HS2 - register your support.

[Philip Elliott]

I can't imagine HS2 ever turned out to be a failure. I mean, a line connecting the major cities together can't fail - or else why are so many people using the WCML, MML and ECML?

Because they serve 50+ cities & towns. The current planned capacity for London to Birmingham is 10 times the current market!!

 

[Nym]

There are 15 carrage trains on the route, they run into Scotland

The 390 is at the limit of what it is able to do for length at 11 cars, the EPS system just stops working on a 390 as does many other control systems due to signal degigation between either end of the unit. This doesn't stop any other units running at 12 or 16 cars long. But they won't be able to use EPS Speeds.

When HS2 comes into being, I would expect (or hope for) a fair few 400m diagrams to run, especially in the peaks.

One thing I am hoping for is that there will be a decision on what will be happening at Manchester, at the inital state of construction, so that building will start on the Manchester HS2 station at the inital stage.

It will be connected into the conventional network between Rugley and Ardwick (Assuming the use of the Mayfeild Insustrial Site as the HS2 station). And the platforms built at Mayfeild would be to the EU Standard, possibly with some additional standard platforms to take some strain off of Piccadilly.

This would allow for minimal level of disruption to the Piccadilly throught, rather than extending the existing platforms at Piccadilly. It would mean that services on the HS2 route, using CC stock would need to cross the slow lines when entering or leaving the station. But it would mean that 400m services would be able to run on Day1 into Manchester, and free up terminal platform space that is desprately needed.

If the linespeed on the slows between Slade Lane and Piccadilly where improved it would mitigate some of the effects of crossing the slows, and would only be for 3 or 4tph, with all of the way from Ardwick to Slade Lane to change sides it would be enough IMO.

It would also provide a good face for HS2 in Manchester, with somthing shiney and new to look at, some Mancunians are known to like shiney things.

I would also intergrate this with a new walkway from the far south side of the inside of the Piccadilly Concourse, down to Platforms 13 - 16 and the new HS Station, with new drop off points on Fairfeild St. I'd also be having pasive or active provision for platforms 17 and 18...

Before I get so far off topic it's rediculous, for anyone who doesn't know my vision of Piccadilly.

3 Additional platforms on the North Side
4 Additional platforms over Fairfeild St or 2 Platforms over Fairfeild St with a reversing siding to the South East in the centre of the slow lines.
The Mayfeild site would be used for the HS2 terminal station in Manchester, with provision for a link over towards Ardwick on a viaduct for services onwards over the Pennines, or looping round onto other routes, if large enough, provision for a link through the HS2 station, roughly paralell with the A57M/A635M Mancunican Way out toward the Chat Moss Alignment, although this link would also be provided at Manchester West Parkway.

So we'd end up with

2 Platforms to the North East of the main shed. 1 & 2
12 Platforms in the current shed. 3 - 14
6 Platforms through to Oxford Road and over Fairfeild Street. 15 - 20
8 Platforms on the Mayfeild Ind. Site for HS2, at appropriate guage. 21 - 28
2 Metrolink platforms in the undercroft.

30 platforms at Piccadilly

I'd also change Oxford Road, until 4 track across Manchester arrives, that I dowbt it ever will, I would have a minor re-alignment and extention of the platforms, if 6 platforms or a good enough turnback was provided at Piccadilly, nothing would terminate at Oxford Road any more, Platform 5 and the space of Platform 6 would be completly superflous, and disconnected from the network. This would allow platforms 1 and 8 to be extended to 8 * 23m length.

Really off topic now, but what the hey....

I would look at using the space of Platforms 5 & 6 for somthing though. Metrolink.

Metrolink viaducts are much cheaper and easyer to construct than Heavy Rail ones. And Oxford road is currently missed off the map. And with how one sides the Metrolink network is becoming, with so much running through Cornbrook, and not that much through Victoria, Oxford Roads former bays would provide a handy place to terminate some metrolink services in the CC. I'll take this further in another thread.

