HSUK vs HS2

[Bald Rick]

The mention of 4-tracking makes me wonder. How much extra would a new 4-track railway cost vs a new double track railway? Noting a rationale for new double track is that the cost is at least comparable to quad tracking an existing double track due to need to replace bridges and acquire land in potentially denser areas than a new alignment.

That is a very broad question and I don't expect a super accurate response. But would it be like 1.5x more expensive rather than 2x (ie double cost for double the tracks)?

Possible applications I can think of are to remove freight from urban or otherwise congested local routes, or for sections of routes which could also provide new connections for local routes but if only double tracked would result in reduced capacity by sharing.

Cost of construction will be close to 2x, as it is 2x the work (Labour, plant, materials, energy, etc).

Cost of planning / design / land acquistion and all the rest of the non construction activity - probably less than 2x, but in some circumstances could be more than 2x, depends on the specifics. For example land take at stations and certain other areas (eg tunnel portals) will be more than 2x, and finding a wider solum for a 4 track railway inevitably means bumping into expensive things that can be ‘missed’ with a thinner 2 track solum.

 

[takno]

Possible applications I can think of are to remove freight from urban or otherwise congested local routes, or for sections of routes which could also provide new connections for local routes but if only double tracked would result in reduced capacity by sharing.

Freight tends to need a different route profile to high speed passenger rail. Because it is heavy it is more sensitive to gradients, and because it is slower it wants a shorter route even at the cost of sharper corners. You'd also probably want local trains to bolster the case for the slow lines, which means you have to build the line through places rather than avoiding them

 

[MPW]

Cost of construction will be close to 2x, as it is 2x the work (Labour, plant, materials, energy, etc).

Cost of planning / design / land acquistion and all the rest of the non construction activity - probably less than 2x, but in some circumstances could be more than 2x, depends on the specifics. For example land take at stations and certain other areas (eg tunnel portals) will be more than 2x, and finding a wider solum for a 4 track railway inevitably means bumping into expensive things that can be ‘missed’ with a thinner 2 track solum.

Thanks

 

[BogiePicker]

Lots of points so will respond thematically


Birmingham - Strategy

Very much seems to be the tail wagging the dog here. Its London flows aren’t significantly larger than those of other major cities and aren’t significant enough to cause path-dependence for entire network. Flows from London to Milton Keynes are greater; MK is bypassed by HS2 and it seems its intercity offering will suffer, but will be provided 5 intercity tph by HSUK, more than double today's two. Likewise Coventry and Birmingham Airport are ignored but have significant flows. HSUK can bypass classic mainlines and join them when needed, but HS2's Chiltern routeing makes this impossible.
Regional flows around Birmingham are also rather significant compared to long distance intercity ones, and seem to indicate a regional Midlands hub foremost. Flows to Leicester are greater than to the headline-grabbing Manchester, and HSUK improves this to 37 mins, 3tph. Nottingham is not too far behind and is also served directly and more quickly (40 mins) via an upgraded XCML running fast to Derby.


Birmingham – Capacity

HSUK proposes 4 tph London – Birmingham, double today’s 2tph intercity services, which are enumerated here for the avoidance of all doubt
-HSUK61 Lon – Edinburgh via Luton
-HSUK62 Lon – Shrewsbury via Northants
-HSUK63 Lon – Liverpool via Coventry
-HSUK64 Lon – Manchester via Rugby
-HSUK94 Gatwick- Wolverhampton via Heathrow and Brent Cross

HSUK has proposals to facilitate flows through New St, essentially by segregating ‘Midland’ and -LNWR’ flows, and eliminating conflicts/grade separation/four-tracking approaches where possible. Details are on website, document A16 in relevant section.

And if the mantra that “HS2 isn’t about speed, it’s about capacity” is true, there are a host of other ways to improve capacity to Birmingham. Lower first class share, denser trains (Class 745), Chiltern upgrade and I’d even speculate that Birmingham Snow Hill might be able to handle 400m trains if it really was that vital.


Birmingham – Speed

HSUK acknowledges that HS2 will be faster to Curzon St, but this singular headline figure advantage is not so valuable because time savings shrink with higher speeds and the average transfer time will be greater. Many smaller and intermediate destinations cannot benefit from it.


HSUK vs HS2 – Cost and scope

The cost of HS2 is not so much a problem in and of itself (though hardly ignorable), but rather because of how little you do get and how much you don’t for your billions. Of course, doing more generally costs more, but integrated & focused works at existing stations mean you target interventions to get most bang for buck. Eg at Leeds, the south-facing T – station creates very little capacity & doesn’t address critical bottlenecks which throttle entire local network. HSUK grade separation by using Farnley Viaduct and four tracking to Cross gates enables approximate doubling of local traffic as a joint co-benefit or perhaps byproduct of intercity works. Even with NPR, the critical eastern viaduct will constrain increasing frequencies.

