Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts?

[Voglitz]

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.

Where did I state 20 trains per hour could run?

20 is Network Rail's statement of current fast lines theoretical hourly capacity. In the same way that 24 is HS2 Ltd's statement of its theoretical capacity.

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).

It would not give a train loading capacity of 65% (2016), because of Pendolino lengthening.

 

[The Ham]

It would not give a train loading capacity of 65% (2016), because of Pendolino lengthening.

However, the morning peak in 2012 (when the lengthening was underway) the loadings were 60%, so we'll hit capacity problems in the mooring sooner.

Even allowing for the lengthening process it's only going to gain a few years, again assuming that an extra 4 tph (total of 16 tph) is possible.

Again, it will all help but it doesn't do enough to justify cancelling HS2.

However, as I have said before it is easier to do works on a railway with 12tph rather than 16tph. As such it is better to start HS2 before you need to run maximum numbers of trains so that the disruption isn't so great.

 

[najaB]

Where did I state 20 trains per hour could run?

I seem to remember you starting a post with:

The line is signalled for 20 trains in a hour.

And then proceed to criticise NR for managing significantly less than that.

 

[Voglitz]

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

The Technical Annex doesn't make much of a case for the WCML being full. It says it 'could' be overcrowded in 2033, at its southern end, on Friday evenings, in a certain scenario.

How likely that scenario was judged to be, the government won't say.

However, the morning peak in 2012 (when the lengthening was underway) the loadings were 60%, so we'll hit capacity problems in the mooring sooner.

Even allowing for the lengthening process it's only going to gain a few years, again assuming that an extra 4 tph (total of 16 tph) is possible.

Again, it will all help but it doesn't do enough to justify cancelling HS2.

See above. BTW, according to the government, Euston IC morning peak capacity in the 2011 and 2012 counts was the same.

However, as I have said before it is easier to do works on a railway with 12tph rather than 16tph.

With 12, there's a few more seconds between each train to do a spot of platelaying?

 

[jon0844]

Solving issues on the WCML through longer trains and tightening up the timetable has little to no room for disruption, which is why we suffer so badly compared to other countries with a lot less services.

What happens when a train gets cancelled. What happens when two get cancelled? What happens when a train has a fault and loses time, causing a huge knock-on effect that simply cannot be rectified in the peak, and will lead to cancelled services or skipping stations? Three or four hours for services to resume to normality.

I find it mad that people think we can just keep squeezing our assets without huge problems. We have them already today, and only more capacity can solve this problem.

Plus, as someone who enjoys driving, I'd rather like the railway to be considered a worthwhile way to move freight too. So motorists should be fully behind investment in rail too, if they actually stop to think logically about the state of the roads (literally, through road damage, and congestion).

 

[D365]

Solving issues on the WCML through longer trains and tightening up the timetable has little to no room for disruption, which is why we suffer so badly compared to other countries with a lot less services.

What happens when a train gets cancelled. What happens when two get cancelled? What happens when a train has a fault and loses time, causing a huge knock-on effect that simply cannot be rectified in the peak, and will lead to cancelled services or skipping stations? Three or four hours for services to resume to normality.

I find it mad that people think we can just keep squeezing our assets without huge problems. We have them already today, and only more capacity can solve this problem.

Plus, as someone who enjoys driving, I'd rather like the railway to be considered a worthwhile way to move freight too. So motorists should be fully behind investment in rail too, if they actually stop to think logically about the state of the roads (literally, through road damage, and congestion).

Can't add anything further to this, aside from pointing out the law of diminishing returns.

 

[The Ham]

The Technical Annex doesn't make much of a case for the WCML being full. It says it 'could' be overcrowded in 2033, at its southern end, on Friday evenings, in a certain scenario.

How likely that scenario was judged to be, the government won't say.



See above. BTW, according to the government, Euston IC morning peak capacity in the 2011 and 2012 counts was the same.

First off the certain scenarios that were being looked at were low growth of 2.0% and high growth of 3.7%. yet 2012 growth has been 4.5%, which means that currently we are ahead of the growth curve. At present we have hit about 20% growth since 2012, compared to 15% for high growth and 8% for low growth.

Based on the model high growth will just over double by 2033. Given that we've got to 20% in just 4 years high growth then only needs to average 3.5% for the rest of the period before 2033. The longer growth stays above 3.7% the shorter it will be before 2033 we hit capacity or the lower future growth could be before we hit capacity.

Growth between 2011 and 2012 was fairly low compared to the the recent average it's not surprising that the counts may not have shown much of a difference.

With 12, there's a few more seconds between each train to do a spot of platelaying?

With 180 trains (12 tph over 15 hours) with 400 people in then that's less people you disrupt than if there are 210 trains (14 tph over 15 hours) with 410 people in when you need to close a section of line for a day.

