HS2 in the press

[158756]

What sort of speeds can you get on those alignments though. The WCML drops to 80 at Grayrigg and 90 north of Beattock. The valleys in Scotland and the M6 and WCML in Cumbria appear to take much tighter bends than HS2 Phase 1.

 

[HSTEd]

Well if we go for absolute minimum cost (and thus minimum tunnelling) we can climb at 4% - which means potentially if you skew the angles right you can climb out of the valley and drop into the next rather than curve around.

The balancing speed of an AGV (as an exemplar) on a 4% slope is only ~140km/h on 25kV but the train will mostly run nonstop and at 320km/h you have huge kinetic energy.
Especially since the hills in the Lakes are relatively small by mountain standards - so you won't lose too much speed climbing over one.
320-360km/h is probably doable fairly easily.

Giant embankments and bridges are likely still cheaper than tunnels (especially the former, moving earth being cheap now thanks to our modern machinery).
A 585' (178m) would be acceptable in 4.5km (2.8 miles).

 

[Voglitz]

You could just tunnel the entire thing really. The extra cost is offset by the drastically reduced political problems.

Yes, if you've got an orchard of magic money trees.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, if you've got an orchard of magic money trees.

Ed Balls can probably point you in the right direction.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, if you've got an orchard of magic money trees.

And yet the cost of HS2 tunnels per km as part of the cost basis in the Engineering study is actually far lower than the cost of the route in its entirity.
Its rather odd really.

Its the reason that the option to simply tunnel under the entirity of the Chilterns in one continuous bore only comes out a billion or two more expensive than the carried forward proposal. And in the case of the NNML the Tunnel option actually came out cheaper because of all the disruption payments and the like that would have been made.

If there was no HS2 in the Chilterns - do you think we would havet he mass opposition and delaying tactics we have had?
And since the scheme would progress faster we would get the economic benefits sooner - which has to be accounted for in working out whether the tunnel option would have been superior.
Construction would have probably have started by now.

There is also the improved performance of the tunnel route to consider - it will never suffer things like the LGV Nord having to slow down because of ice damaging the trains.

 

[Voglitz]

And yet the cost of HS2 tunnels per km as part of the cost basis in the Engineering study is actually far lower than the cost of the route in its entirity.
Its rather odd really.

The costs certainly are odd. There may well be some unpleasant surprises in store.

 

[edwin_m]

And yet the cost of HS2 tunnels per km as part of the cost basis in the Engineering study is actually far lower than the cost of the route in its entirity.
Its rather odd really.

Its the reason that the option to simply tunnel under the entirity of the Chilterns in one continuous bore only comes out a billion or two more expensive than the carried forward proposal. And in the case of the NNML the Tunnel option actually came out cheaper because of all the disruption payments and the like that would have been made.

Not sure which bit you are referring to, but does the tunnel cost rate include the track, OLE, signalling etc that would be included in the whole-route costs?

The NNML, and indeed the tunnel near Washwood Heath, are in urban areas where the costs of land acquisition, compensation etc will be much higher than in the rural sections, and this is more likely to swing the cost balance in favour of a tunnel.

Power consumption is also greater in a tunnel because of the aerodynamic effects (the air from in front has to find its way through the limited gap between the train and the tunnel walls).

 

[HSTEd]

Not sure which bit you are referring to, but does the tunnel cost rate include the track, OLE, signalling etc that would be included in the whole-route costs?

No - but the listed cost for tunnel (not counting things required on plain line - just to put the route in a tunnel) is only ~£27-30m per double track km, which while is expesnsive, would allow a relatively small percentage increase in the budget to put almost everything that was not a station in a tunnel.
Which would eliminate the bulk of the NIMBYs overnight - if the only thing that changes is a 'HS2' sign pole near them then they won't care. Anyone affected by a station recieves a station in compensation.

The NNML, and indeed the tunnel near Washwood Heath, are in urban areas where the costs of land acquisition, compensation etc will be much higher than in the rural sections, and this is more likely to swing the cost balance in favour of a tunnel.

The cost balance also has to account for the delays in the economic benefits caused by endless NIMBY delaying actions - since the line has an essentially infinite lifetime for evaluation purposes (far longer than 30 years) you have to account for the benefits of additional years of those benefits by expediting production.

It is not a simple calculation.

Power consumption is also greater in a tunnel because of the aerodynamic effects (the air from in front has to find its way through the limited gap between the train and the tunnel walls).

Power consumption is almost irrelevant in terms of the cost of operating the route - it comes out at less than a pound per London-Manchester route journey. Even if you assume a low rate of occupancy.
Increasing it is not going to significantly change the operating costs - capital is dominant, followed by maintenance/staffing.

 

[edwin_m]

No - but the listed cost for tunnel (not counting things required on plain line - just to put the route in a tunnel) is only ~£27-30m per double track km, which while is expesnsive, would allow a relatively small percentage increase in the budget to put almost everything that was not a station in a tunnel.

Can you provide a link to this and the evidence supporting your various other points?

