HS2 Interchange in Chilterns area ?

[corfield]

Hi,

1st post so please be kind

I live in the Chilterns and, being car less by choice, rely on trains to get around the country for work and family.

Anyway, it's very obvious in the area I live that local sentiment is very anti HS2, if you go to Great Missenden for instance, most of the buildings seem to have anti posters up, and there are large "Dave have you thought this through" type billboards on the main road. The local press is full of articles and the councils are spending public money against HS2. Personally, I'm all for it, but that opposition is undoubtedly real, and not confined to a minority.

So, I was looking at the HS2 route map and see that it is due to cross the new East-West link almost on the old GCR alignment at Calvert, which of course has track from the London-Aylesbury line running up there (albeit singled ?), and although I'm not sure, I presume will link to E-W ?

So would an interchange station at Calvert make sense ?, at least connecting with E-W, and a short extension from Aylesbury so the Princes Risborough service could run through as a link from the Chiltern Mainline to the interchange (or via the E-W from the Chiltern line ?).

Primarily it would give something back to the Chilterns area for all the destruction and disruption, which is very usally accompanied by "no benefit to this area" which of course is NIMBYISM, but if it's strong enough to wreck your plans, maybe it could be better to sate that issue ?

It's most important role would be travel to the North and Scotland without the giant pain in the arse that is going into Marylebone, walking or tubing to Baker St then tubing again to Euston only to come back out of London pretty much on the same ruddy alignment you went in on - which isn't really a goer.

Bigger picture is that by linking with the E-W link, you have the option of the whole Oxford (and south of that) - MK & Bedford belt having similar access to HS2 services without having to go into London, saving a lot of time (and money in fares).

Again, it wouldn't really be useful for London/Birmingham destinations as the belt is already well served by the Chiltern line and WCML, but for further afield without having to double your journey time going into/out of London, or trying to transit via Birmingham, could it be useful ?

Or would this threaten other franchises and lines revenues...

I appreciate it wouldn't be free or cheap, but you might be able to use it to split what seems (here) to be quite a powerful and growing anti HS2 lobby, certainly it's something to sell to the less informed public.

anyway. just my tuppence.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I agree with everything you have said, the only problem I can see though is the reason HS2Ltd ruled out a station in the Chilterns is because they are expecting to run 14tph on the opening of phase 1, and 18tph on the opening of phase 2, which means every train would have to stop at the station as a stopping train being over taken by a non stopping train would take up 2 of those 18 train paths (one before the nonstop train and one after), reducing the capacity of the line to places further north.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think a station bang in the middle of the Chilterns would help silence some opposition, locals would actually gain something if they got a station of their own.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It could be done without reducing the pathing provided it had extremely long loops with high speed turnouts at each end. But then the same people will probably complain at the miles of apparent four tracking that this solution would look like...


PS Before anyone asks, yes I would be prepared to live within sight and sound of HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, a chiltern interchange has been ruled out due to the ludicrous projections of service patterns and an institutional insistence that the line must be built exactly like routes in France despite the differening geographic makeup.

As well as overly conservative train emergency braking performance figures.

 

[Chris125]

In a nutshell, there's no economic case for a station at Calvert and local people will benefit by more capacity on other routes.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

In a nutshell, there's no economic case for a station at Calvert and local people will benefit by more capacity on other routes.

Chris

If the Government is willing to stump up the increased subsidy to run these other routes once the income provided by end to end passengers is removed.

 

[Nym]

By the way, if you did run it on long loops, check back into another thread somwhere and theres calculations on it, but basically, it reduces capacity by twice as many tph as you want to run, to keep a realistic running time. So if one has an overall capacity of 18tph and wants to run 2tph calling at Calvert, it would need a 15min stopping alowance and then fall back into a previous path, using up two paths and reducing the HS capacity down to 14tph. One could simply run 4tph to Calvert anyway with 15min alowances but then it would anoy locals that their jounies need to wait for so long.

If 2tph where to run through Calvert and 2tph run off at Calvert for Milton Keynes & Bichester / Oxford, and possibly squeese a little bit extra capacity out by using splitting services then it might work, using an X Min pathing fallback in combination with the turnoff services, eg. Run the Milton Keynes 10mins behind the Calvert stopper, then said calvert stopper runs in the previous envelope of the Milton Keynes. But even then, we're down to a core 14tph, and they can be filled quite quickly...

