Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts?

[Bletchleyite]

Then we'll have to slow everything down to 60mph so we can bunch them up without having to worry about headways.

There is an argument, not so much for that, but to run everything on the slow lines as 12-car all stations stoppers with Tube style headways (and possibly close Cheddington completely as it wouldn't justify that). Think Crossrail. However, passengers at locations like Bletchley would no doubt not be a fan.

You could do the same on the fasts but it'd mean stopping everything or nothing at WFJ and MKC.

 

[miami]

There is an argument, not so much for that, but to run everything on the slow lines as 12-car all stations stoppers with Tube style headways (and possibly close Cheddington completely as it wouldn't justify that). Think Crossrail. However, passengers at locations like Bletchley would no doubt not be a fan.

You could do the same on the fasts but it'd mean stopping everything or nothing at WFJ and MKC.

That sounds reasonable, nothing stopping on the fast lines between Euston and Rugby, and an all-shacks Rugby-Long Buckby-Northampton-Milton Keynes-Bletchley----Watford service. The big question then is whether to stop at Bushey, Wembley, and Queens Park. Slow line platforms at Willesden would be a good addition too. 30tph, 12 cars a train, that would be 20,000 seats an hour, or 30,000 including standing. That's the equivalent of a coach every 6 seconds.

If that's unpalatable, how about building line 5 and 6, and running them as "super-fast' lines, from Euston, first stop somewhere like Birmingham or Crewe. Because you wouldn't need to stop at Milton Keynes, Rugby, etc (thanks to the normal fast lines taking that traffic), you could bypass those towns completely, to avoid having to bulldoze in the towns. Why hasn't anyone thought of doing that, rather than building HS2?


Oh right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that's unpalatable, how about building line 5 and 6, and running them as "super-fast' lines, from Euston, first stop somewhere like Birmingham or Crewe. Because you wouldn't need to stop at Milton Keynes, Rugby, etc (thanks to the normal fast lines taking that traffic), you could bypass those towns completely, to avoid having to bulldoze in the towns. Why hasn't anyone thought of doing that, rather than building HS2?

Oh right.

Precisely.

Its just a more extreme version of Weedon vs. the Northampton loop. With a fancy new station at one end because New St is a bit full.

Sadly, I think said fancy new station (and shouting about barely-significant journey time savings) is skewing the public impression of what it's actually for.

 

[Trog]

If that's unpalatable, how about building line 5 and 6, and running them as "super-fast' lines, from Euston, first stop somewhere like Birmingham or Crewe. Because you wouldn't need to stop at Milton Keynes, Rugby, etc (thanks to the normal fast lines taking that traffic), you could bypass those towns completely, to avoid having to bulldoze in the towns. Why hasn't anyone thought of doing that, rather than building HS2?


Oh right.

Lines 5 and 6 were built 100 years ago by the LNWR, and powered by that new fangled DC electrickery to allow fast acceleration. But building lines 7 and 8 on an alignment avoiding the intermediate towns, for end to end traffic sounds a good idea.

 

[The Planner]

No modern rail line to me seems "full".

"Full" to me means a constant procession of trains, nose to tail with one train following another, like at Hest Bank on the WCML in my trainspotting days in the late 1960s.

So what you are suggesting is that every signal section should have a train in it trundling along at no more than 30ish mph to be considered full? Laughable.

From an efficiency perspective, it would be better if they "didn't run", somewhere else.

Ive asked you this before, how do you suggest freight is dealt with? purely on a short term plan basis where they get put in a timetable when needed?

The line is signalled for 20 trains in a hour. How many of those are usable, is dependent on various factors and is something of a judgement call. Even with the current incredibly inefficient set-up, with crossings on the flat, more than 13 ought to be attainable with the right timetable.

Your oft quoted Andrew McNaughton presentation which is basically someones rough high level guide to capacity surely explains why that isn't possible? Surely not even you expect 20tph just because the planning rules permit it.

 

[Voglitz]

Did we not just have a discussion about train safety upthread? I'd like to see you develop a signalling system that could flight 75mph stoppers, 100/110mph semi-fasts and 125mph fasts with 2-4 mins headways.

Surely this is the reason for having separate fast and slow lines.

Let's not forget maintenance and renewal. Despite the modernisation last decade, the WCML is at heart Victorian (and in some places, pre-Victorian) infrastructure. As it ages, the maintenance and renewal requirement increases. The increases in traffic and speed following the modernisation have increased this further. Frankly it's amazing that NR manage to keep the show on the road.