 

[Voglitz]

Power consumption is almost irrelevant in terms of the cost of operating the route - it comes out at less than a pound per London-Manchester route journey. Even if you assume a low rate of occupancy.

If 1 kWh = £0.10, Birmingham to London with 2 stops = 4700 kWh, and a 200 metre train = 550 passengers, the longer Manchester journey would be more than a pound, with full occupancy.

 

[HSTEd]

Can you provide a link to this and the evidence supporting your various other points?

The HS2 Risk and Cost Model

If 1 kWh = £0.10, Birmingham to London with 2 stops = 4700 kWh, and a 200 metre train = 550 passengers, the longer Manchester journey would be more than a pound, with full occupancy.

Indeed, you are correct - I am using outdated electricity price metrics for industrial producers

400kV grid customers used to pay closer to 5p than 10.....
Still - its a relatively small amount.
I make it ~£2.86 on a Manchester-London return.
Even at £15 the bulk is dominated by capital and staffing.

A long long time ago I did a very crude analsis of the marginal cost of HS2 tickets assuming a maximum capacity scheme:
Here it is
Notice the short capital payback and assumption that capital cost must be defrayed by the end of that period.
Also note how it makes up nearly half the ticket price.

The true marginal cost would exclude capital and that reduces the ticket price for London-Manchester to ~£9.30 return at 100% breakeven. So a ~£15 ticket cost would allow a fairly low fill factor.
Although I have to imagine explosive growth in demand would swamp the scheme with that kind of ticket price.
Current season ticket works out at ~£29.21 per journey.
Imagine if you will, the effect of a ~£4000 season ticket on the route. (As opposed to £14,000)

 

[edwin_m]

No - but the listed cost for tunnel (not counting things required on plain line - just to put the route in a tunnel) is only ~£27-30m per double track km, which while is expesnsive, would allow a relatively small percentage increase in the budget to put almost everything that was not a station in a tunnel.

Thanks for the link. According to Appendix A of that document, it's actually £45m or £61m per double track km for single and double bore tunnels respectively. So the extra cost of say 400km of single bore tunnel would be around £19bn (in practice double bore would probably be needed for anything other than very short tunnels). This is before all the usual markups (as given in the link) and presumably also before optimism bias, and once all those are taken into account it would about double the cost of the whole route.

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks for the link. According to Appendix A of that document, it's actually £45m or £61m per double track km for single and double bore tunnels respectively. So the extra cost of say 400km of single bore tunnel would be around £19bn (in practice double bore would probably be needed for anything other than very short tunnels). This is before all the usual markups (as given in the link) and presumably also before optimism bias, and once all those are taken into account it would about double the cost of the whole route.

Well this is the interesting thing - does anyone have any figures for how much tunnel we have already?
Its got to be pushing 30-40%.

 

[WatcherZero]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/hs2/11456575/Existing-train-lines-arent-up-to-the-job.html

Perfect example of the press not knowing where to turn!

1. HS2 is bad because it isn't great value for money.
2. Other rail lines need more investment as they are creaking at the seams.
3. Investment in other rail lines is bad, look at ugly wires on those pretty listed viaducts.

 

[edwin_m]

Well this is the interesting thing - does anyone have any figures for how much tunnel we have already?
Its got to be pushing 30-40%.

The best I can find quickly is a PDF which is top of Google search for "length of tunnel on HS2" but this stupid browser doesn't let me post the link.

Phase 1 is 140 miles of which 22.5 miles is in tunnel, after the consultation amendments. So about 16%. Although Phase 2 has the Manchester tunnel it lacks the long tunnel under the Chilterns so I can't see it getting anywhere near 30% however it is cut.

 

[CdBrux]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-soaring-costs-of-hs2-rail-link-10094665.html

Labour plans to review the cost of the £21.2bn second phase of the widely criticised High Speed Two railway if the party wins the general election in May in a bid to bring down the project’s soaring bill.



The shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has previously warned that there would be “no blank cheque” for HS2 should Labour reach Downing Street, referencing a near £10bn increase in the cost of the overall project to £42.6bn, two years ago.

A member of the Shadow Cabinet said Mr Balls and the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, have reached a “settlement” that would see phase one, cutting London to Birmingham travel time to just 49 minutes, left broadly untouched. However, Mr Balls, shadow Transport Secretary, Michael Dugher, and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Leslie, could all be tasked with trying to strip costs out of the second phase.

and so on...

 

[pablo]

Looks like it might get no further than Crewe, then. That will be fun!
Good thing they're not going to be let loose alone.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Looks like it might get no further than Crewe, then. That will be fun!
Good thing they're not going to be let loose alone.

I eagerly await Labour's Mancheter City Council and Sir Richard Lesse's response. The row this will cause won't be pretty.

 

[Haydn1971]

Ed Balls who's ward HS2 slices through to get to Leeds & ECML without getting any direct benefits ?

Would this be related to helping reduce his slim majority of just over 1000 votes or a real concern for runaway costs ?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Interesting comment a little further down in the article from a Shaddow Cabinet source.

