More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[SynthD]

Seven platforms would presumably not allow the line to be used to its full 18tph capacity.

Is there a technical reason that makes seven platforms a cheaper construction exercise, for example giving more room for the throat or having the site less constrained, or is it just that it is cheaper to build seven platforms than ten for the obvious reason that it is less work?

The change from 11 to 10 platforms saved a lot of money because it changed a part of construction from two stage to one stage. There'll be similar small and large jumps in ease as you cut down platforms one by one.

 

[Snow1964]

Seven platforms would presumably not allow the line to be used to its full 18tph capacity.

Is there a technical reason that makes seven platforms a cheaper construction exercise, for example giving more room for the throat or having the site less constrained, or is it just that it is cheaper to build seven platforms than ten for the obvious reason that it is less work?

Had the decision been made earlier then would have saved quite a bit, but if already expensively bought the land and cleared it, and started piling, then not really going to save huge percentage.

To big extent would be better building the shell of 10 platform station, even if for time being just fit out 7 platforms and leave the rest as bare concrete columns in a unfitted space alongside.

I suspect won't actually save that much at this late stage unless you make it very difficult and expensive to expand in the future by effectively allowing someone else to build where other 3 platforms would have been.

What I don't know is if leaving 3 adjacent platforms unfinished would be more expensive than perhaps one island and one against side wall

 

[BRX]

It would be absolutely crazy to limit the capacity (and therefore revenue generating potential) of the entire line just to save on a bit of construction cost at Euston.

 

[Energy]

That would seem a bit of a waste of potential connectivity.

No, you don't want people hopping on HS2 for a short trip to OOC, you'd want them to take the Elizabeth line instead and leave the HS2 seats for people travelling to Birmingham, Manchester etc.

If we were building the motorway network, would we be looking to build motorway junctions for every village or even every house along the route?

To put it in road terms, to upgrade an A road going through a town you could either bulldoze the town's main street or you can build a bypass so the local road is majority local traffic rather than people passing through. Building a bypass around the town (HS2) still helps the town even though it doesn't connect.

HS2's struggle in the Chilterns is that it mainly benefits those living a long or near the WCML. For Kenilworth you get not only investment in green spaces alongside the track but also the possibility of a direct Birmingham New Street service once the WCML is a bit quieter. For the Chilterns its an additional XC if they near to Banbury.

 

[HSTEd]

It would be absolutely crazy to limit the capacity (and therefore revenue generating potential) of the entire line just to save on a bit of construction cost at Euston.

Whilst it will give timetable planners palpatations, I am skeptical that it would prove impossible to schedule 18tph into 7 platforms.

That would, after all be a platform cycle time of 20 minutes with one platform in reserve.
With autoreverse tipping out and loading passengers will be the limiting factor.

 

[Dan G]

Surely cleaning and tank servicing is

 

[E6007]

Whilst it will give timetable planners palpatations, I am skeptical that it would prove impossible to schedule 18tph into 7 platforms.

That would, after all be a platform cycle time of 20 minutes with one platform in reserve.
With autoreverse tipping out and loading passengers will be the limiting factor.

You should read William Barter's excellent letters in Modern Railways. He gives very good reasons for why Euston needs 11 platforms for an 18tph service. Don't know what tph 7 platforms are capable of but it is not 18 tph. Part of the problem is the on board staff. Unless an inbound train returns to the same place from whence it came, the staff have to alight. The plan is very difficult unless a high proportion of staff return on the train they came in on.

You also need to cater for unreliability in the arrival times of inbound services

 

[Trainbike46]

Surely cleaning and tank servicing is

I'm not sure what tank servicing is, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government would find it acceptable to not clean the sets when turning around at Euston

Whilst it will give timetable planners palpatations, I am skeptical that it would prove impossible to schedule 18tph into 7 platforms.

That would, after all be a platform cycle time of 20 minutes with one platform in reserve.
With autoreverse tipping out and loading passengers will be the limiting factor.