Much, if not most, of the European railway network is over 100 years old. What Network Rail does, is not exceptional.

Further increases in traffic will mean assets need to be renewed more frequently. So even if clever timetabling could produce more paths (which has somehow eluded the people employed to do this as a profession rather than opine about it on the internet), chances are we would be looking at more frequent possessions and blockades to maintain and renew physical assets, many of which are approaching 200 years old.

The existence of unused capacity hasn't eluded everyone at the Office of Rail and Road, and Network Rail. It is known about.

No modern rail line to me seems "full".

"Full" to me means a constant procession of trains, nose to tail with one train following another, like at Hest Bank on the WCML in my trainspotting days in the late 1960s.

So what you are suggesting is that every signal section should have a train in it trundling along at no more than 30ish mph to be considered full? Laughable.

Where '30 mph' comes into it, I don't know. Most capacity is not used.

Ive asked you this before, how do you suggest freight is dealt with? purely on a short term plan basis where they get put in a timetable when needed?

I wouldn't suggest Felixstowe railfreight is sent into London, and then out again on the WCML. In some cases, it would make sense for freight to switch to road.

Surely not even you expect 20tph just because the planning rules permit it.

I don't know who is suggesting operating at 100% path occupancy. The fast lines limit is probably 16. When the signalling is replaced, that should go up.

 

[najaB]

I wouldn't suggest Felixstowe railfreight is sent into London, and then out again on the WCML. In some cases, it would make sense for freight to switch to road.

I'm sorry. Adding a thousand plus HGVs a day to our roads is just a non-starter in my book.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely this is the reason for having separate fast and slow lines.

I would suggest you need to do some reading on how the WCML is operated.

 

[Voglitz]

I'm sorry. Adding a thousand plus HGVs a day to our roads is just a non-starter in my book.

The vast majority of goods traffic goes by road. Even railway locomotives are moved by road. Adding or subtracting a thousand plus HGVs a day makes little difference.

I would suggest you need to do some reading on how the WCML is operated.

How it's operated, is fairly well known.

 

[najaB]

The vast majority of goods traffic goes by road.

This is a figure that we should be seeking to reduce, not increase.

 

[Jordeh]

Much, if not most, of the European railway network is over 100 years old. What Network Rail does, is not exceptional.

Excluding the vast high speed networks in France, Italy, Germany and Spain of course!

 

[Bletchleyite]

What Network Rail does on the WCML is exceptional. Isn't it the busiest mainline in Europe?

 

[D365]

The vast majority of goods traffic goes by road. Even railway locomotives are moved by road. Adding or subtracting a thousand plus HGVs a day makes little difference.

Err, yes it does. That's a huge load of pressure (and pollution) taken away from the roads.

 

[HSTEd]

This is a figure that we should be seeking to reduce, not increase.

Reducing at any cost is not a reasonable economic objective however.

And the argument has to be had, do you want to have a thousand lorries off the road or ten or twenty thousand (or more!) cars.

Personally I would prefer the cars, after all moving lorries around is what Motorways do best.

 

[D365]

Personally I would prefer the cars, after all moving lorries around is what Motorways do best.

I see motorways and lorries, and I raise you the A14.

 

[The Ham]

I don't know who is suggesting operating at 100% path occupancy. The fast lines limit is probably 16. When the signalling is replaced, that should go up.

Which gains you about 1/3 in capacity terms in number of trains, which as I pointed out in one of my last posts could easily be used up by the time Phase 2 is fully open (based on the same 2.5% yearly growth that the HS2 business case is based on) whilst based on recent (last 7 years of growth, which is an average of 4.5% per year) could fairly easily be used up by the opening of Phase 1.

Yes there would be other capacity that could be used (running 11 coach or even 12 coach trains, the latter potentially as 6*2 units to places like Liverpool that can't cope with more than 11 coaches), however they are likely to only gain you a few years.

Depending on what growth does over the next few years we may need the extra paths to provide enough capacity to get us to when HS2 opens.

 

[The Planner]

Where '30 mph' comes into it, I don't know. Most capacity is not used.

So what speed do you expect a train to be attaining using Muddythefish example of lines being "full" with a train in each section? What is your expected utilisation of capacity which is efficient and provides resilience?

I don't know who is suggesting operating at 100% path occupancy. The fast lines limit is probably 16. When the signalling is replaced, that should go up.

