seat, this is lost.

Making rail as grim as air travel would not be a good selling point.

 

[Haydn1971]

Making rail as grim as air travel would not be a good selling point.

Absolutely agreed ! I'd be happy with first class sized seating in a 2+2 formation, on demand buffet service and to be able to use my mobile data throughout the journey - at today's off peak prices ! Sold

 

[quantinghome]

Increasing the width of the line by roughly 1m in total (gauge is 40-50cm wider each track) is unlikely to make huge differences to the cost as the right-of-way will be constructed with generous dimensions for access and aerodynamic reasons anyway. (Tunnels are huge anyway to hold down passage overpressures and they will not skimp on access width), and it has to be remembered in open terrain it is just more earth moving.
Roads do not tend to cost £100m/km+ so these costs that would be significant for a road project are nothing for rail ones.
EDIT:

I looked up the old HS2 Cost/Risk model document from 2011 - entire price of Phase 1 Earthworks, Roads and such is only £585m.

The aerodynamic envelope around the train cannot be 'eaten into' by a wider-bodied train; the envelope would need to expand with the extra width. Taking your example, a 1m increase will require a minimum 1m additional width of the tunnel or bridge or general alignment (I say minimum as that's assuming the width of the aerodynamic envelope itself stays constant and doesn't need to widen with the increased cross-sectional area of the train).

I agree that earthworks would only be marginally affected - the relatively shallow batter slopes will account for a large % of the cut/fill volumes and would be virtually unaffected by a change in the formation width. However, the cost of tunnels and structures WILL be affected. The material requirement of a bridge increases roughly by the square of the span dimension as the cross-section of beams has to be increased as well as the span length. The same would apply to tunnels - increasing the width means increasing the cross-sectional area and the lining thickness.

However, I'm not sure how significant these costs increases would be for the project as a whole. Maybe it's worth it, maybe not. It's disappointing that it's not even been given a high-level look at though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a question that only a select few people will know and probably be never released into the public domain. More to the point, TSI is a EU standard, regardless of the UK's future place in the EU, given its geographic location in the EU, it would be foolish to use standards of a single nation on the far side of the planet (Japan) vs the standards used by dozens of nations within driving distance of the UK (EU).

Who's to say the standards are incompatible? Any structure built for Shinkansen structure loading gauge would also comply with TSI requirements. Platform edge location may be a slight issue, but not insurmountable. I believe other European countries have agreed derogations from TSI when it suits their requirements.

 

[Haydn1971]

Who's to say the standards are incompatible? Any structure built for Shinkansen structure loading gauge would also comply with TSI requirements. Platform edge location may be a slight issue, but not insurmountable. I believe other European countries have agreed derogations from TSI when it suits their requirements.

Structures could be built to suit any loading gauge, we've eurocodes that help us design structures so that they don't fall down... I'm at a loss here as to the advantage of building to a loading gauge of a nation on the other side of the planet to gain 200mm width on a carriage that could already accommodate 5 seats across in the 3150mm TSI width, when we have our own standard that we could use that was designed to provide a common framework for manufacturers to work to. If you are going down this line, why bother limiting the train to a Japanese standard, why not use something extra huge that would give double deck 3+3 or greater seating, use a 3m wide track, or just simply throw out the standards and say we won't need signals at all, as its a closed system, what could possibly go wrong.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH I am of the view that captive stock is unnecessary. We should build to UIC gauge but run UK gauge trains on it until it reaches Manchester.

 

[Haydn1971]

TBH I am of the view that captive stock is unnecessary. We should build to UIC gauge but run UK gauge trains on it until it reaches Manchester.

The 2013 economic case was proposing 24 captive and 44 non captive for phase one, rising to 81 captive and 99 non captive sets for phase 2 - strikes me that the sensible thing would be to order the non captive fleet first with enough units in time for phase one service, then the captive fleet second with deliveries helping to ramp up the passenger numbers just in advance of phase 2 completion rather than have two fleet delivery contracts running side by side.

 

[HSTEd]

But "comparable" won't do. Standard class seats on most British trains are still a bit too narrow even in 2+2 formation. This is made acceptable by the fact that bigger people can lean towards the window or into the aisle. With a middle seat, this is lost.

An N700 Series is roughly 3.36m wide, a Class 450 is ~2.80m wide - which means to a first approximation the Shinkansen is 56cm wider.
Which implies a seat width of roughly 11.2cm wider.
A Class 450 seat is 43cm wide - which implies a seat width of 54.2cm (assuming the aisle remains the same width).

Even if we expand the aisle by a similar amoutn to the seats that gets us seats that are ~9.3cm wider - giving us a seat width of 52.3cm.
Going to Eurostar, because it is the only place I can find 2+2 seat widths, gives them a seat width of 47cm for standard class up to 66.5cm for first class.

In other words, even if we make the aisle wider our seats are still two inches wider than 2+2 British seats, and a third of the way to being first class seats.

Making rail as grim as air travel would not be a good selling point.

If we were doing that I would propose 3+3 seating, which would have similar width seats to today's Class 450s.

Absolutely agreed ! I'd be happy with first class sized seating in a 2+2 formation, on demand buffet service and to be able to use my mobile data throughout the journey - at today's off peak prices ! Sold

On demand buffet is pointless offering anything but tea, coffee and crisps seems rather pointless given the very short journey times experienced by most passengers.
There is barely enough time for a civilised meal between Manchester and London, to say nothing of Birmingham.