To do that, you would have to have the platform reoccupied in 20 minutes, so the difference between arrival and departure would be more or less 10 minutes, 15 minutes max. Emptying up to 1100 passengers out and getting 1100 new passengers in in that time seems so optimistic as to almost guarantee delays. And that is assuming a train arrives on time. Definitely not the way to build a new railway. If the government doesn't want to spend the full money, could they just build half the original 11-platform design in the first instance, and leave the second half for a later government (who will hopefully see sense).

 

[PGAT]

Allowing 2tph for each platform (~27 min turnaround) gives 14tph. Not too far off

 

[eldomtom2]

Whilst it will give timetable planners palpatations, I am skeptical that it would prove impossible to schedule 18tph into 7 platforms.

That would, after all be a platform cycle time of 20 minutes with one platform in reserve.
With autoreverse tipping out and loading passengers will be the limiting factor.

It's not theoretically impossible - the Shinkansen manages 15tph out of four platforms - but I imagine that would involve a fair amount of upfront and recurring expense in terms of recruitment, training, etc.

 

[PGAT]

Yup, Fenchurch Street also manages 15tph with 4 platforms, but HS2 will have longer trains that will have covered much larger distances and will therefore need to stay in the platforms much longer

 

[HSTEd]

To do that, you would have to have the platform reoccupied in 20 minutes, so the difference between arrival and departure would be more or less 10 minutes, 15 minutes max. Emptying up to 1100 passengers out and getting 1100 new passengers in in that time seems so optimistic as to almost guarantee delays.

Ultimately the journey times of most passengers on HS2 will be fairly short, so I think its not unreasonable that people will flow out of the trains with startling alacrity. I don't expect that many passengers (as a fraction of the total) will be moving heavy bags or anything like that.
Platform reoccupation times with modern signalling and newbuild infrastructure can be driven to surprisingly low values, so the bulk of the time between trains will be available for loading and unloading.

1100 passengers would be exiting a 400m train through something like 30 sets of doors, so the actual number of passengers required to exit through each door will be quite small.

And that is assuming a train arrives on time. Definitely not the way to build a new railway. If the government doesn't want to spend the full money, could they just build half the original 11-platform design in the first instance, and leave the second half for a later government (who will hopefully see sense).

But that wouldn't save any money, because the actual fit out of the platforms is not the expensive part.
It will be the enabling works necessary to fit the 10 station floorplan into the space available.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2023 ==

Yup, Fenchurch Street also manages 15tph with 4 platforms, but HS2 will have longer trains that will have covered much larger distances and will therefore need to stay in the platforms much longer

I believe that historically peak time arrivals have been as high as 20 trains per hour in the pre coronavirus era.

Worth noting that in journey time terms Birmingham, Manchester and other key traffic generators won't be that far from London.
I wonder if there has been a study on the average journey time of passengers arriving at Euston but I wouldn't be surprised if it was under 90 minutes.

I don't think the traditional "intercity" model is the right one to use to estimate platform requirements.

 

[AndrewE]

Ultimately the journey times of most passengers on HS2 will be fairly short,

Really?
My perspective is that HS2 is being built to get long-distance trains off the WCML fast lines, to free them up for inter-regional expresses for people who don't want to go to London! Think journeys like Wigan to Rugby, which are appalling at the moment and need to be restored, so people on HS2 will be coming from further afield.
I would also remind you that there is quite a heavy flow from Scotland to London via the WCML... so there will be quite a few people on HS2 off the north end of the WCML with luggage.

1100 passengers would be exiting a 400m train through something like 30 sets of doors, so the actual number of passengers required to exit through each door will be quite small.

40 people (with luggage) to exit per door... Then cleaning/security check/then reload...

Worth noting that in journey time terms Birmingham, Manchester and other key traffic generators won't be that far from London.
I wonder if there has been a study on the average journey time of passengers arriving at Euston but I wouldn't be surprised if it was under 90 minutes.

I don't think the traditional "intercity" model is the right one to use to estimate platform requirements.