You are saying the theoretical capacity is 20tph, until your response you made no suggestion of what you consider to be an acceptable limit to be used. The signalling will not be replaced on the WCML until it is nearing life expiry date which is still a good 20-25 years away.

 

[najaB]

Reducing at any cost is not a reasonable economic objective however.

Naturally. But moving freight off the WCML and onto the road clogs up the motorways and doesn't buy you much in the way of new journey options or provide much impetus for people to switch from car to public transport.

A new railway (preferably high speed) does, plus it frees up the existing railway to take even more freight than it currently does.

 

[Ianno87]

How it's operated, is fairly well known.

So you'll appreciate that every time you stop a Fast Line train at Watford (or MK), it costs at least one further possible path, due to being physically stationary on the Fast Line for 2 minutes (on a 3 minute headway), plus time to slow down and then get back up to line speed afterwards.

No amount of "smart timetabling*" can change that cold, hard fact.

*"Smart timetabling" is already used to maximise capacity. For example, the xx23 Euston departure calling at Watford means that the xx20 can call at MK without losing a path. But both together mean that you cannot have anytiming before the xx30 departure, which catches up the xx23 as it gets away from its Watford stop, that itself catches up with the xx20 as it gets away from MK.

 

[quantinghome]

The existence of unused capacity hasn't eluded everyone at the Office of Rail and Road, and Network Rail. It is known about.

OK, if it's known about, how much are we looking at?

To be honest it's been a little difficult to follow what your actual argument is. It seems to be:

(i) There is substantial unused capacity on the WCML.
(ii) This unused capacity is sufficient to cope with the expected future growth in rail passenger numbers.
(iii) Therefore, HS2 is not necessary.

If that misrepresents your argument, please feel free to outline it yourself.

In order to have a useful discussion on this issue, there needs to be clarity on numbers. Therefore, please can you state exactly how many unused paths per hour ORR and NR know there to be on the WCML. For clarity, that's the number of paths on the fast lines between Euston and Rugby, peak and off-peak. Please provide a source for your information.

 

[HSTEd]

Naturally. But moving freight off the WCML and onto the road clogs up the motorways and doesn't buy you much in the way of new journey options or provide much impetus for people to switch from car to public transport.

A new railway (preferably high speed) does, plus it frees up the existing railway to take even more freight than it currently does.

I think you misunderstood my position. I am the most pro high speed rail person on this forum. I was merely stating that I think the road congestion argument for the ridiculous subsidies lavished on rail freight in terms of both cash and also the hamstringing of passenger operations are misplaced

 

[zn1]

HS2 is so so urgently required, people moan its just between London - Birmingham - Stephenson built the L&B between euston & curzon St birmingham, he and the shareholders faced the same opposition as the engineers and shareholders today are throwingin the ring, we got the HS1 constructed, through south east london threading through in to stratford & dartford..its a superb piece of engineering, britain is at her best when she building things that the world says I want that..we are so behind the rest of the world with our Railways and public transport...

HS2 which is essentially following the WCML will eventually have an east coast sister as a cocoon for the rest of the network.

it will allow the original network built by our Great great grandparents families to fulfill their potential, allow more freight, that means more containers by rail..30-40 lorries per trainload off the motorways etc

The M25 was seen as the portent of doom by many whose villages were passed by it, Kings langley, abbots langley for instance where that massive viaduct accross the valley is...house prices are enhanced by it

you have a home close to railway land its valuble, the noise, well a plane at 3000 feet is louder than a Pendolino passing at 125mph, even two passing each other.

when HS2 happens, I will be honoured to travel on it, it will be a testament to how we pioneered the building of a nation, how we built the worlds railways, and how we are now finally catching up, with the rest of the world...hs2, 3,4,5 & 6...bring em on..

 

[najaB]

I think you misunderstood my position. I am the most pro high speed rail person on this forum. I was merely stating that I think the road congestion argument for the ridiculous subsidies lavished on rail freight in terms of both cash and also the hamstringing of passenger operations are misplaced

Road freight is also heavily subsidised, just not as overtly,

 

[PR1Berske]

OK, if it's known about, how much are we looking at?

To be honest it's been a little difficult to follow what your actual argument is. It seems to be:

(i) There is substantial unused capacity on the WCML.
(ii) This unused capacity is sufficient to cope with the expected future growth in rail passenger numbers.
(iii) Therefore, HS2 is not necessary.

If that misrepresents your argument, please feel free to outline it yourself.