 

[LE Greys]

<snip>

Take the WCML for example, I read that before it was rebuilt, Euston used to have a fifteen carriage long platform. Do other stations on the route have fifteen carriage platforms and if so, would it be possible to upgrade power supply and signalling to to take fifteen carriage trains on some routes?

Obviously this would be for the engineers to answer, but has anyone even considered it.

As Nym said, the main reason they retained that platform (and Platform 1 at Paddington, which was once just as long) is for the sleepers. It might be possible, albeit expensive, to lengthen a few other platforms to extreme length, but would it help? Well, not really. This would need extra power to shift the longer trains, increasing costs a bit. Presumably, trains would run in two portions to avoid running around with fifteen half-empty vehicles off-peak, or divide en route, the longer portion going to Manchester, the shorter one going to Liverpool.

Actually, fifteen would be a typical load for the Mid-Day Scot. A Duchess hauling 6 coaches for Glasgow, 6 for Edinburgh, a restaurant car and two luggage vans. Heaven knows how they fitted that lot into the platforms at Carstairs. At the time, there were only five workings to Glasgow per day (I think) which may or may not include the sleeper. We've gone from long, slow trains to fast, short, fixed-formation ones. It just seems to be more efficient to run them that way.

 

[sprinterguy]

Because they serve 50+ cities & towns. The current planned capacity for London to Birmingham is 10 times the current market!!

Are you referring to the seating capacity of the London to Birmingham only HS2 trains, or the overall capacity of the London to Birmingham HS2 line? Surely three HS2 trains an hour (four in the peak) between London and Birmingham can't possibly offer ten times the capacity of the current three Pendolinos an hour on the WCML (Not counting the slower LM equivalent journey option).

Because even after the opening of only the initial phase of HS2, only a fraction of the available paths will be used for Birmingham trains: HS2 will also serve Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland via Lichfield.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Are you referring to the seating capacity of the London to Birmingham only HS2 trains, or the overall capacity of the London to Birmingham HS2 line? Surely three HS2 trains an hour (four in the peak) between London and Birmingham can't possibly offer ten times the capacity of the current three Pendolinos an hour on the WCML (Not counting the slower LM equivalent journey option).

The potential capacity quoted for the Birmingham trains is 4,400 (4 x1100 seat trains in the peak). The current actual market for Birmingham to London works out about 400-450 people per hour. The rest of the current 3x 390 capacity is used by Wolves/Sandwell/BHI/Cov/Rug/MKC/WFJ traffic or spare.

 

[PinzaC55]

Because they serve 50+ cities & towns. The current planned capacity for London to Birmingham is 10 times the current market!!

Presumably since we live in the age of privatisation the line/system will be expected to recoup it's cost i.e £34 Billion and make a profit. How will it do this? Walk on fares for the ECML to London are already extortionate and that's on an existing railway with train services provided by a quasi-nationalised company.
Also it seems to be an innate assumption in some of the posts here that 99% of the passengers carried on the WCML, ECML and MML will simply desert those lines en masse for the new line. Will that really happen? And if it doesn't carry it's projected numbers won't the fares have to rise for the people it does carry?
More to the point do you trust this or any government in living memory to spend your £34 Billion (taxpayer's) money wisely?

 

[sprinterguy]

The potential capacity quoted for the Birmingham trains is 4,400 (4 x1100 seat trains in the peak). The current actual market for Birmingham to London works out about 400-450 people per hour. The rest of the current 3x 390 capacity is used by Wolves/Sandwell/BHI/Cov/Rug/MKC/WFJ traffic or spare.

Ah fair enough. Out of curiosity, where does the 400-450 figure come from? I would have thought that it would be much higher during the evening peak out of Euston for passengers travelling to Birmingham. I would assume that HS2 Birmingham trains would also cater for those travelling to Sandwell and Wolverhampton, bit it is admittedlty a debateable point whether such passengers would prefer a slower, direct train on the WCML or a faster journey with a change in Birmingham City Centre.

