HS2 in the press

[Harbornite]

That's why I'd suggest building it on a new route, perhaps going northwest from London via the chilterns, rather than trying to thread it through places like Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, Stafford, Stoke, etc.

Deleted. I failed to grasp the sarcasm the first time round!

 

[edwin_m]

OOC on the other hand will give better access to Paddington and Liverpool Street via crossrail but requires extra changes on the underground to get to the major stations that you can get to from Euston direct.

Paddington yes, but assuming Euston Square station is properly integrated into the Euston complex Liverpool Street will be accessible from Euston without changing and possibly in less time than from OOC via Crossrail.

 

[notlob.divad]

Paddington yes, but assuming Euston Square station is properly integrated into the Euston complex Liverpool Street will be accessible from Euston without changing and possibly in less time than from OOC via Crossrail.

Yes, sorry maybe I wasn't clear. I was using this as an argument for Euston, not against it. With that integration all journeys between Euston and the other Major London stations will be possible whilst stopping at OOC appears only to give Paddington and Liverpool Street. Even without it Euston is better.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Yes, sorry maybe I wasn't clear. I was using this as an argument for Euston, not against it. With that integration all journeys between Euston and the other Major London stations will be possible whilst stopping at OOC appears only to give Paddington and Liverpool Street. Even without it Euston is better.

Also would Crossrail alone be able to cope with all of HS2 passengers?

A well written piece of spin from Mr. Jenkins, who in no way has form on this sort of thing...

Agreed, the article itself another piece of biased spin rehashing the same old tired and discredited arguments against HS2 and ignoring any arguments about the benefits of HS2 in providing capacity by reliving the WCML so more commuter trains can run. Sadly it's not HS2 that refuses to die but the failed anti-HS2 campaign which is now reduced to a handful of ideologues like Jenkins and few diehards ranting on Twitter who refuse to accept reality that HS2 is going ahead as soon as it finishes its passage through the lords and receives royal assent.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Agreed, the article itself another piece of biased spin rehashing the same old tired and discredited arguments against HS2 and ignoring any arguments about the benefits of HS2 in providing capacity by reliving the WCML so more commuter trains can run. .

As opposed to the endless rehashed soudbite pro 'argument' about relieving capacity that fails to live up to scrutiny? You simply cannot have more commuter trains to the like of Apsley/Berko/Hemel plus more fast commuters to MK & Northampton plus freight plus more long distance services to intermediate stations such as Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stoke and Coventry on a four track railway. The whole plan is based on reducing services to stations north and west of Rugby.

It is not just capacity into Euston that is the issue, take Birmingham...

Centro want 4tph stoppers
MK council want 2tph express
Northampton council want 2tph 'fast' (as Silverlink used to run)
XC want 2tph via Coventry

HS2 doesn't remove any services from the Coventry corridor

 

[deltic]

It is not just capacity into Euston that is the issue, take Birmingham...

Centro want 4tph stoppers
MK council want 2tph express
Northampton council want 2tph 'fast' (as Silverlink used to run)
XC want 2tph via Coventry

HS2 doesn't remove any services from the Coventry corridor

Doesnt HS2 removes one Virgin train between Coventry and Birmingham - which gives XC its second service?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

As opposed to the endless rehashed soudbite pro 'argument' about relieving capacity that fails to live up to scrutiny? You simply cannot have more commuter trains to the like of Apsley/Berko/Hemel plus more fast commuters to MK & Northampton plus freight plus more long distance services to intermediate stations such as Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stoke and Coventry on a four track railway. The whole plan is based on reducing services to stations north and west of Rugby.

It is not just capacity into Euston that is the issue, take Birmingham...

Centro want 4tph stoppers
MK council want 2tph express
Northampton council want 2tph 'fast' (as Silverlink used to run)
XC want 2tph via Coventry

HS2 doesn't remove any services from the Coventry corridor

Post HS2 phase 1 there a a number of was that capacity and services on the the southern WCML can be optimised

My suggestion would be for the Tring stoppers to 4tph and run onto Crossrail via a link to the WCML in the Old Oak area.