3tph Birmingham
3tph Manchester
1tph Chester (Holyhead) & Liverpool via Runcorn via Crewe & Stafford (Rugley)
1tph Liverpool via St Helens Jnc. and Preston (Blackpool) via MWP
1tph Liverpool via St Helens Jnc. and Glasgow Central via MWP
1tph Inernational WC Path

That only leaves 4tph for the E Midlands and Leeds, and that isn't enough to make it worthwhile building, 6tph would be realistic and 7tph would be nice to slot in an international service.

 

[tbtc]

A well thought out first post.

I agree in principle with a Chiltern station (for some trains to stop at).

I have friends in Stokenchurch, and their argument is that the M40 (whilst being a huge concrete swathe through the Chilterns) does at least give the locals some benefit (since they can use the motorway, as well as it being used for longer distance motorists).

A connection with the EW line would also make sense

 

[HSTEd]

I sitll think 3tph to Manchester and Leeds is huge overkill, especially when you start talking about 400m formations.
2tph would do nicely.
Remember a pair of 200m CC sets could stand in for the third service, getting you two (atleast) large CC trains down the core for "free".

And 14tph is qiute conservative as I showed in said othr thread, especially as this is presumably talking about dynamic signalling.

 

[Nym]

For one, thanks for calling it dynamic signalling rather than moving block, blocks don't move...

And I think I did a calculation that if you can have 2min headways that you could get a core 18tph and an additional 3tph stoppers in there without too much hassle...

 

[Chris125]

I sitll think 3tph to Manchester and Leeds is huge overkill, especially when you start talking about 400m formations.
2tph would do nicely.
Remember a pair of 200m CC sets could stand in for the third service, getting you two (atleast) large CC trains down the core for "free".

And 14tph is qiute conservative as I showed in said othr thread, especially as this is presumably talking about dynamic signalling.

If you dont like their methodology then come up with some valid criticism of it, any fool can say 'that looks too much' or 'x would do nicely' but its not that simple as well you know.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

If you dont like their methodology then come up with some valid criticism of it, any fool can say 'that looks too much' or 'x would do nicely' but its not that simple as well you know.

Chris

Alright then.

The capacity of a 9 carriage Cl390 (the current train used on the route between Manchester and London) is 439 seats.
The capacity of a single 200m long TGV Duplex set is 545 seats (I think, there is some confusion on this score).

As the trains on the high speed network can be 400m long that means there are several possibilities to drastically increase capacity.
If we were simply to run two TGV Duplex sets coupled together that would give a capacity of approximately 1090 seats per train.

However we would likely running trains doubled up most of the time on the captive network so the presence of two intermediate power cars that block movement between the two halves of the train is troublesome operationally.

There is apparently a serious proposal to use the bogie mounted traction motor technology of the AGV in the TGV Duplex to allow two sets to have the intermediate power units replaced with motored passenger vehicles, permitting a roughly ten percent increase in capacity without significant loss of performance for the same train length.

This takes us up to ~1200 seats per set.

Next any future design would likely be a multiple unit rather than a TGV style trailer+power unit configuration so we can likely add another hundred seats. Even with the increased volume of traction equipment required to motor at least three quarters of the trains axles to allow Shinkansen style acceleration and regenerative braking performance.

So that brings us to roughly ~1300 seats per set.

Using fixed formation 400m trains reduces the number of ECS movements required and also the number of train crew due to possible rationalisation of onboard catering, this reduces the operating costs of the train and permits more off peak tickets to be sold more cheaply, improving the utilisation of the service.

Two of these trains per hour gives ~2600 seats per hour in each direction, equivalent to approximately 6tph. This is ofcourse not mentioning that these non stop trains would not have any passengers not travelling London-Manchester on them.

The third service each hour would be provided by a pair of coupled 200m trainsets (9 coach Cl390 will serve nicely as an exemplar I think) which could provide roughly 878 additional seats per hour although not all of them would available for London-MAN journeys as the trains would be continuing on to secondary destinations like Glasgow or Liverpool.

Passenger numbers would be required to double even to fill 2tph to the same level that they are filled now (and I am currently on the 1255 MAN-EUS and it doesn't seem to be that highly filled, although I am in first class). Before we even consider the Classic Compatible service, which even if only 50% of seats are available for MAN passengers takes us up to the equivalent of 7 current trains per hour.


In short the requirement for three trains per hour is generated using trains that are not optimised for the sort of high capacity scenario that presents itself along the London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds axis.
The numbers for Leeds trains are even more insane considering it only gets 2tph from London with 9 23m passenger vehicles each.

This is also all assuming that noone travelling from London-Manchester or London-Leeds would use the WCML/ECML after opening, which although it is the optimum solution is rather unlikely.