It's an inescapable fact that demand for rail travel is going up. I can't remember the expected percentage rise expected by 2025, but extra capacity over that which is currently available will certainly be needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably since we live in the age of privatisation the line/system will be expected to recoup it's cost i.e £34 Billion and make a profit. How will it do this? Walk on fares for the ECML to London are already extortionate and that's on an existing railway with train services provided by a quasi-nationalised company.

£17 Billion for the first stage to Birmingham and Lichfield, after which many trains will run onto the existing WCML. The £34 Billion only comes into play when the arms to Leeds and Manchester are constructed.

HS2 should do good things for the WCML and the ECML and encourage people away from the existing long distance services, but the likely success at encouraging patronage from the MML is more dubious due to the lack of city centre stations for HS2 at Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield.

 

[Metroland]

Meanwhile in Iraq and China

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13909905

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13927660

 

[Snapper]

Presumably since we live in the age of privatisation the line/system will be expected to recoup it's cost i.e £34 Billion and make a profit. How will it do this? Walk on fares for the ECML to London are already extortionate and that's on an existing railway with train services provided by a quasi-nationalised company.

Read this:

http://www.greengauge21.net/publications/high-speed-rail-fair-and-affordable/#more-372
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All for the sake of saving around 30 mins. If you travel to Brum airport, with all the transfers there will be saving of around 5-10 mins!!

It is not 30 minutes. Between London and Birmingham it will be 40 minutes. Between London and Leeds it will be an hour.

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Fact-sheet-journey-times1.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

Let's hope that the Government of the day does actually ensure that there are a reasonable distribution of affordable fares when it comes to the franchising arrangements.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Ah fair enough. Out of curiosity, where does the 400-450 figure come from?

Dividing the number of users (by ticket sales) by the number of trains run. It was reported in a new article that Birmingham to London is 2.5m a year compared to 976,000 from Coventry to London. Coventry has a higher usage per 1,000 population than Birmingham...!

It is not 30 minutes. Between London and Birmingham it will be 40 minutes. Between London and Leeds it will be an hour.

The official quote time from HS2 ltd is 49 minutes from Euston to Fazeley Street compared to the current 82 minutes which I make 33 minutes difference not 40. Somehow I don't think the current advertised time includes calling times at the two intermediate stations. Add those plus WTT/GBTT differentials and the usual NR farce, I can forsee the advertised time journey being 55 minutes on completion. Interestingly under Rail Package 4, Paddington - New Street is projected at 61 minutes using 125 mph stock with the possibility of running 140 or 155 mph with ERTMS.

 

[Nym]

Philip, you're quoting headline current times, and off peak HS2 times, if you're going to compare, compare both on the same scale.

Comparing avarage journey times for both routes it's a 35min saving...

 

[Philip Elliott]

Sorry Nym, you're wrong. The standard journey time for VT EBW services is 82 minutes (advertised as 84). The 'headline' train is 72 minutes

 

[Bonemaster]

Philip, you're quoting headline current times, and off peak HS2 times, if you're going to compare, compare both on the same scale.

Comparing avarage journey times for both routes it's a 35min saving...

Don't forget the 800 metre walk into Birmingham City Centre (distance from walkit.com so who am I to argue) walking at 4 miles an hour so that's an additional 8 minutes lost for an average walker, so that makes it a 28 minute saving, so that's £607 million per minute or to put it another way 607 police constables for there entire working life in monetary terms for each and every minute saved

Dividing the number of users (by ticket sales) by the number of trains run. It was reported in a new article that Birmingham to London is 2.5m a year compared to 976,000 from Coventry to London. Coventry has a higher usage per 1,000 population than Birmingham...!

And its not marginal either at more than 20%

 

[LE Greys]

Don't forget the 800 metre walk into Birmingham City Centre (distance from walkit.com so who am I to argue) walking at 4 miles an hour so that's an additional 8 minutes lost for an average walker, so that makes it a 28 minute saving, so that's £607 million per minute or to put it another way 607 police constables for there entire working life in monetary terms for each and every minute saved

What would be the cost of extending Midland Metro and would it recoup itself by attracting more passengers?