There would still be some fast/semi-fast intercity type services to serve Coventry and MKC. I would suggest:

2tph from Euston calling at (Watford Junction*) - MKC - Rugby - Coventry - BNS - Wolverhampton

2tph from Euston calling at (Watford Junction*) - MKC - Nuneaton - Tamworth - Litchfield Trent Valley - Rugley Trent Valley with 1tph continuing to Manchester calling at Stoke on Trent and Stockport, and the other going to Liverpool calling at Stafford and Crewe. This gives Milton Keynes services to the North

*Watford Junction would be limited off peak services only

The biggest headache would be the Northampton loop which without grade separation at Hanslope and Hillmorton junctions would be difficult to allow any fast services to run that way, so would be relegated to a semi-fast service calling at BNS - Coventry - Rugby - Long Buckby - Northampton - MKC - Bletchley - Leighton Buzzard - Cheddington then fast into Euston calling at Watford Junction only.

 

[Starmill]

What counts as 'fast' to Northampton Council?

 

[Trog]

The biggest headache would be the Northampton loop which without grade separation at Hanslope and Hillmorton junctions.

There is no junction at Hillmorton to grade separate, trains off the Down New Line use the flyover at Clifton Road instead.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

There is no junction at Hillmorton to grade separate, trains off the Down New Line use the flyover at Clifton Road instead.

Interesting thanks.

 

[The Planner]

As opposed to the endless rehashed soudbite pro 'argument' about relieving capacity that fails to live up to scrutiny? You simply cannot have more commuter trains to the like of Apsley/Berko/Hemel plus more fast commuters to MK & Northampton plus freight plus more long distance services to intermediate stations such as Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stoke and Coventry on a four track railway. The whole plan is based on reducing services to stations north and west of Rugby.

It is not just capacity into Euston that is the issue, take Birmingham...

Centro want 4tph stoppers
MK council want 2tph express
Northampton council want 2tph 'fast' (as Silverlink used to run)
XC want 2tph via Coventry

HS2 doesn't remove any services from the Coventry corridor

None of that is decided. What is in the hybrid bill and speculated elsewhere is far from confirmed, including what you have said above about the Cov corridor.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would we continue to run 3 fast trains from Birmingham to London via Coventry on the WCML?
Thats just an unnecessary waste of paths, they would be carting air, especially since there will be some shift from Coventry to Birmingham International station.

 

[miami]

The biggest headache would be the Northampton loop which without grade separation at Hanslope and Hillmorton junctions would be difficult to allow any fast services to run that way, so would be relegated to a semi-fast service calling at BNS - Coventry - Rugby - Long Buckby - Northampton - MKC - Bletchley - Leighton Buzzard - Cheddington then fast into Euston calling at Watford Junction only.

Wolverton closing then? And what's with these services to Barnes?

How about journeys from Milton Keynes to Hemel Hempstead? You'd have to stop at Tring as well, unless you want to rely on the Southern service (which I hear is very busy nowadays and has been lengthened in some fashion?). Unless you extended 2tph Tring stoppers to Bletchley.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Post HS2 phase 1 there a a number of was that capacity and services on the the southern WCML can be optimised

My suggestion would be for the Tring stoppers to 4tph and run onto Crossrail via a link to the WCML in the Old Oak area.

Where is the capacity to run 4tph and freight? Both will have to use the slow lines still

There would still be some fast/semi-fast intercity type services to serve Coventry and MKC. I would suggest:

2tph from Euston calling at (Watford Junction*) - MKC - Rugby - Coventry - BNS - Wolverhampton

2tph from Euston calling at (Watford Junction*) - MKC - Nuneaton - Tamworth - Litchfield Trent Valley - Rugley Trent Valley with 1tph continuing to Manchester calling at Stoke on Trent and Stockport, and the other going to Liverpool calling at Stafford and Crewe. This gives Milton Keynes services to the North

Where is the capacity between Crewe and Weaver given that HS2 Liverpool services will still be using the route. At least your suggestion is better than HS2 ltd though - they would have the TV stations served only by a service that terminates at Crewe and Crewe would lose direct Scottish services requiring another change at Preston

*Watford Junction would be limited off peak services only

What counts as 'fast' to Northampton Council?