 

[furnessvale]

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

The massive subsidies to road haulage, now run at 70% of the operating costs of an HGV and are rising annually with the freezing of duties and VED.

Despite that, more than 50% of the container tonnage from Felixstowe and the major south coast ports now moves by rail, when measured by the only valid measure, tonnes/kms.

As an example of its impact, container traffic on the A14 would more than double if rail was not used.

 

[Trog]

When I was doing my engineering studies the lecturer stated that roads built to carry HGV traffic, are so over specified for use by light traffic like cars. That all the wear caused by the light traffic can do is polish the aggregate surface a bit.

So in a fair world the road tax on lorries would be such that it paid for almost all of the expense involved in road surface and bridge repair.

 

[AM9]

When I was doing my engineering studies the lecturer stated that roads built to carry HGV traffic, are so over specified for use by light traffic like cars. That all the wear caused by the light traffic can do is polish the aggregate surface a bit.

So in a fair world the road tax on lorries would be such that it paid for almost all of the expense involved in road surface and bridge repair.

'Road Tax' was discontinued before WW2. Vehicle Exise Duty (or 'car tax' as it is unofficially called), has been a pollution tax levied on the basis of a vehicle's CO2 emissions. Although HGVs emit more than smaller cars and vans, their tax is reasonably consistent for the difference. The road wear and tear may be worse in proportion but there is no mechanism to charge for that at the present as all public roads are funded from general taxation, hence no charge to emergency vehicles, or vehicles of low or zero local emissions.

 

[Busaholic]

When I was doing my engineering studies the lecturer stated that roads built to carry HGV traffic, are so over specified for use by light traffic like cars. That all the wear caused by the light traffic can do is polish the aggregate surface a bit.

So in a fair world the road tax on lorries would be such that it paid for almost all of the expense involved in road surface and bridge repair.

The RAC Foundation has just produced a report showing that 2,501 council-maintained bridges in England are unfit for use by the heaviest lorries, Devon being the worst with 249, followed by Somerset with 210 and then Essex with 160.

 

[The Ham]

When I was doing my engineering studies the lecturer stated that roads built to carry HGV traffic, are so over specified for use by light traffic like cars. That all the wear caused by the light traffic can do is polish the aggregate surface a bit.

So in a fair world the road tax on lorries would be such that it paid for almost all of the expense involved in road surface and bridge repair.

Road pavement design only uses the number of lorries and buses that are likely to use the route over the design life of the road, however even then the design of roads is over engineered that most roads will likely last a long time beyond the 40 years that they are designed to.

 

[Voglitz]

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.

I'd have thought 'stopping a Fast Line train at Watford', and 'smart timetabling', are mutually exclusive concepts.

I seem to remember you starting a post with:

The line is signalled for 20 trains in a hour.

And then proceed to criticise NR for managing significantly less than that.

I wrote, "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."

First off the certain scenarios that were being looked at were low growth of 2.0% and high growth of 3.7%. yet 2012 growth has been 4.5%, which means that currently we are ahead of the growth curve. At present we have hit about 20% growth since 2012, compared to 15% for high growth and 8% for low growth.

Based on the model high growth will just over double by 2033. Given that we've got to 20% in just 4 years high growth then only needs to average 3.5% for the rest of the period before 2033. The longer growth stays above 3.7% the shorter it will be before 2033 we hit capacity or the lower future growth could be before we hit capacity.

The Technical Annex doesn't say 'we hit capacity' before 2033, or after 2033. It says there might be overcrowding out of Euston, on one evening a week in 2033, in a particular set of circumstances.

 

[najaB]

I wrote, "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."

And the report makes it clear than 14 is probably the best you'll get if you want a reliable timetable, possibly 15 at a push. So there isn't 'tons of capacity being wasted' as you like to say there is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd have thought 'stopping a Fast Line train at Watford', and 'smart timetabling', are mutually exclusive concepts.

I suspect you may need to do some reading up on WCML passenger flows and demands.

What about MKC? MKC is the busiest station on the WCML (for WCML services) other than Euston. Would you cease serving that, too? (It usefully does have a loop to allow overtaking of stopping trains, but it still has an effect).

It would actually make more sense, and gain extra capacity, to stop *all* fast trains at both WFJ and MKC.

I wrote, "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."

Attainable in an extreme case, or resilient, punctual and reliable? (The latter is very much needed).

The Technical Annex doesn't say 'we hit capacity' before 2033, or after 2033. It says there might be overcrowding out of Euston, on one evening a week in 2033, in a particular set of circumstances.

If that's what it really says, whoever wrote it has never used Euston at peak[1] times.