 

[Bonemaster]

What would be the cost of extending Midland Metro and would it recoup itself by attracting more passengers?

Well the 700 metre extension to New Street is to cost £129 million, such is the total farce of HS2, there are no legal powers to extend to Curzon Street (see my comments about dysfunctional strategy), whereas all the legal stuff is in place to extend to New Street and this wasn't confirmed that long ago, so it would be a start from the drawing board solution, so you would be looking at the same again plus all the planning costs to get the project started, which would be funded by WMPTE inclusive of the 62% of the population who's boroughs get naff all benefit from HS2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Meanwhile in Iraq and China

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13909905

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13927660

Hardly comparable examples the first one is only a preliminary deal, which is being funded by the west as part of the rebuilding funding and the 2nd one is the distance from London to Edinburgh and back and then most of the way to Peterborough on a second trip, where high speed rail is without any doubt the answer. I do note the Iraqi line is planned to stop at cities along the route unlike our own project.

 

[Nym]

How many times, it isn't just to birmingham!

It will benifit every station on the WCML south of Rugley and every major destination ON the WCML!

And stations on the inner ECML will benifit from more stoppers, as fasts are sent via HS2

 

[MidnightFlyer]

My concern is that Stoke, Coventry, Preston etc will all lose their fast services to London in favour of hourly only services calling at about three or four stations south thereafter.

 

[Bonemaster]

How many times, it isn't just to birmingham!

It will benifit every station on the WCML south of Rugley and every major destination ON the WCML!

And stations on the inner ECML will benifit from more stoppers, as fasts are sent via HS2

Birmingham is the pivot point in all this, thats the bit that all those who go on about Lichfield and the north don't get that without Birmingham the project is without any doubt totally un-viable in its current form that is under consultation, as such if Birmingham is flawed the whole phase is flawed.
There wont be any second chance to correct this so it absolutely has got to be the right proposal

Even the consultation document gives details of just 11 cities that will benefit from High Speed Rail so no its not about everywhere in the north, I can come up with more cities greater than 150000 in the North that would loose out in less than 10 seconds, with fewer slower services.

My objections are based on the West Midlands area of the scheme specifically, where I'm from, where it will impact on my community, my city, and my region; the one section that has been pretty much set in stone as a proposal, I'm sure that sentiments of the people of the West Midlands will be felt accross the North of England and the remainder of the Midlands when the penny drops about just who and where will benefit and that the majority of people in this country who do not live in the massive cities will loose out, the people of Coventry, Stafford, Stoke, Wakefield, Preston, York, Bradford, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Sunderland to name but a few of the biggest, the combined population of which is more than Birmingham and Manchester combined and trebled.

 

[pmgarvey]

Birmingham is the pivot point in all this, thats
My objections are based on the West Midlands area of the scheme specifically, where I'm from, where it will impact on my community, my city, and my region; the one section that has been pretty much set in stone as a proposal, I'm sure that sentiments of the people of the West Midlands will be felt accross the North of England and the remainder of the Midlands when the penny drops about just who and where will benefit and that the majority of people in this country who do not live in the massive cities will loose out, the people of Coventry, Stafford, Stoke, Wakefield, Preston, York, Bradford, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Sunderland to name but a few of the biggest, the combined population of which is more than Birmingham and Manchester combined and trebled.

I still don't see why they do, surely with HS2 providing the fast services they'll get better services than they do now, rather than trains flying through (well maybe not York as everything stops there anyway, but the rest).

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I'm very worried, unless real guarantees are made about the existing network as it is.

What are we spending now ? 4 - 5 billion?

I can well imagine some Government wag coming up five years down the line and saying:

"We're spending 4 billion a year on the railway (2 of which is for HS2) we need to cut back, so the rest of the network gets trimmed."

Sorry. Unless there is some explicit seperate commitment, by the political class to maintain the existing network, my support for HS2 will not be forthcoming (for what little worth it is).