Rather rapidly the capacity constraint becomes the interchange capacity at Euston.

 

[Stats]

So would an interchange station at Calvert make sense ?, at least connecting with E-W, and a short extension from Aylesbury so the Princes Risborough service could run through as a link from the Chiltern Mainline to the interchange (or via the E-W from the Chiltern line ?).

Although a station has been ruled out, a westward facing connection to the E-W rail link at Calvert is one of a number of potential connections between existing rail and HS2 that could be investigated further at a later should sufficient capacity exist on HS2 without impacting on the core services. Connections with HS2 at Aylesbury or Wendover are a couple of the other options left open for further consideration at a later date.

Having said that, I can't see it ever happening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The numbers for Leeds trains are even more insane considering it only gets 2tph from London with 9 23m passenger vehicles each.

But is planned to get 3tph from 2018. A thought that has just occured to me is I wonder if there is any merit in running one or more of the Leeds services as a double CC service, splitting at Leeds and extending to Harrogate, Bradford or Skipton - I'm not usually in favour of splitting but this presents new journey opportunities that currently only exist in a very limited capacity.

 

[Geezertronic]

I still think they should 4 track the core from Euston up to the Birmingham spur at least to enable intermediate stations to be added and also to allow for extra future capacity.

 

[Nym]

I still think they should 4 track the core from Euston up to the Birmingham spur at least to enable intermediate stations to be added and also to allow for extra future capacity.

You're not the only one, or at least OOC to Brum Delta.

 

[Ivo]

Definitely not the only one. The only problem with such an idea is that there probably aren't enough locations between OOC and the Delta to justify building extra tracks for stopping services; unless you plan on calling somewhere around Amersham or similar as well at the very least then you are building two extra lines roughly 100 miles long for the sake of a train that serves only one intermediate station. Perhaps given such a scenario a call somewhere in the vicinity of Leamington Spa might work, but by the time you start considering places like it the value of running such a route as part of HS2 has to be questioned. At least Amersham might work as an M25 Parkway.

By the way, what happened to that idea of having an HS2-dedicated thread? Said idea has seemingly been forgotten about.

 

[HSTEd]

Four tracking is a little overkillish thanks to the acceleration of which modern high speed rail is capable, dynamic block signalling (Even a relatively crude form with 150m blocks or somesuch) would permit the accelerating trains to start immediately and "fall back" into the path they were alloted thanks to them being able to travel closer to the train in front since the only limit is absolute braking distances (with safety margin obviously).

Even the "slow" services would be capable of 180mph.

At this moving block signalling could provide 20tph fast and 5tph slow using Shinkansen style rolling stock to an unlimited number of intermediate stations (hence why I keep backing a route via Northampton and Milton Keynes).

 

[starrymarkb]

Could always take the Haute Picardie approach, build a station to appease the locals, then only have a few trains per day stop there!

 

[giblets]

Much that I would love to see a halt near Leamington. I agree an M25 parkway (Heathrow?! Which Should get improved connections anyway), and an E-W connection (though you might argue that Oxford could be serviced from Banbury anyway) would provide great connections.

 

[RobShipway]

Surely if the East - west project goes ahead which I believe it will there should be an interchange on HS2 at this point which I believe would be just North of Bletchley?

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely if the East - west project goes ahead which I believe it will there should be an interchange on HS2 at this point which I believe would be just North of Bletchley?

There won't ever be an 'interchange'. The only track connection with East West rail will be via the infrastructure depot - to allow engineering trains to get on/off the HS route for maintenance purposes.

The suggestion (in an earlier post in this thread) of other connections in the area of Wendover or Aylesbury is odd - I can't find any mention of this in the HS2 reports...

 

[Nym]

Wendover and Aylesbury where other suggested IMDs.

 

[Stats]

The suggestion (in an earlier post in this thread) of other connections in the area of Wendover or Aylesbury is odd - I can't find any mention of this in the HS2 reports...