[1] I mean the actual peak, for example the first so-called off-peak trains on a Friday evening, not the ticketing peak which is more of a price gouging exercise than a method of capacity control. If peak/off-peak was about controlling passenger flows, Friday evening and Sunday afternoon would be Anytime only throughout.

 

[Voglitz]

I suspect you may need to do some reading up on WCML passenger flows and demands.

I don't see what there is to 'read up' on. O/D datasets for Watford, or any other individual station, are not available.

What about MKC? MKC is the busiest station on the WCML (for WCML services) other than Euston. Would you cease serving that, too? (It usefully does have a loop to allow overtaking of stopping trains, but it still has an effect).

Actually, with the right set-up, there would be no fast line capacity reduction from selective stopping at Milton Keynes.

It would actually make more sense, and gain extra capacity, to stop *all* fast trains at both WFJ and MKC.

Since an O/D demand dataset for MKC, or any other individual station, is not available, there's no way of knowing.

If that's what it really says, whoever wrote it has never used Euston at peak[1] times.

[1] I mean the actual peak, for example the first so-called off-peak trains on a Friday evening, not the ticketing peak which is more of a price gouging exercise than a method of capacity control. If peak/off-peak was about controlling passenger flows, Friday evening and Sunday afternoon would be Anytime only throughout.

The Annex is extemely obfuscative about numbers, but the 2033 'crowding forecast' seems to depend on the current pricing cliff.

 

[Ianno87]

Actually, with the right set-up, there would be no fast line capacity reduction from selective stopping at Milton Keynes

*Please* tell us, what is "the right set up"? You seem so sure about it (in the face of expert advice telling you otherwise), you must know what it is.

(Also, "smart timetabling" has already been applied at Watford to maximise capacity - there are nowhere near the range of Fast Line calls and destinations at Watford now as there were pre-2008). That low-hanging fruit has now largely been picked. And, as I said before, the Watford stops are 'nested' with the MK calls, minimising the overall capacity impact. Net gain = 1 path by not stopping anything at Watford. Not exactly earth shattering.

 

[Voglitz]

*Please* tell us, what is "the right set up"? You seem so sure about it (in the face of expert advice telling you otherwise), you must know what it is.

Stopping trains loop off the main line at open linespeed, and rejoin the main line at open linespeed, in the ghost path vacated by the following stopping train.

(Also, "smart timetabling" has already been applied at Watford to maximise capacity - there are nowhere near the range of Fast Line calls and destinations at Watford now as there were pre-2008). That low-hanging fruit has now largely been picked. And, as I said before, the Watford stops are 'nested' with the MK calls, minimising the overall capacity impact.

I don't think stopping trains at Watford 'maximises' capacity. There could be a business benefit in doing so, which is a different matter.

 

[Ianno87]

Stopping trains loop off the main line at open linespeed, and rejoin the main line at open linespeed, in the ghost path vacated by the following stopping train.

That's fine (ish*) for the Down direction. Now what about the Up direction? Can't use Platform 5 for both purposes at the same time (and there's no 'run in' to P5 in the Up direction as there is in the Down)

*Apart from the fact that a second down stopping train taking the MK Reversible Fast line at Knowlhill Jn will not get flashing aspects for the divergence, as Platform 5 will be occupied. So it's an approach control from Red coming off the Down Fast, checking Down to ~30mph and scuppering any chance of getting 20tph, as you'll quickly be hammering the next train behind.

 

[The Planner]

Stopping trains loop off the main line at open linespeed, and rejoin the main line at open linespeed, in the ghost path vacated by the following stopping train.

So 125mph S&C, a good 3 or 4 mile platform loop then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So 125mph S&C, a good 3 or 4 mile platform loop then?

Yes, it separates off quite a long way south. That was needed because it wouldn't fit through the same bridge "arch" as the other 4 lines. It basically runs as its own line for a long section of at least a mile.

It's also used southbound - observed it to good effect yesterday - a southbound Voyager arrived into 5 (to stop) just as another was leaving 4.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see what there is to 'read up' on.

OK, bad wording. Travel on the trains and you will see it. I am a very frequent WCML user at many different times of day.

The Annex is extemely obfuscative about numbers, but the 2033 'crowding forecast' seems to depend on the current pricing cliff.

Really you need to base it on everyone who wishes to travel being able to. You could crank up fares and price more people off - demand is essentially elastic in that way on most lines. But that is not something to aim at - *time of day* demand is not quite so elastic, so all you do is price them off onto coaches/planes and into cars, which is not a sensible environmental objective.

 

[Voglitz]

So 125mph S&C, a good 3 or 4 mile platform loop then?

To get very high performance, there would need to be infrastructure improvements. In principle, the relief lines could perform the loop function, because north of Tring, there are fewer trains.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, it separates off quite a long way south. That was needed because it wouldn't fit through the same bridge "arch" as the other 4 lines. It basically runs as its own line for a long section of at least a mile.

