RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > Infrastructure & Stations > Future High Speed Rail


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11th January 2017, 18:33   #31
edwin_m
Established Member
 
Join Date: 21 Apr 2013
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesF View Post
Of course "removing express trains" results in spare paths. But the estimates include the £8.3bn saving by removing them. If they were to be replaced with other services there would be no saving. But HS2 are counting on the savings so there is no intention of replacing removed services with others. They can't have it both ways.
The business case for the replacement trains would be built around attracting a new set of passengers by providing more frequent service at the places that don't have HS2 stations. The number, size and type of the new trains for the WCML will be based on the projections of post-HS2 passenger flows. Over a 10-20 year timeframe and with passenger miles by car over 10 times those by train, there is plenty of opportunity to get more people using the train.
__________________
These opinions are mine alone, unless anyone happens to agree with me.
edwin_m is offline   Reply With Quote
Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 11th January 2017, 18:42   #32
The Ham
Established Member
 
Join Date: 6 Jul 2012
Posts: 3,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
How many 'express trains (the VT ones)' would be removed by HS2?

Evidence from HS2 Ltd's technical director suggests that 'released capacity' is largely illusory.

As things stand, there are spare paths everywhere in the off-peak, and everywhere in the peak (apart from in the tidal direction, on the first 40-odd miles out of London).
How do you propose we fix the problem of capacity issues in the peaks within 40 miles of London?

At least with HS2 the is scope to provide some new services within this area, but also within areas around other cities along the WCML. This could either be done by a long distance commuter service or by using one path and splitting it over 2 or 3 shorter services each based around a different city.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwin_m View Post
The business case for the replacement trains would be built around attracting a new set of passengers by providing more frequent service at the places that don't have HS2 stations. The number, size and type of the new trains for the WCML will be based on the projections of post-HS2 passenger flows. Over a 10-20 year timeframe and with passenger miles by car over 10 times those by train, there is plenty of opportunity to get more people using the train.
Interestingly, technology may make long distance rail travel MORE attractive, in that where electric cars have a limited range we could see more people wanting to use trains.

Owners of such cars would have the choice of driving their car and having to charge it, with the longer journey times that would involve, traveling by train or hiring a different car and paying the fuel cost on that.

Last edited by The Ham; 11th January 2017 at 18:42. Reason: Double post prevention system
The Ham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 18:45   #33
anme
Established Member
 
Join Date: 8 Aug 2013
Posts: 1,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
Travel between lots of stations is inconvenient today (e.g. Luton and Milton Keynes, Watford Junction and St Albans City). It doesn't follow that HS2 is a cost effective way of improving connectivity in southern England, or anywhere else.
This is a really laughable argument. It is saying that we shouldn't improve transport between A and B because there are also problems between X and Y.

I have a lot of misgivings about HS2 but one thing than convinces me that we need it is the pathetic nature of the arguments given by the anti-HS2 brigade. I wonder if they even read what they write. If that's the best they can come up with then the case must be pretty strong.
anme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 19:43   #34
Voglitz
Member
 
Join Date: 31 May 2016
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anme View Post
This is a really laughable argument. It is saying that we shouldn't improve transport between A and B because there are also problems between X and Y.
No, it's not saying "we shouldn't improve transport between A and B because there are also problems between X and Y".

It's saying that prospective transport improvements between A and B, and C through Z, should be assessed on value for money, and not on whether there happens to be a railway between them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesF View Post
Of course "removing express trains" results in spare paths. But the estimates include the £8.3bn saving by removing them. If they were to be replaced with other services there would be no saving. But HS2 are counting on the savings so there is no intention of replacing removed services with others. They can't have it both ways.
The Department for Transport "have it both ways", by declining to explain exactly how they "save £8.3 billion", while promising to run a "broadly comparable" classic service post HS2.

Judging by the HS2 technical director's presentation, the pre-HS2 "express trains" would be "replaced" by more or less the same trains, stopping very slightly more often.
Voglitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 20:07   #35
MarkyT
Established Member
 
MarkyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: 20 May 2012
Location: Torbay
Posts: 1,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
The OP titled the discussion "Released Capacity". Released capacity is not the same thing, at all, as adding capacity on another line.

All the available evidence suggests that the capacity released by building HS2 is minimal. As far as West Coast south is concerned, it's possible that usable capacity might fall, as a result of the platform reduction at Euston.
The question should be about released capacity for different stopping patterns. HS2 will not increase the overall number of paths available on the fast lines, but WILL allow more trains to stop at the intermediate stations that deserve a better service of faster trains into London and also to the Midlands and NW. What really saps capacity on a pair of lines is differences in journey time and stopping pattern, so that you can either give preference to the the expresses or to the semis, but you can't have high frequency for both as the fasts keep catching up with the stoppers. This is also why skip stop is so popular on such capacity constrained routes today, to keep overall journey time between the cities the same by having the same number of stops but distributing these calls at different stations for different regular departures from the main cities across the hour. Intermediate stops for 'semis' can also be placed on loops next to the fast lines to allow non stops to bypass them, but this adds significantly to overall journey times for the stoppers and adds performance risk between the service groups and greater track and planning complexity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
Not if "major NW cities" includes Chester or Stoke-on Trent.
Stoke along with Stafford and possibly Macclesfield could continue to be served easily by a classic compatible service at Phase 2. They are already planned to be served that way at Phase 1.