Calling at Rugby, Coventry and BHI only (though probably Long Buckby as well)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

None of that is decided. What is in the hybrid bill and speculated elsewhere is far from confirmed, including what you have said above about the Cov corridor.

That is just the problem, we've committed to a scheme not knowing whether the aspirations can actually be met.

Do you know if Line X gets put back in after work is complete or is it lost completely?

 

[HSTEd]

Why would we have a classic train running between Crewe and Scotland?
Surely it would depart from the HS2 platforms for Wigan and such?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Wolverton closing then? And what's with these services to Barnes?

How about journeys from Milton Keynes to Hemel Hempstead? You'd have to stop at Tring as well, unless you want to rely on the Southern service (which I hear is very busy nowadays and has been lengthened in some fashion?). Unless you extended 2tph Tring stoppers to Bletchley.

Oops missed out Wolverton. Not a bad idea extending two Tring services too Bletchley to provide reverse commuting to services on the WCML but ig going that far might as well go to Milton Keynes Central

Originally posted by Philip Elliott


Where is the capacity to run 4tph and freight? Both will have to use the slow lines still

I thought the whole point of the electric spine was to divert freight away from the busy southern WCML. Genuine question, how many passenger and freight services run on the WCML per hour now?

Where is the capacity between Crewe and Weaver given that HS2 Liverpool services will still be using the route. At least your suggestion is better than HS2 ltd though - they would have the TV stations served only by a service that terminates at Crewe and Crewe would lose direct Scottish services requiring another change at Preston

Good point, would depend on capacity between Crewe and Weaver junction. Thought those stations would benefit from a service yo Liverpool rather than terminating at Crewe or just going to Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

My suggestion would be for the Tring stoppers to 4tph and run onto Crossrail via a link to the WCML in the Old Oak area.

Already in an old RUS and was being seriously looked at in the last couple of years, it has been dropped for the moment but is likely to come back.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you know if Line X gets put back in after work is complete or is it lost completely?

Yes it is put back.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oops missed out Wolverton. Not a bad idea extending two Tring services too Bletchley to provide reverse commuting to services on the WCML but ig going that far might as well go to Milton Keynes Central

Again, looked at before but too far for Crossrail to go. They would never get past Tring.

 

[deltic]

For the latest working assumptions on service patterns for Phase 1, 2a and 2 see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/498234/assumptions_report_PFM_2016.pdf which has a complete and fairly detailed breakdown franchise by franchise.

As The Planner points out at present all that is available are working assumptions - what will actually come into place in 10 years time may be completely different. The Midlands region for example has commissioned work looking at how released capacity on the network could be used to further their interests - other bodies are doing the same. DfT's working assumption is that level of service provided on the classic network after HS2 should be broadly the same as now which is a limiting factor. How "broadly the same" is defined will be critical in determining how much leeway there is to radically recast timetables.

 

[The Ham]

One problem with the 60% full argument is that it is based on information just after a load of long distance trains were lengthened providing them with 25.5% more capacity. As such prior lengthening there could have been a higher capacity figure, yet after the trains result in a lower figure.

It is probably the case that the 390's need to be lengthened at that point in time, but if it wasn't done then there probably wouldn't have been a good case to do it later.

Also a lot of those opposed to HS2 forget that HS2 is justified on passenger growth of 2.5%, with some sections (such as Birmingham to London being based on just 1% growth). Passenger numbers have been outperforming those rates year on year (even through the recession) as such the longer we go from 2009 the closer we get to reaching the expected early 2030 passenger numbers well ahead of then. If passenger numbers continue at similar rates we could hit the expected passenger numbers for the full opening of HS2 by the time phase 1 is open.

It is also worth noting that HS2 phase 2 needs Crossrail 2, which then helps Waterloo. As such there is a case to be made that because of the impact of HS2 it could make other projects which help other London stations more likely to happen.