In order to have a useful discussion on this issue, there needs to be clarity on numbers. Therefore, please can you state exactly how many unused paths per hour ORR and NR know there to be on the WCML. For clarity, that's the number of paths on the fast lines between Euston and Rugby, peak and off-peak. Please provide a source for your information.

Anti-HS2 people, like me, should not be expected to give this level of detail in answers which are not demanded from pro-HS2 people.

Do you have evidence that WCML has anything like the capacity issues you claim? I notice the same level of detail you demand is not readily apparent on this thread or others like it.

 

[quantinghome]

Anti-HS2 people, like me, should not be expected to give this level of detail in answers which are not demanded from pro-HS2 people.

Do you have evidence that WCML has anything like the capacity issues you claim? I notice the same level of detail you demand is not readily apparent on this thread or others like it.

This thread started off discussing people's views on why HS2 is treated differently to other rail projects. By its very nature the original topic is a subjective matter. However, the discussion appears to have digressed somewhat and strayed into issues over WCML capacity.

As best as I can understand it, Voglitz's claim is that there is sufficient spare capacity on the WCML to meet future demand. A general rule of debate is that if someone is claiming something it's up to them to make the case for it. Otherwise it's merely opinion and there is no debate to be had.

I agree that this should apply to both pro- and anti-HS2 claims.

 

[najaB]

Do you have evidence that WCML has anything like the capacity issues you claim?

Page 39 onward: Supplement to the October 2013 Strategic Case for HS2 Technical Annex: Demand and Capacity Pressures on the West Coast Main Line

 

[The Ham]

Anti-HS2 people, like me, should not be expected to give this level of detail in answers which are not demanded from pro-HS2 people.

Do you have evidence that WCML has anything like the capacity issues you claim? I notice the same level of detail you demand is not readily apparent on this thread or others like it.

Yet no-one will enter the debate with me when I talk about how quickly capacity could be used up (see my last few posts on this thread, although there's been no debate on any thread when I post similar things).

 

[The Ham]

Taking the often quoted evening peak trains capacity for Virgin trains of 52% leaving Euston, which was from surveys in 2011 and applying average network growth (26%) to those services that now give you a train loading capacity of 65% (2016).

Now that would imply that there is some spare capacity, which there is, but is it enough to get us to 2024?

If growth continues at its current rate (4.5%) for just 3 more years (2019) then the average load would be 75%. Would that imply that there was still more capacity? The answer is a bit more complex, although over all services there would be chances are on specific routes there wouldn't be. In which case based on this we need to do something before 2020 just to keep the WCML services going on such a way that they are useable.

As such we lengthen all services to 12 coaches which gains us between 10% and 30% depending on if the train is 11 or 9 coaches. Assuming that we can get 15% more (I.e. most services are 11 coaches with a few 9 coach units), then capacity falls to 65% again.

However, that is only going to gain you 3 years (2022) before things start getting back to 75%, but in reality your busiest services are going to be struggling after about 18 months.

We then say, hey we could just about squeeze 4 new paths out of the fast lines. That then puts the average down to 56% and that's then problem solved is it not? Well for a time yes, but only for a time.

Let's now assume that rail growth has dropped off a bit and is now running at 2.5% a year and does so for the next 10 years and we end up with capacity being back up at 72% and so we need to start to look for other ways of coping with capacity. The problem is it is now 3032 and although if HS2 was being built phase 2 would be around the corner and there would be no problems. However if HS2 isn't being built then there's little else that can be done.

That is why I think that although there is more that can be done before we need HS2, given how long it will take to build it we could well need it as well as all the other enhancements.

It would only need a few years to have above those assumed figures (4.5% for 6 years and 2.5% for the next 10 years) or for us not to be do everything listed for us to run out of capacity sooner and so need to build HS2 sooner.

 

[Voglitz]

Do you have evidence that WCML has anything like the capacity issues you claim?

Page 39 onward: Supplement to the October 2013 Strategic Case for HS2 Technical Annex: Demand and Capacity Pressures on the West Coast Main Line

The Technical Annex is quite evasive about actual demand, and doesn't make much of a case for the existence of overwhelming 'capacity pressures'.

 

[najaB]

The Technical Annex is quite evasive about actual demand, and doesn't make much of a case for the existence of overwhelming 'capacity pressures'.

I thought they did quite a good job of explaining why your 20 tph theoretical capacity would never be possible. And even 16 is a struggle.