Chester could feasibly get a regular CC portion split from a Liverpool service at Crewe, given electrification of the route.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
Since the West Coast route is more or less four track all the way to Crewe, there already is speed segregation. The planned HS2 rolling stock utilisation is very poor, but apparently this has now been recognised.
I keep trying to explain that speed segregation is not just about the top speed capability of the rolling stock used. A much more important factor is differing stopping patterns of the traffic mix using the route. It is notable that south of Rugby, point to point timings of 110MPH capable cl.350s are almost identical to that of (nominally faster) Pendolinos, between Watford Junction and Milton Keynes for instance so if you put all intermediate stops in every train you might push 18-20 trains per hour through the section, just as HS2 plans to do on the new railway with the identical stopping patterns (i.e for HS2 no stops south of Birmingham). If you had no stops at all on the Rugby Euston section you might also achive a similar throughput at maximum tilt enabled speed. What you cannot have is that maximum capacity together with a mix of stopping patterns. The less than ideal technique of skip stopping is used extensively today, but even this saps some capacity, and makes some intermediate journeys difficult. What is certain is that there is no practical margin for service frequency growth on the WCML without moving further towards an all stops or non stop pattern for all trains on this section.

HS2 will allow more intermediate stops on remaining WCML services due to the line capacity factors explained above and also because there will be capacity aboard the trains, which will no longer be carrying the current volume of longer distance travellers from the major north western cities. So for Rugby, Milton Keynes, Coventry, expect maybe a very slightly extended journey on some trains but also the possibility of many more departures per hour and much more likelyhood of a seat, especially in the peaks.

Thus I maintain there IS capacity released by HS2. Capacity for these intermediate journeys at the southern end of the WCML as part of broader service pattern changes made possible by the new route.

Last edited by MarkyT; 11th January 2017 at 20:09.
MarkyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 20:33   #36
anme
Established Member
 
Join Date: 8 Aug 2013
Posts: 1,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
No, it's not saying "we shouldn't improve transport between A and B because there are also problems between X and Y".

It's saying that prospective transport improvements between A and B, and C through Z, should be assessed on value for money, and not on whether there happens to be a railway between them.
Are you arguing that a new railway line between Luton and Milton Keynes has a better business case than HS2? Because I'd like to see those numbers.
anme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 20:57   #37
Voglitz
Member
 
Join Date: 31 May 2016
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyT View Post
HS2 will not increase the overall number of paths available on the fast lines, but WILL allow more trains to stop at the intermediate stations that deserve a better service of faster trains into London and also to the Midlands and NW.
I'm going by the McNaughton 'released capacity' presentation, which does not show generalised large-scale improvements for intermediate stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyT View Post
What really saps capacity on a pair of lines is differences in journey time and stopping pattern, so that you can either give preference to the the expresses or to the semis, but you can't have high frequency for both as the fasts keep catching up with the stoppers.
In the case of West Coast south fast lines, stopping pattern does not play much of a role in capacity sapping. A limiting factor is the flat crossings to the slow lines, one of several design errors of the modernisation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyT View Post
Intermediate stops for 'semis' can also be placed on loops next to the fast lines to allow non stops to bypass them, but this adds significantly to overall journey times for the stoppers and adds performance risk between the service groups and greater track and planning complexity.
They may or may not add 'significantly' to overall journey times and add performance risk, but loops are commonplace on legacy and new build railways. HS2 is supposed to have such loops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyT View Post
Stoke along with Stafford and possibly Macclesfield could continue to be served easily by a classic compatible service at Phase 2. They are already planned to be served that way at Phase 1.

Chester could feasibly get a regular CC portion split from a Liverpool service at Crewe, given electrification of the route.
You wrote, "the new line will be able to take the complete high frequency London service of the fastest trains from the major NW cities and Birmingham".

I don't think it could. The current Stoke to London service isn't 1 train per hour, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyT View Post
if you put all intermediate stops in every train you might push 18-20 trains per hour through the section, just as HS2 plans to do on the new railway with the identical stopping patterns (i.e for HS2 no stops south of Birmingham). If you had no stops at all on the Rugby Euston section you might also achive a similar throughput at maximum tilt enabled speed. What you cannot have is that maximum capacity together with a mix of stopping patterns.
You can have a nonidentical stopping patterns, without losing throughput. Provided the loop on and off mainline, for stopping trains, is at mainline speed.
Voglitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 21:51   #38
The Planner
Established Member
 