 

[edwin_m]

Where is the capacity to run 4tph and freight? Both will have to use the slow lines still

I thought the whole point of the electric spine was to divert freight away from the busy southern WCML. Genuine question, how many passenger and freight services run on the WCML per hour now?

I don't think the Electric Spine helps very much, as it doesn't serve the West Midlands, NW England or west/central Scotland which is where much of the WCML freight needs to go. Quite a few infill electrifications will be needed either to create capacity for freight on the Spine itself (Corby to Syston, Trent to Clay Cross) or to connect it to freight destinations (Leicester to Birmingham, Trent to Stoke, Sheffield to Church Fenton). Many of these benefit passengers too, but none are committed.

Capacity is maximised if all trains using the same pair of tracks have uniform average speed. This would be achieved to the greatest effect on the WCML by removing what are now the VT services and dedicating the Fast lines to trains that are probably 110mph maximum and each make a similar number of stops. The Slows would have a mix of all-stations and freight, which have similar average speeds to each other. This suggests the need for at least one flying junction, probably somewhere between Tring and Roade, where trains with few or no stops from London turn into all-stations trains (or head for Northampton) and therefore switch to the Slows.

The snag for this concept is the likes of Coventry and Stoke, which have a far better service today than they would justify on their own because they are on the way to Birmingham and Manchester. Minimising detriment to those places means retaining some 125mph EPS services, arguably at a similar frequency to today's. This eats capacity on the Fast lines because their average speed will be significantly more than that of other trains. If we have to retain today's London speed and frequency to all non-HS2 destinations then capacity release comes to three or four paths per hour: the Manchester via Crewe, the Glasgow, the Liverpool and possibly the Chester paths are no longer required.

In practice the answer will be somewhere between these extremes. I would guess that the residual Coventry and Stoke services would call at two or three stations between those places and London, which would reduce their speed differential with other services and therefore create more paths as well as directly improving service at intermediate stations. They would also have space available on board because Birmingham and Manchester passengers would be using HS2 instead, creating opportunities to provide regular all-day London services to Shrewsbury and elsewhere.

Crewe Hub, whatever that looks like, should allow trains using the high speed route to and from further north to make station calls. This should allow fairly easy connection for journeys between secondary stations north and south of Crewe.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think the Electric Spine helps very much, as it doesn't serve the West Midlands, NW England or west/central Scotland which is where much of the WCML freight needs to go. Quite a few infill electrifications will be needed either to create capacity for freight on the Spine itself (Corby to Syston, Trent to Clay Cross) or to connect it to freight destinations (Leicester to Birmingham, Trent to Stoke, Sheffield to Church Fenton). Many of these benefit passengers too, but none are committed.

I just looked up the way the electric spine was first described, in the 2005 HLOS, it doesn't explicitly benefit the southern WCML; as the vast majority of freight from Southampton doesn't use that route:

The Electric Spine
34.The Secretary of State wishes the industry to develop and deliver within CP5 the major rail electrification and capability enhancement referred to as the ‘Electric Spine’, in order to increase regional and national connectivity and support economic development by creating a high-capability 25kV electrified passenger and freight route from the South Coast via Oxford and the Midlands to South Yorkshire.

35.The routes to be electrified as part of the Electric Spine are:  Southampton Port – Basingstoke (conversion from 750 dc);  Basingstoke – Reading;  Oxford – Leamington – Coventry;  Coventry – Nuneaton;  Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford (East West Rail core route);  Bedford – Nottingham and Derby, and Derby – Sheffield (Midland Main Line); and Kettering – Corby

 

[158756]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36641720

HS2 has unrealistic timetable, says National Audit Office.

'2026 opening date ... at risk'
'Phase one ... exceeding available funding by £204m'
'Phase two also over budget ... although potential savings had been identified'

And that was written pre-referendum.

 

[WatcherZero]

Some more detail, the chance of HS2 being delivered on time has risen from 53% to 60% with DfT target of 80%.