If HS2 isn't "Traditional Intercity" then god help us. That is an admission that it is really about express middle-distance commuting for London's benefit, something that has always been strenuously denied. If this is true then the taxpayers around the country would have been entitled to demand that it was funded like Crossrail: mainly by London (we are told...)

 

[stuu]

It's not theoretically impossible - the Shinkansen manages 15tph out of four platforms - but I imagine that would involve a fair amount of upfront and recurring expense in terms of recruitment, training, etc.

It also helps that the passengers are far better "trained" to not trash the train and get off very promptly.

 

[HSTEd]

Really?
My perspective is that HS2 is being built to get long-distance trains off the WCML fast lines, to free them up for inter-regional expresses for people who don't want to go to London! Think journeys like Wigan to Rugby, which are appalling at the moment and need to be restored, so people on HS2 will be coming from further afield.
I would also remind you that there is quite a heavy flow from Scotland to London via the WCML... so there will be quite a few people on HS2 off the north end of the WCML with luggage.

But the journey time reduction from HS2 will inherently alter the character of how people use the service.
The character of passengers spending 120+ minutes to reach Manchester is going to be different than when it takes 70 minutes

Manchester will be Birmingham, Birmingham will be Milton Keynes etc.

40 people (with luggage) to exit per door... Then cleaning/security check/then reload...

"Security check"?
What purpose does this serve beyond simple theatre?
And an extended cleaning stop is not fundamentally required to the run service, although it might be considered desirable.
How many billions do you propose to spend to enable that?

If HS2 isn't "Traditional Intercity" then god help us.

The fundamental shift in journey times means that it simply won't be the traditional intercity experience.
You can't cut journey times to the key destinations in half and expect it not to change the character of the service.

 

[The Planner]

I doubt you would go less than 3 minutes between same platform departure and arrival even with a 400m train that is rapid off the blocks.

 

[matacaster]

Really?
My perspective is that HS2 is being built to get long-distance trains off the WCML fast lines, to free them up for inter-regional expresses for people who don't want to go to London! Think journeys like Wigan to Rugby, which are appalling at the moment and need to be restored, so people on HS2 will be coming from further afield.
I would also remind you that there is quite a heavy flow from Scotland to London via the WCML... so there will be quite a few people on HS2 off the north end of the WCML with luggage.

40 people (with luggage) to exit per door... Then cleaning/security check/then reload...

If HS2 isn't "Traditional Intercity" then god help us. That is an admission that it is really about express middle-distance commuting for London's benefit, something that has always been strenuously denied. If this is true then the taxpayers around the country would have been entitled to demand that it was funded like Crossrail: mainly by London (we are told...)

Always was about Birmingham being London commuter city. The rest was cover with lots of porkies!

 

[Silenos]

<deleted>

 

[Bald Rick]

Always was about Birmingham being London commuter city. The rest was cover with lots of porkies!

In your head perhaps.

Not in reality.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A good take on the whole increasingly ridiculous saga here:
As the article says, we are not serious people.

There's nothing in that report about foreigners laughing at us, in fact it's very supportive of the idea of HS2 - but not the delivery.
Germany has a history of stop-start high speed projects (the environmental lobby is very strong), and the Stuttgart HS project is late and way over budget.
Even Switzerland started a new tunnel (Lotschberg Basis) and then before it was properly finished (the 2nd tunnel/track is incomplete) diverted its funds to the Gotthard Basis tunnel (which is complete).
Austria is in difficulties with the new Semmering, Koralm and Brenner tunnels.
Spain is reduced to building single-track high speed lines to reduce costs.
The Netherlands screwed up its purchase of high-speed trains.

 

[HSTEd]

You should read William Barter's excellent letters in Modern Railways. He gives very good reasons for why Euston needs 11 platforms for an 18tph service.

I've read the article, and I must admit I am not particularly convinced by it.
He seems to have a very set view of how HS2 must operate.