Moreover, even pro-HS2 advocates like Greengauge21 and Gareth Dennis say that HS2 has to do more than just the basic Y-model, and this means billions and billions on top of an already monstrous expenditure to do what HSUK already provides for. The common lacuna they note is the poor cross country proposition from HS2, which takes us back to Birmingham, etc.


Four-tracking vs two separate lines

It does seem that, even with the ‘variable’ element, there may be some fixed-cost elements or possible bases of economies of scale. Eg conditional on having one’s kit already on site, the marginal cost of, say, doubling the track formation, might not be that great, even though the pure physical work is double. The big one seems to be the potential problem of needing two London stations. Greengauge21 proposes basically a New Anglian Main Line to Cambridge/Marks Tey via Stansted, but only specifies a Stratford terminus. I quite like this as an idea, but getting this to central London will not be easy.

From a network integration perspective, it also seems better to have a single ‘line of best fit’ spine to which most feeder lines can connect, than two separate parallel lines. The WCML and MML seem to illustrates this; physically close, but, temporally, awkwardly far.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fascinating.
Unfortunately for those advocating HSUK, HS2 is actually happening. And HSUK isn‘t.

 

[Shrop]

Lots of points so will respond thematically


Birmingham - Strategy

Very much seems to be the tail wagging the dog here. Its London flows aren’t significantly larger than those of other major cities and aren’t significant enough to cause path-dependence for entire network. Flows from London to Milton Keynes are greater; MK is bypassed by HS2 and it seems its intercity offering will suffer, but will be provided 5 intercity tph by HSUK, more than double today's two. Likewise Coventry and Birmingham Airport are ignored but have significant flows. HSUK can bypass classic mainlines and join them when needed, but HS2's Chiltern routeing makes this impossible.
Regional flows around Birmingham are also rather significant compared to long distance intercity ones, and seem to indicate a regional Midlands hub foremost. Flows to Leicester are greater than to the headline-grabbing Manchester, and HSUK improves this to 37 mins, 3tph. Nottingham is not too far behind and is also served directly and more quickly (40 mins) via an upgraded XCML running fast to Derby.


Birmingham – Capacity

HSUK proposes 4 tph London – Birmingham, double today’s 2tph intercity services, which are enumerated here for the avoidance of all doubt
-HSUK61 Lon – Edinburgh via Luton
-HSUK62 Lon – Shrewsbury via Northants
-HSUK63 Lon – Liverpool via Coventry
-HSUK64 Lon – Manchester via Rugby
-HSUK94 Gatwick- Wolverhampton via Heathrow and Brent Cross

HSUK has proposals to facilitate flows through New St, essentially by segregating ‘Midland’ and -LNWR’ flows, and eliminating conflicts/grade separation/four-tracking approaches where possible. Details are on website, document A16 in relevant section.

And if the mantra that “HS2 isn’t about speed, it’s about capacity” is true, there are a host of other ways to improve capacity to Birmingham. Lower first class share, denser trains (Class 745), Chiltern upgrade and I’d even speculate that Birmingham Snow Hill might be able to handle 400m trains if it really was that vital.


Birmingham – Speed

HSUK acknowledges that HS2 will be faster to Curzon St, but this singular headline figure advantage is not so valuable because time savings shrink with higher speeds and the average transfer time will be greater. Many smaller and intermediate destinations cannot benefit from it.


HSUK vs HS2 – Cost and scope

The cost of HS2 is not so much a problem in and of itself (though hardly ignorable), but rather because of how little you do get and how much you don’t for your billions. Of course, doing more generally costs more, but integrated & focused works at existing stations mean you target interventions to get most bang for buck. Eg at Leeds, the south-facing T – station creates very little capacity & doesn’t address critical bottlenecks which throttle entire local network. HSUK grade separation by using Farnley Viaduct and four tracking to Cross gates enables approximate doubling of local traffic as a joint co-benefit or perhaps byproduct of intercity works. Even with NPR, the critical eastern viaduct will constrain increasing frequencies.

Moreover, even pro-HS2 advocates like Greengauge21 and Gareth Dennis say that HS2 has to do more than just the basic Y-model, and this means billions and billions on top of an already monstrous expenditure to do what HSUK already provides for. The common lacuna they note is the poor cross country proposition from HS2, which takes us back to Birmingham, etc.


Four-tracking vs two separate lines

It does seem that, even with the ‘variable’ element, there may be some fixed-cost elements or possible bases of economies of scale. Eg conditional on having one’s kit already on site, the marginal cost of, say, doubling the track formation, might not be that great, even though the pure physical work is double. The big one seems to be the potential problem of needing two London stations. Greengauge21 proposes basically a New Anglian Main Line to Cambridge/Marks Tey via Stansted, but only specifies a Stratford terminus. I quite like this as an idea, but getting this to central London will not be easy.