And first class sized seating in a 2+2 formation sounds like a first class offer to me :P

The aerodynamic envelope around the train cannot be 'eaten into' by a wider-bodied train; the envelope would need to expand with the extra width. Taking your example, a 1m increase will require a minimum 1m additional width of the tunnel or bridge or general alignment (I say minimum as that's assuming the width of the aerodynamic envelope itself stays constant and doesn't need to widen with the increased cross-sectional area of the train).

The only concern is increasing the cross sectional area of the tunnel to keep the overpressure within limits - the tunnel is already far wider than it has to be to prevent the train striking the sides thanks to it being a circular cross section whilst the train is rectangular. As well as being enormous for overpressure reasons - this is why these tunnels tend to have 7m or more diameters for high speed passage.

This can also be ameliorated because Shinkansen tunnels are actually smaller than European ones - this why they have longer and stranger shaped noses.
However if cross section ratio has to be kept constant then we go from an envelope of 4.65mx2.95m (13.71 square metres) to ~4.5mx3.45m (15.25 square metres) - that implies an areal increase of roughly 11% and thus to a first approximation the tunnels diameter should increase by about 5%.
I know its not that simple - which is why I said a first approximation.
A 7.25m bore diameter tunnel would have to be expanded to roughly 7.7m.
Hardly earth shattering is it?

I agree that earthworks would only be marginally affected - the relatively shallow batter slopes will account for a large % of the cut/fill volumes and would be virtually unaffected by a change in the formation width. However, the cost of tunnels and structures WILL be affected. The material requirement of a bridge increases roughly by the square of the span dimension as the cross-section of beams has to be increased as well as the span length. The same would apply to tunnels - increasing the width means increasing the cross-sectional area and the lining thickness.

Going into the cost and risk model again it is worth nothing that a 9.8m twin bore tunnel is considerably less expensive than a pair of 7.25m bores.
That does tend to imply that there are large scale economies of scale in tunnel boring with regards tunnel diameter.
Which fits with what we know about such equipment, once you've bought the TBM then most of the costs are only weakly related to the amount of material actually removed during the drive.

Structures could be built to suit any loading gauge, we've eurocodes that help us design structures so that they don't fall down... I'm at a loss here as to the advantage of building to a loading gauge of a nation on the other side of the planet to gain 200mm width on a carriage that could already accommodate 5 seats across in the 3150mm TSI width, when we have our own standard that we could use that was designed to provide a common framework for manufacturers to work to. If you are going down this line, why bother limiting the train to a Japanese standard, why not use something extra huge that would give double deck 3+3 or greater seating, use a 3m wide track, or just simply throw out the standards and say we won't need signals at all, as its a closed system, what could possibly go wrong.

So now you are building a strawman?
You are comparing to building to a slightly large loading gauge to building a Breitspurbahn and abolishing all signalling?
Hardly reasonable is it?

And it appears now I am being attacked for packing in too many seats, with trains that are too narrow, and simultaneously attacked for making the trains too wide......

And the standards are highly unlikely to make any real difference to the cost of the rolling stock - as the drastically shrunk classic compatible-captive cost differential shows.
The cost savings from "off the shelf" rolling stock now appear to be a mirage.
As there is almost certainly never going to be any, let alone major, interoperation with European railways then the standardisation starts to lose its justificaiton.

TBH I am of the view that captive stock is unnecessary. We should build to UIC gauge but run UK gauge trains on it until it reaches Manchester.

If we are just going to use classic compatible stock for phase 1 there is little reason to ever use captive stock, and since apparently building to a larger standard will massively increase the cost of the project then it follows that building to the smaller classic gauge will shrink the cost.........
And since people are fundamentally opposed to anything above 2+2 seating there is no reason to build wider than classic trains since we can't actually make use of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And since people are fundamentally opposed to anything above 2+2 seating there is no reason to build wider than classic trains since we can't actually make use of it.

UIC gauge isn't much wider than UK gauge - as I've said before UIC/Eurofima 26m hauled coaches are 2.82m wide, and the widest UIC gauge trains seem to be 2.9something. While the seats wouldn't be much wider, you do get the benefit of a slightly wider aisle.

The real benefit is vertical, in that double deck stock is feasible, and much as I'm not a great fan of it, I'd rather that than 3+2.

 

[HSTEd]

Well I'd like double decker 3+2 stock

But this discussion is going nowhere.
I recommend we just stop at this point - we are going in circles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well I'd like double decker 3+2 stock

But this discussion is going nowhere.
I recommend we just stop at this point - we are going in circles.

Yes, I think we won't agree - and I won't travel on 3+2 seated stock unless I can be certain of the 2 side.

 

[Haydn1971]

On demand buffet is pointless offering anything but tea, coffee and crisps seems rather pointless given the very short journey times experienced by most passengers.

That's all I'd expect on the short hops, but anything over 90 minutes could accommodate more - I'd expect some form of integration with tickets, such that you can only order food that can be realistically delivered and consumed within your travel time.

So now you are building a strawman?
You are comparing to building to a slightly large loading gauge to building a Breitspurbahn and abolishing all signalling?
Hardly reasonable is it?

No, not at all, I'm asking a reasonable question as to why you would stop at a Japanese loading gauge, why not develop your own ? The TSI covers so much more than just loading gauge, hence my comment about signals and track gauge - picking and choosing bits of different standards is a recipe for disaster, which is a strong reason for working within a set of standards that you've been a part in developing rather than grabbing a system from Japan that's been geared around their operating needs.

And it appears now I am being attacked for packing in too many seats, with trains that are too narrow, and simultaneously attacked for making the trains too wide......

Oh stop being so sensational People are challenging your assertion, that's all