For example 25 minutes to turn around a train with a total travel time of 45 minutes to 70 minutes seems a bit silly.

He sets an artificial simplicity constraint on pathing of trains (enforcing that all trains must return to their original destinations) and then tries to use it to justify billions in additional expenditure.

Don't know what tph 7 platforms are capable of but it is not 18 tph. Part of the problem is the on board staff. Unless an inbound train returns to the same place from whence it came, the staff have to alight. The plan is very difficult unless a high proportion of staff return on the train they came in on.

How many staff do you expect to be on these trains?
I would expect a very large number of trains to operate with only a single crew member aboard, the driver.

There will be no call for dining services etc on trains with journeys below 90 minutes.

Tolerating some drivers having to be shuttled back to their booking on/off point is going to cost a tiny fraction as much as the eleven platform station, the cost of which keeps ballooning out of control.
The fact remains that terminals in the UK have operated services of this intensity with fewer platforms.

 

[class26]

There's nothing in that report about foreigners laughing at us, in fact it's very supportive of the idea of HS2 - but not the delivery.
Germany has a history of stop-start high speed projects (the environmental lobby is very strong), and the Stuttgart HS project is late and way over budget.
Even Switzerland started a new tunnel (Lotschberg Basis) and then before it was properly finished (the 2nd tunnel/track is incomplete) diverted its funds to the Gotthard Basis tunnel (which is complete).
Austria is in difficulties with the new Semmering, Koralm and Brenner tunnels.
Spain is reduced to building single-track high speed lines to reduce costs.
The Netherlands screwed up its purchase of high-speed trains.

maybe worth mentioning the new airport at Berlin. Years late, out of date equipment and way, way , way over budget.
German efficiency ?

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt you would go less than 3 minutes between same platform departure and arrival even with a 400m train that is rapid off the blocks.

Even five minutes would seem to make a 20 minute cycle time (with a platform in reserve) practical.

Rostering crew would be a bit more of a challenge, but given that we have fully grade separated infrastructure (on HS2 at least) and there is no incumbent service pattern it seems likely that a 7 platform timetable could be written up, even if the planners are not fully comfortable commiting to it yet.

 

[Grumpy Git]

There's nothing in that report about foreigners laughing at us, in fact it's very supportive of the idea of HS2 - but not the delivery.
Germany has a history of stop-start high speed projects (the environmental lobby is very strong), and the Stuttgart HS project is late and way over budget.
Even Switzerland started a new tunnel (Lotschberg Basis) and then before it was properly finished (the 2nd tunnel/track is incomplete) diverted its funds to the Gotthard Basis tunnel (which is complete).
Austria is in difficulties with the new Semmering, Koralm and Brenner tunnels.
Spain is reduced to building single-track high speed lines to reduce costs.
The Netherlands screwed up its purchase of high-speed trains.

Just because other European countries is/has made a hash of some projects (Berlin airport for instance), it doesn't mean we have to be as bad.

Why is everything a race to the bottom?

 

[The Ham]

A good take on the whole increasingly ridiculous saga here:

HS2 is making Britain an international laughing stock

It’s finally official: HS2 is ‘unachievable’, according to the UK’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority. That doesn’t mean the project isn’t still happening, or that it won’t cost us billions, it just means that years – decades, probably – ahead of its launch we know it isn’t going to deliver...

capx.co

As the article says, we are not serious people.

Indeed (and by ridiculous I mean how badly is handled, but the concept of HS2) whilst costs should be a factor, it does appear that it's the only factor which just makes us look silly. (Numbers below are for illustrative purposes only).

What's it matter that we could save £100 million, when by making that cut it reduces the benefits of the scheme by £500 million over the next 10 years?

What's it matter that we delay starting running it to save £300 million, but push back 5 years where each year would have brought in £350 million and would have saved a further £30 million in interest each year?

It's almost as if we know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

As someone who job is designing things, every time there's a change that's an extra cost to the client. It's not uncommon for projects to cost 3 or 4 times the initial quote for the design because of changes.