 

[Johnuk123]

This is all going like many projects from years ago, first you delay it then when it's shunted off it's scrapped.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

BBC R4 this am had David Higgins making a strong defence for HS2 - but there are mutterings for a slight delay of a year or so ....

 

[dggar]

Further reporting in RailNews

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2016/06/28-route-changes-on-the-way.html

 

[Geezertronic]

With the amount of route changes and NIMBY appeasements that appear to be happening, it is no wonder there are delays and cost implications.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The Yorkshire Post today 'understands' that Sheffield will now be served by a spur off HS2 to Midland station in the city-centre and that the viaduct at Meadowhall will no longer be required. Presumably HS2 will run now further east directly to Leeds, rather like George Stephenson's original North Midland route?
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/high-speed-rail-will-come-to-sheffield-city-centre-1-7985462

 

[WatcherZero]

Actual NAO report now out.
Phase 1 cost increased by around £650m, contingency reduced by around £450m for a net cost increased of £204m. This is blamed on a 12% rise in estimated station cost and a 220% rise in expected compensation payments to Network Rail and TOC's for disruption.

Phase 2 40% optimism bias was applied raising cost by £7bn, instead of increasing the budget the Dft decided to cut costs. £2.1bn of costs have already been agreed in the form of less property acquisition (£370m) and route changes. Around £6.2bn of further cost savings have been identified including £2bn in reduced unit cost requirement based on more mature Phase 1 development, £1.7bn from higher contractor efficiency, £539m from reduced management overhead of HS2 Ltd. £768m could be saved by having a Sheffield city centre station however this could affect the benefits by reducing the potential market so the final decision will be taken by Higgins later in the year.
Proposed phase 2 savings
£2440m stations, embankments and viaducts
£1680m supply chain efficiency
£260m income opportunities
£320m additional efficiency savings
£1190m other including project management overhead
£360m rolling stock savings

Total Proposed £7,018m
Total Proposed and already secured £9,148m

£500m for Crewe Hub Station currently unfunded
Manchester Airport station is expected to be funded from 3rd party sources however Heathrows Crossrail contribution was reduced from £230m to £70m by the Civil Aviation Authority

Examination of why it was cheaper to build High Speed rail abroad found that foreign systems tended to be lower spec and in less built up areas. Some review identified savings were incorporated in to phase 1 and 2.

There is a high confidence in £4.5bn of the £7bn potential savings being deliverable, reducing HS2 Ltd Management creates extra risk and may be better to use the contingency or increase funding instead.

Should efficiency savings not materialse the BCR of phase 1 will reduce from 1.7 to 1.5.

Phase 1 Bill on progress through parliament, notable amendments due to politicians are removing HS1 link and replacing it with a £3m travellator and extending tunnels under the Chilterns.

Potential delay if rather than publically financing rolling stock and depots the government used private financing despite three programme reviews concluding that public financing was cheaper and the time delays experienced in Thameslink/IEP procurement. Currently Government is planning to publically procure then sell them afterwards.

High Speed 2 rolling stock procurement timetabled for 20 months
Crossrail timetabled for 24 and took 24
Thameslink timetabled for 16 and took 56
IEP timetabled for 17 and took 44
* Crossrail funding was changed from private to public funding

60% confidence in delivering on time, main thing preventing it raising further is a time float of only 6-10 months between completion and opening. Dft has asked HS2 to develop plans for a 12 month delay and see if they reduce cost based on Thameslink/Crossrail experience. Main time sensitive elements are Euston and London Old Oak Common depot.

Modelled probabilities of the project achieving a BCR greater than 2 have increased from 12% in 2013 to 95% in 2015 with a 5% chance of 1.5-2 and 0.5% chance of below 1.5.

The improvements required to realise the extra regeneration of HS2 are not included in the budget and responsibility of LEP and local authorities with the exception of Euston where £417m for development is included within the HS2 budget.

 

[Haydn1971]

With the slash of £2.5Bn from the budget, that's certainly sounding like Meadowhall isn't happening as we understood it... So, HS2 into Midland and a South Yorkshire Parkway station somewhere on the Rotherham Mexborough line or perhaps more likely, not at all ?