It's also used southbound - observed it to good effect yesterday - a southbound Voyager arrived into 5 (to stop) just as another was leaving 4.

It's also specifically designed so that two trains can be at 3 minute headway at Bletchley, on the first can be routed into Platform 5 without impeding the second passing non-stop through Platform 6. But requires a clean run into Platform 5 to be available (i.e. it being unoccupied) for the first train to get flashing yellows for the diverging route and run onto it at the intended speed without impeding the following train.

Southbound, it's an approach control from Red into 5, so a first train into Platform 5 will impede a second train passing Platform 4 anything less than around 4 minutes behind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To get very high performance, there would need to be infrastructure improvements. In principle, the relief lines could perform the loop function, because north of Tring, there are fewer trains.

They couldn't, because the WCML is laid out slow-slow-fast-fast. Though it's sort-of done in that LMs stopping at Leighton run fast to Ledburn then pop across to the slows, as they have to cross the down fast it couldn't be done too many times without eating paths.

I do think there would be benefit in changing it to slow-fast-fast-slow enabling that kind of thing, but that would probably be almost as costly as just building HS2 and being done with it. The real ideal would be slow-fast-fast-slow with island platforms to allow easy interchange. (WCML stations have side platforms with a central island).

FWIW Tring also has a loop, it's mostly used for terminating trains in P2, but it is at one specific time of day (evening peak, I forget which trains are involved) used for an overtake of two northbound trains.

 

[Snapper]

I do find it funny that some people are still having 'angels on pin head' style arguments about Hs2 at this late hour.

In case they've forgotten, Hs2 now has Royal Assent - it's happening.

Demolition work has already started at Euston, surveying is going on all over the phase 1 route and the serious work will be starting in the summer. It's all over bar the moaning.

A few remaining (but rapidly dwindling) die-hards are still pretending that tweeting about Hs2 will somehow stop Hs2, but no-one is taking them seriously. I'm not sure they even believe it themselves.

As far as anyone in Government is concerned, there's other fish to fry now. In a real touch of irony, those who supported Brexit as they believed UKIPs rubbish that Hs2 was a dastardly EU project are finding their chickens have come home to roost. May's government have made it clear that Brexit means HS2 is more - not less - likely to happen as the UK needs to invest in it's infrastructure. I do like schadenfreude!

The focus has moved from phase 1 to phases 2a and 2b. The anti Hs2 campaign is desperately weak here. It's practically non-existent on 2a and hopelessly divided on phase 2b. I've recently written several blogs about this, so if you want to read more analysis and number crunching, have a look here. https://paulbigland.blog/

In a few months time there'll be plenty to talk/comment on as the major construction contracts for phase 1 are let and the bulldozers start to move in.

 

[Voglitz]

They couldn't, because the WCML is laid out slow-slow-fast-fast. Though it's sort-of done in that LMs stopping at Leighton run fast to Ledburn then pop across to the slows, as they have to cross the down fast it couldn't be done too many times without eating paths.

I do think there would be benefit in changing it to slow-fast-fast-slow enabling that kind of thing, but that would probably be almost as costly as just building HS2 and being done with it. The real ideal would be slow-fast-fast-slow with island platforms to allow easy interchange. (WCML stations have side platforms with a central island).

FWIW Tring also has a loop, it's mostly used for terminating trains in P2, but it is at one specific time of day (evening peak, I forget which trains are involved) used for an overtake of two northbound trains.

To meet the level of demand anticipated by Network Rail, the legacy network around London would have to be upgraded with new signalling, dive-unders, etc. One likely opportunity cost of HS2 is a lower-capacity legacy network, from HS2 crowding out other investments.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, it separates off quite a long way south. That was needed because it wouldn't fit through the same bridge "arch" as the other 4 lines. It basically runs as its own line for a long section of at least a mile.

It's also used southbound - observed it to good effect yesterday - a southbound Voyager arrived into 5 (to stop) just as another was leaving 4.

I know how Knowlhill works, however the layout at the north of MK always means you arrive on a red in both directions.

 

[Snapper]

To meet the level of demand anticipated by Network Rail, the legacy network around London would have to be upgraded with new signalling, dive-unders, etc. One likely opportunity cost of HS2 is a lower-capacity legacy network, from HS2 crowding out other investments.

The evidence for this claim is? Oh, there's none. Network Rail and others are already planning for CP8, which will build on the extra capacity Hs2 delivers. Whatever the faults of the present government (and I don't have time to write a book on them) they've made it clear they'll spend money on infrastructure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know how Knowlhill works, however the layout at the north of MK always means you arrive on a red in both directions.

Didn't see if the second set stopped first, but both sets definitely had wheels rolling at once.