Page 60 of the "Review of HS2 London to West Midlands Route Selection and Speed" document listed 8 of the possible additional connections from the classic network to HS2 that were raised during the consultation and "can be given further consideration either during the detailed design stage or at a later date". These 8 connections were at Old Oak Common, at Greenford, at West Ruislip, south of Wendover, near Aylesbury, near Calvert, near Kenilworth and at Berkswell. However, DfT's position is "At this stage we do not consider there is a good case to provide additional connections from lines which cross HS2, although they could be investigated further at a later date if, contrary to our current view, there was sufficient capacity on the route to accommodate such services without detriment to the key inter-city services"

 

[swt_passenger]

Page 60 of the "Review of HS2 London to West Midlands Route Selection and Speed" document listed 8 of the possible additional connections from the classic network to HS2 that were raised during the consultation and "can be given further consideration either during the detailed design stage or at a later date". These 8 connections were at Old Oak Common, at Greenford, at West Ruislip, south of Wendover, near Aylesbury, near Calvert, near Kenilworth and at Berkswell. However, DfT's position is "At this stage we do not consider there is a good case to provide additional connections from lines which cross HS2, although they could be investigated further at a later date if, contrary to our current view, there was sufficient capacity on the route to accommodate such services without detriment to the key inter-city services"

Ah, thanks - hadn't spotted that on a quick read. As you suggested earlier, the way that reads they are all completely pretty much unlikely.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

On the topic of M25, one at every corner (Amersham, Hatton, Woolwich, and Epping) would be good, in the future all to be served by something like HS2, Hatton-OOC-Epping-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow may work.

 

[Andyjs247]

To my mind, a better location for an intermediate stop on HS2 would be an A43 parkway station close to Brackley. Whilst I would like to see a station in the vicinity of Calvert / Claydon LNE junction for access to future E-W rail, that location has relatively poor access to major roads. Unfortunately I don't really think that both Brackley and Calvert would be viable (they are fairly close to each other) so it would likely end up being an either/or choice.

Brackley is also the first town on the HS2 route that doesn't already have a rail link to London (Calvert could gain direct services between Milton Keynes and Marylebone with E-W rail). Via the A43, Brackley now has relatively good road links to the M40 and south coast via A34 and to the M1 / Northampton and beyond via A45.

That said, the Great Central never did generate much traffic between Rugby and Quainton / Aylesbury - even now I suspect neither location would generate enough local traffic so would have to rely on traffic from further afield if a station were to be viable.

Further north I think there could also be a case for a parkway station south of Leamington - perhaps close to Southam. North of Leamington, you'd more likely use Birmingham airport/interchange station in any case.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

HS2 will work a bit off parkways, but it needs to serve major establishments such as Manchester, Brum, Liverpool, Preston, and Carlisle.

 

[Ascot]

I think it works fine with just the 4 stops as you're tapped in the main Birmingham to London market with a few to serve Brum Airport. The current line will fit between the Chiltern line and West Coast so why add stops at every village on a very high business pressured line? These village people can go west or east and find a high frequency station to London and Birmingham.

Now lets compare this to Anglo Scottish services which are marketed as "express" but stop at every shack north of 53' North and go 50mph through your mothers back garden which doesn't make it high speed. You might as well add another 2 sets of tracks onto the WCML if you want to build another semi fast service via Brackley (which for the record isn't going to pay for many annual season tickets to London).

So you knock 11.5 houses down and expect a semi fast service? Yes people have said passing loops, 4 track, 30tph but it's been consulted enough times and if it would of worked it would of been done.

 

[HSTEd]

I think it works fine with just the 4 stops as you're tapped in the main Birmingham to London market with a few to serve Brum Airport. The current line will fit between the Chiltern line and West Coast so why add stops at every village on a very high business pressured line? These village people can go west or east and find a high frequency station to London and Birmingham.

Now lets compare this to Anglo Scottish services which are marketed as "express" but stop at every shack north of 53' North and go 50mph through your mothers back garden which doesn't make it high speed. You might as well add another 2 sets of tracks onto the WCML if you want to build another semi fast service via Brackley (which for the record isn't going to pay for many annual season tickets to London).

So you knock 11.5 houses down and expect a semi fast service? Yes people have said passing loops, 4 track, 30tph but it's been consulted enough times and if it would of worked it would of been done.

Which is why we are now hearing reports of 250m long single deck trainsets that make double sets an impossibility.
The government wants the route to be as full as possible as fast as possible after opening, they have no incentive to increase the capacity of the line with 400m long trainsets or double decker trains, or by using dynamic block signalling.

Additionally they must think of the subsidy that will be neccesary to support the WCML services to these cities which are politically neccesary to avoid accusations of "forcing" people to use High Speed trains, this means they do not want to connect towns like Rugby, Milton Keynes or the like to the captive network and remove the only significant source of high cost end to end passengers from these routes.

As for stopping "all shacks" north of Grantham on the ECML...... there arent that many shacks to stop at anyway so there is no significant local "slow traffic". THe station spacings for East Coast services averaged for London-Edinburgh are comparable to those on the Tokaido shinkansen.