From a network integration perspective, it also seems better to have a single ‘line of best fit’ spine to which most feeder lines can connect, than two separate parallel lines. The WCML and MML seem to illustrates this; physically close, but, temporally, awkwardly far.

As @Bald Rick indicates, this is a fascinating analysis, however the subsequent comment that HS2 is happening and HSUK isn't, seems unnecessarily harsh. It makes me imagine Sunak sitting in his ivory tower, killing off the Manchester part of HS2 and when questioned, saying "It's my decision, I'm the Prime Minister and you're not" - so I hope I've misunderstood this!

It's refreshing to hear comments taking HSUK seriously and some good points have been made by @BogiePicker about Birmingham. It shouldn't be necessary for me to reiterate the arguments against HS2's Heathrow/Birmingham obsession, the point remains that the HSUK principles weren't even properly entertained. HSUK was launched in 2008, well before HS2 was approved and so there was time to consider it seriously, but by then the HS2 movement had already become powerful and its supporters gave every impression of not wanting to hear of any alternatives.

What I would reiterate is that although HSUK was late coming to the table, many of its principles had already been proposed by others. Even when HSUK eventually did show itself, the first thing that both Government and HS2 proponents should have done, was to ask whether any of its elements were worth considering, even if dismissing a good part of HSUK, but instead they showed virtually no genuine interest in it, just affording it lip service because they were already too heavily invested in HS2.

As I've said previously, we're now far too far advanced to reconsider HS2 Phase 1, but there really are serious lessons to be learned about how not to propose and manage a nationwide transport project. The continued belief that HS2 was developed and managed properly, as the best new rail system for the UK, even with all of its subsequent phases, is simply to perpetuate a blinkered way of thinking.

 

[The Ham]

And if the mantra that “HS2 isn’t about speed, it’s about capacity” is true, there are a host of other ways to improve capacity to Birmingham. Lower first class share, denser trains (Class 745), Chiltern upgrade and I’d even speculate that Birmingham Snow Hill might be able to handle 400m trains if it really was that vital.

A full standard class 390 would have 636 seats a 12 coach 745 would have 722 seats.

A HS2 train was expected to have 1,100 seats, that's still with first class seating. Even compared to the 745 that's about 50% more seats.

Even running 4tph compared to 3tph would give the 745's 2,888 seats vs the HS2 trains 3,300 seats, giving HS2 14% more capacity.

If you could up the 745's to 300m then you potentially get 3,610, however you'd need 15 coaches to do so.

However, as the 745's would only be able to run at 100mph and so that's going to take quite a bit longer than 49 minutes, if we assume 125 miles then that'll take at least 75 minutes (assuming no station stops and averaging 100 mph, which is Impossible), probably more likely 90 minutes.

However to run 4tph with a 75 minutes journey time and a 15 minute turn around at each end (which would also be impractical) you'd need 180 coaches. In the real world it'll be more likely 225 coaches.

That compares with a 49 minutes journey time and a 30 minute turn around for HS2 services and you'd need 128 coaches (you'd also need fewer staff). Therefore even if each HS2 coach was 30% (or more likely 75%) more expensive it would still be cheaper to buy the HS2 fleet.

I also don't understand why your statement about fitting 400m platforms at Moor Street implies doubt, as basically that is what Curzon Street is, as it'll basically be abutting the existing Moor Street station.

Using existing Moor Street station platforms would reduce capacity for local services.

Also by heading almost due north from London you can't connect to Old Oak Common, which means that passengers south of Reading are reliant on XC services, something which their not with HS2 as the journey time visa HS2 from Basingstoke to Birmingham would be comparable but at a higher frequency (assuming existing service posters, so no direct train from Basingstoke to Old Oak Common and a reasonable interchange time).

Whilst not everyone would it to change twice, it is a viable option for many. As whilst direct trains are preferred, this is often due to the "what happens in I miss my connection at 10:30, as the next service isn't until 11:30", with at least 3tph on HS2 that's less of a concern and you've always got the fallback of XC if there's issues on HS2.

Why do we even care about stains in this area, well according to the latest data across the day Reading has more arrivals than Manchester and is second only to Birmingham. Figure 3 from this link:

Rail passenger numbers and crowding on weekdays in major cities in England and Wales: 2023

www.gov.uk

Now whilst in the morning peak Manchester does best it, it's still tied third with Leeds (Figure 4 on the above link).

Whilst there'll be a lot of arrivals in the evening peak from London, that doesn't account for the tired with Leeds numbers for the morning peak.

How does HSUK connect to what is, from the data above, a key hub station?