“HS2 is going to be such a massive slug of our capital expenditure budget that we have to check whether due diligence has been done on this thing,” said the Shadow Cabinet source. “These types of projects have a habit of sucking the lifeblood out of other plans.

“We will look at the second phase. I think we have to keep that option open because of the sheer scale of the cost – not enough questions have been asked … we have to try and drive down the costs.”

When is David Higgins due to publish the proposed route for HS3? That may necessitate a rethink on the approaches into Manchester and Leeds. Certainly ending HS2 at Crewe will cause a uproar from Labours Norther Councils and MP's.

 

[WatcherZero]

This month.

 

[Snapper]

More on Hs2. Firstly, Stophs2 admit a royal mail fiddle: https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/more-rukin-revelations-the-great-royal-mail-fiddle/

Second, contractors begin to bid for over £900m worth of enabling works contracts; http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/03/17/bid-race-starts-for-900m-hs2-enabling-works/

 

[po8crg]

More on Hs2. Firstly, Stophs2 admit a royal mail fiddle: https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/more-rukin-revelations-the-great-royal-mail-fiddle/

I've commented on this, Paul - it's not as bad as it looks, and it's a stunt that's been pulled by campaigning organisations for years.

 

[Snapper]

I've commented on this, Paul - it's not as bad as it looks, and it's a stunt that's been pulled by campaigning organisations for years.

Thanks for your comments. I've added them & replied. As you say, it's nothing major, but it does help illustrate the scams they'll pull. I doubt it'll stop Joe Rukin shooting it mouth off at the Committee, so I'm sure there will be more revelations in future...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here's an update on how the anti Hs2 campaigns talking s**t when it claims to be growing & expanding; https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2...2-campaigns-claims-of-expansion-mass-support/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The latest anti Hs2 mob lunacy has led to me starting a new feature: https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/crazy-anti-hs2-campaigns-of-the-week-no-1/

 

[WatcherZero]

PM to announce today during electioneering in Yorkshire prioritisation of the Eastern arm of phase 2 allowing early delivery and use for HS3. HS2 phase 2 design will also be revised before the end of the year to integrate with HS3 to form a cohesive network.

 

[Noddy]

HS3 integration is sensible in theory, but anything ANY politician says at the moment is likely to be forgotten in a few weeks time. What a pity they didn't say this when they announced HS3!

 

[WatcherZero]

Interstingly when HS2 was first mooted people criticised it for the 350kph regular 400kph future proofing design saying trains didn't exist that could do those speeds.

Well now they do, the Frecciarossa 1000 has now been cleared to enter service on the Italian network with a regular speed of 360kph and max speed of 400kph.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2015/04/24/frecciarossa-1000-cleared-for-commercial-service/

 

[Voglitz]

Interstingly when HS2 was first mooted people criticised it for the 350kph regular 400kph future proofing design saying trains didn't exist that could do those speeds.

On 3 April 2007 - well before the official HS2 project was started by Andrew Adonis - a modified TGV ran at 574 km/h.

There was - and is - no dispute that high speed train trains could run at 400 km/h.

What is disputed, is whether 18 trains per hour could run on HS2 at 400 km/h, and whether the benefits of such operation outweigh the costs.

 

[edwin_m]

What is disputed, is whether 18 trains per hour could run on HS2 at 400 km/h, and whether the benefits of such operation outweigh the costs.

The stated intention is for 18TPH to run at 360km/h. That is backed up by several documents on the HS2 website (or at least it was, I assume they are still there somewhere after moving to gov.uk) which demonstrate how it would work with a fixed block ERTMS system.

400km/h is a bit of future proofing - it costs virtually nothing extra because in places where it wouldn't be practicable the line speed reduces to 360km or less anyway. I imagine a moving block system would be needed to allow 18TPH at 400km/h, which isn't on the market now but may be in a decade or two. 400km/h may never be used, but it's impossible to say what technology will offer or the market will require in the several hundred years that the HS2 route might be in use for. After all many of our existing main lines suffer from the assumption of their original engineers that trains would never need to go at more than about 50mph.

 

[Voglitz]

The stated intention is for 18TPH to run at 360km/h. That is backed up by several documents on the HS2 website (or at least it was, I assume they are still there somewhere after moving to gov.uk) which demonstrate how it would work with a fixed block ERTMS system.

400km/h is a bit of future proofing - it costs virtually nothing extra because in places where it wouldn't be practicable the line speed reduces to 360km or less anyway. I imagine a moving block system would be needed to allow 18TPH at 400km/h, which isn't on the market now but may be in a decade or two. 400km/h may never be used, but it's impossible to say what technology will offer or the market will require in the several hundred years that the HS2 route might be in use for. After all many of our existing main lines suffer from the assumption of their original engineers that trains would never need to go at more than about 50mph.

I don't think eighteen 360 km/h trains/hour will be running on the Italian high speed lines, any time soon. How much 400 km/h-capable infrastructure costs over the life cycle, is unknown, but a train travelling that fast, uses three times the energy of one travelling at 200 km/h.

In Germany, the 249 km/h ICx design is set to replace a large number of (faster) ICE trains, because higher speeds are seen as conferring no commercial advantage.