One example, a client asked us to review number of Rain Water Pipes from the roofs. Whilst it did reduce the construction costs a little, it also meant a reasonable amount of costs for the design as we had to go over it again.

Yes but all means ask us to do it on the next phase, but to do it on something which has designed isn't going to save as much.

How many redesigns of Euston are we at now? Given that architects often charge a percentage of the scheme costs, if that gets done too often the cost could will be the same as the whole design!

Even if it's not the whole cost, it's very easy to get to the point where the savings are wiped out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2023 ==

How many staff do you expect to be on these trains?
I would expect a very large number of trains to operate with only a single crew member aboard, the driver.

There will be no call for dining services etc on trains with journeys below 90 minutes.

I would expect 3 as a minimum (a 4th if you want a fair, which many would like), the driver, a first class host and a catering person.

Whilst you may not want a dining service from Birmingham, from Manchester you would (bearing in mind GWR's Pullman services from Cardiff which is 110 minutes Vs HS2 to Manchester being 128 minutes) and from Scotland you definitely would (210 minutes).

Even at 90 minutes you're likely to sell a reasonable number of breakfast rolls (if your can get the offering right) on the earlier morning services. As it would allow people to roll out of bed get the train and then at the other end start straight away at work or in meetings.

The other thing to consider is that HS2 services are likely to be one leg of a longer journey (Southampton to Birmingham likely to be just quicker via HS2 than using XC, but it's more likely to see a more frequent service, likewise regional services from the West Midlands and North Wales). As such, and with a fairly short wait time at Birmingham and Old Oak Common, catering is likely to be reasonably popular.

On a train with 1,100 seats there's likely to be between 145 and 270 first class seats (the lower being the number on an 11 coach 390 and the upper being about the same percentage as is on an 11 coach 390), even at 20% full that's 29 people - which is more than XC can carry on one of their units. As such there's a good chance there'll be a reasonable justification to provide a first class host, especially in services going further than to Birmingham - however even to Birmingham would be reasonable.

Some cleaning could be done as the train travels (XC manage it), I'd suggest cleaners joining at OOC and staying in board until the train gets back to there. The same could be done between the Birmingham stations.

 

[Snow1964]

Yup, Fenchurch Street also manages 15tph with 4 platforms, but HS2 will have longer trains that will have covered much larger distances and will therefore need to stay in the platforms much longer

And prior to the 2017 rebuild (when platforms 5&6 became commonly used by suburban), Waterloo suburban was generally doing 20-22 tph into platforms 1-4 with some use of platform 5.

The limiting factor is the non parallel movement when a train approaching needs to cross to furthest platform, and departing trains from furthest righthand platform need to leave. Although having extra reversible approach tracks gives a holding area and flexibility, it's rather against the spirit of cutting journey times.

 

[g492p]

Even five minutes would seem to make a 20 minute cycle time (with a platform in reserve) practical.

Rostering crew would be a bit more of a challenge, but given that we have fully grade separated infrastructure (on HS2 at least) and there is no incumbent service pattern it seems likely that a 7 platform timetable could be written up, even if the planners are not fully comfortable commiting to it yet.

It certainly will be interesting to see. The new stock is coming with catering facilities, as well as panels to for the crew to operate the doors and control the on board environment ect. I think a driver, some sort of Train Manager and one or two catering hosts is almost certain. Indeed in the tender for the new trains, one of the must have items was a crew area with seating and lockers for 4 members of crew.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst you may not want a dining service from Birmingham, from Manchester you would (bearing in mind GWR's Pullman services from Cardiff which is 110 minutes Vs HS2 to Manchester being 128 minutes)

Whilst I agree there will be a catering offer, Manchester will be around 70mins post Phase 2b, and 90 post Phase 2a. It’s only around 126 now!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

How fast post phase 1?

 

[The Planner]

How fast post phase 1?

Where from? Euston or OOC? Euston shouldn't be much more than 95 minutes if going Handsacre - Stafford - Crewe - Manchester.