 

[Nym]

My concern is that Stoke, Coventry, Preston etc will all lose their fast services to London in favour of hourly only services calling at about three or four stations south thereafter.

The current projected timetable is pretty much the same as the current one north of Rugley...

Per hour:

Liverpool via Runcorn
Liverpool via St Helens Jcn
Manchester via Stoke 2tph
Manchester via Crewe
Preston semi Fast
Glasgow Fast

I could see Chester being added if it where electrified, possibly splitting from a Liverpool service.

The only places I can see loosing out (not to add fuel to somone's fire) is Coventry.

However, I would expect the WCML fasts to be slowed slightly and drop to 2tph. With some additional station calls.

The same as the current services on the Trent Valley.

 

[PinzaC55]

I looked at the HS2 website and it appears that this project will be financed by the taxpayer and then the system will be leased to private companies - that'll be nice if you are one of the few companies who can afford the huge sums of money and coincidentally also contribute to the Tory party.
By contrast I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that some years ago the Central Railway project was put forward which would have largely reopened the Great Central main line. It was a privately funded project but it was turned down by the government of the day.
Am I missing something here?

 

[Bonemaster]

I looked at the HS2 website and it appears that this project will be financed by the taxpayer and then the system will be leased to private companies - that'll be nice if you are one of the few companies who can afford the huge sums of money and coincidentally also contribute to the Tory party.
By contrast I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that some years ago the Central Railway project was put forward which would have largely reopened the Great Central main line. It was a privately funded project but it was turned down by the government of the day.
Am I missing something here?

No, spot on there, guess who had it going through there own constituency and voted against it one Rt Hon Mr Phillip Hammond MP.

Nym, you seem to be cutting out the impact of the second phase (which I was referring to) which will divert all Manchester trains away from Stoke on Trent and Crewe and Liverpool trains via Manchester and not via Runcorn. Councils who have looked into the proposals, who one would think would have access to ask questions that we mere enthusiasts can not, in two of my list have objected to the HS2 proposal, and to be honest my list of locations was quiet rigged, giving cities that would be bypassed by the 2nd phase, some (i.e. more than just Coventry) are objecting to the first phase on the grounds of lower service frequency, those that will most likely get no extra service at all and currently are under provided in terms of connections to the capital. The reason for the rigging was that the response was always going to be quiet predictable. Selectively choosing first phase benefits when it suits, then using stage two benefits when it doesn't, even when each will mean very different things to different locations, is very misleading to many people who may read this.

If you honestly believe Stoke-on-Trent (which is actually that worried its bidding for an HS2 station, which with only 2 intermediate stations to be built, as announced last year, that would mean either South Yorkshire, or the East Midlands will miss out), Runcorn, or Crewe will have the same level of service as today into Manchester as you imply after the 2nd phase of building as they do today then I am afraid you have a very blinkered view, all these benefit from being on a line to a proposed HS2 terminus, and the services will be cut back dramatically to ensure that whoever runs HS2 makes a massive profit, and is not at risk of being undercut, by an attractive classic railway, as well as making sure that the government who signs off on the project doesn't get egg all over their faces. I would argue just like myself your strong opinions are driven by your geographic location.

I know I'm now at the risk of sounding tiring, so I'm going to cease contributing to this thread at this point as I feel all my salient objections, have been aired, so my parting comment is, If like myself you believe HS2 is an imperfect solution to a real problem, if you believe something needs to be done to aid capacity above another WCML upgrade, and support a new lower (than the proposed speed) speed railway, that will serve towns and cities en route, adding to capacity for everyone, and creating a real alternative route for passengers, not just those places that are lucky enough to get a station, respond to the consultation before it closes.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Liverpool via Runcorn
Liverpool via St Helens Jcn
Manchester via Stoke 2tph
Manchester via Crewe
Preston semi Fast
Glasgow Fast

The Manchesters via Stoke are not planned to stop at Stoke! Nor is the via Crewe service to stop at Crewe - but will stop at the small town of Wilmslow!