Join Date: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 7,156
Default

The flat crossings are the limiting factor? How many trains per hour cross on the flat or actually require to? What you are saying does not tally with what McNaughton has said, which at the end of the day he has no influence on anyway.
__________________
Not normally one for this but....all posted drivel is my own opinion and has nothing at all to do with my employer...social media policy and all that.
The Planner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 22:55   #39
Voglitz
Member
 
Join Date: 31 May 2016
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Planner View Post
The flat crossings are the limiting factor?
A, not the limiting factor. One of several design errors of the modernisation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Planner View Post
What you are saying does not tally with what McNaughton has said, which at the end of the day he has no influence on anyway.
What Mr McNaughton has said, or is reported to have said, does not always tally with the actuality.
Voglitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 23:37   #40
Trog
Rtd P-Way Engineer.
Established Member
 
Trog's Avatar
 
Join Date: 30 Oct 2009
Posts: 1,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
A limiting factor is the flat crossings to the slow lines, one of several design errors of the modernisation.

You can have a nonidentical stopping patterns, without losing throughput. Provided the loop on and off mainline, for stopping trains, is at mainline speed.
How else do you expect trains to cross between the fasts and the slows?

The loop would also have to be long enough to allow braking from line speed to a stand and acceleration back to line speed in conditions of poor adhesion. Two loops (one in each direction) that long through a built up area with high speed swing nose S&C at each end would cost an absolute fortune. Provided you could even get permission for all the demolitions that would be required to get the land.
__________________
Mumble mumble back in my young day..... 48hr shift.... no lunch break.... up hill both ways... thankful for it...... c**p behind gorse bush.... three feet of snow... ballast minutes not printed on soft paper.... risk of arsenick poisioning.... mumble mumble .. don't know they are born....
Trog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th January 2017, 07:02   #41
The Planner
Established Member
 
Join Date: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 7,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
A, not the limiting factor. One of several design errors of the modernisation.
And also one of very minor significance.
__________________
Not normally one for this but....all posted drivel is my own opinion and has nothing at all to do with my employer...social media policy and all that.
The Planner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th January 2017, 07:37   #42
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
 
Joseph_Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: 14 Apr 2012
Location: Within earshot of trains passing the one and half mile post
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trog View Post
The loop would also have to be long enough to allow braking from line speed to a stand and acceleration back to line speed in conditions of poor adhesion. Two loops (one in each direction) that long through a built up area with high speed swing nose S&C at each end would cost an absolute fortune. Provided you could even get permission for all the demolitions that would be required to get the land.
9km long with 225kph entries and exits, if I remember the guidance from HS2 correctly. The track interval also has to be about 4m at those kinds of speeds.
__________________
Signatures are limited to two unfunny lines. Your signature also contains too much humour. Please edit it to make it brief, remove the humour and try again.
Joseph_Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th January 2017, 10:15   #43
Grimsby town
Member
 
Join Date: 4 Apr 2011
Posts: 117
Default

There's a lot of discussion going on about capacity being freed on the WCML but it's not only the WCML that will benefit. The ECML will benefit from increased capacity south York to run new services between cities like Leeds and Newcastle and Cambridge.

It also offers a chance to serve new markets. I currently commute from Bawtry to Leeds. Even though the ECML runs through Bawtry I have travel to Doncaster to catch a train. Once HS2 is open new stations can be opened in areas that are currently not served such as Bawtry and many areas between Leeds and Wakefield.
Grimsby town is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th January 2017, 10:24   #44
edwin_m
Established Member
 
Join Date: 21 Apr 2013
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,079
Default

If a stopping train is looped and overtaken at a station stop, it needs a second path a few minutes after its original one to drop into when it re-starts. So unless stopping trains are so frequent that one is entering the loop just before the previous one re-joins the main line in its path, stops on loops still have a cost in capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voglitz View Post
Travel between lots of stations is inconvenient today (e.g. Luton and Milton Keynes, Watford Junction and St Albans City). It doesn't follow that HS2 is a cost effective way of improving connectivity in southern England, or anywhere else.
East West Rail looked at providing a link between Luton and Milton Keynes but couldn't make a business case. However it will make rail more viable for many east-west journeys in the counties north of London.

Similarly a business case seemingly can't be made for increasing service frequency on the Abbey line. Extending it to City would be hugely costly and disruptive, for very little overall benefit because it provides for few through journeys and many that it does provide would also be possible by changing at Bedford and Bletchley.

So there is a need for east-west links, but money is being found to address this as well as to provide HS2.
__________________
These opinions are mine alone, unless anyone happens to agree with me.

Last edited by edwin_m; 12th January 2017 at 10:24. Reason: Double post prevention system
edwin_m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th January 2017, 10:41   #45
najaB
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: 28 Aug 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph_Locke View Post
9km long with 225kph entries and exits, if I remember the guidance from HS2 correctly. The track interval also has to be about 4m at those kinds of speeds.
9km long loops at most (all?) intermediate stations? Might as well just build a new pair of tracks.
__________________
Favourite saying: "There's no difference between theory and practice. In theory."
najaB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2017