A massive waste of paths on the NSR ML.

 

[DarkestDreams]

Yikes, a lot of people get really angry about this stuff!

Personally, I support HS2 in principle; we can argue for hours about the effectiveness of high speed rail in the current climate, but by 2025 it's clear that we will need more capacity, more train paths and faster journey times. High speed rail is better for the environment than flying, and with oil running out it's going to become even more important. However, I think. that the consultation should have included the entire route, even to Scotland. While stage 1 will reduce journey time by half an hour to Glasgow, we need to get all of the arguing out of the way now about extending it to Scotland (which is needed). By running the entire project in stages, we're condemning it. At the current rate, the world will have ended before we get a plausible high speed network.

 

[stanley T]

At a time when public spending is being cut all over the place to bail out the investment *ankers, HS2 is idiotic. For a fraction of the money:
- electrify the rest of the core system after GWML , MML and XC to Bristol. Then it becomes worthwhile to haul freight electric, massively boosting the economics;
- four track pinch points like Crewe – Weaver Junction, Holme - Peterborough
- resignal the whole system on ETCS, it’s now proven , cheaper and no more cable thefts (and the Pendolinos could run at 140mph nearly all the way to Carnforth)
- reconnect Oxford and Cambridge at last!
- Redo ECML catenary, properly this time
- Put Pacers out of their misery
Etc. etc.

The train already beats both plane and car over all major routes except London- Scotland and to the South West , where it is not economic to spend so much for the volume. In any case with high fuel prices likely to stay it is all about affordability rather than extra speed. As for capacity and train lengths, the IEP specification (may it die unlamented) said 312m in multiple, and if 375m Eurostars could manage the Tonbridge curve it is not beyond the wit of man to lengthen platforms, boost power supplies and rework a few junctions. High speed lines are no use to freight.

Trouble is, politicians love big projects, they get the headlines in a way that incremental improvements never do. Also worth reflecting why NIMBY resistance is so strongly against them – because they do not benefit local residents, unlike a motorway. Same story in all the other densely populated European countries – Germany, Benelux, Italy, where building them has been slow and expensive. Relatively empty France and Spain are the exceptions

 

[NSEFAN]

At a time when public spending is being cut all over the place to bail out the investment *ankers, HS2 is idiotic. For a fraction of the money:
- electrify the rest of the core system after GWML , MML and XC to Bristol. Then it becomes worthwhile to haul freight electric, massively boosting the economics;
- four track pinch points like Crewe – Weaver Junction, Holme - Peterborough
- resignal the whole system on ETCS, it’s now proven , cheaper and no more cable thefts (and the Pendolinos could run at 140mph nearly all the way to Carnforth)
- reconnect Oxford and Cambridge at last!
- Redo ECML catenary, properly this time
- Put Pacers out of their misery
Etc. etc.

Actual numbers would be good to see. Vague statements aren't as helpful.

 

[LE Greys]

The Manchesters via Stoke are not planned to stop at Stoke! Nor is the via Crewe service to stop at Crewe - but will stop at the small town of Wilmslow!

A massive waste of paths on the NSR ML.

Isn't Wilmslow in George Osbourne's constituency?

Actually, I reckon that Crewe and Stoke stops will appear within a year of opening. Also, will Glasgow-London be effectively 2tph? One fast and one slow, probably taking in Nuneaton and Milton Keynes. It would be good to see a few extra stops along the Trent Valley, and an effective doubling of the service to Glasgow. The fast might well miss out places like Oxenholme, but I'd hope the slow would start taking in Lockerbie as well.

 

[Mojo]

Don't forget the 800 metre walk into Birmingham City Centre (distance from walkit.com so who am I to argue) walking at 4 miles an hour so that's an additional 8 minutes lost for an average walker.

Where in the city centre are you going to?!

The map on the DfT website shows the entrance to the station will be right next door to Moor Street station. That's about a 20 second walk to the doors of the Bullring!