HS2 in the press

[Grumpy]

One of the reasons is that pax won't be expected to walk from one end of the train to the other. Hs2 stations will be designed with multiple entrances/exits from the platforms so people will be able to get on/off far more quickly.

The number of entrances/exits from the platforms influences the ease of access to the platforms, not the ability to get on/off the train more quickly. The latter is determined by the number of doors on the train and door widths/layout etc.
If you observe such as the German ICE services, their dwell times are no better than existing UK trains.
Any suggestion that HS2 services will enjoy improved dwell times is like much of the project’s supposed benefits-wishful thinking

 

[HSTEd]

The number of entrances/exits from the platforms influences the ease of access to the platforms, not the ability to get on/off the train more quickly. The latter is determined by the number of doors on the train and door widths/layout etc.
If you observe such as the German ICE services, their dwell times are no better than existing UK trains.
Any suggestion that HS2 services will enjoy improved dwell times is like much of the project’s supposed benefits-wishful thinking

You won't have to restock the buffet so often due to the short journeys.
If the trains even have buffets.

Train stops, opens doors, passengers stream out. Quick cleaning check and the train is ready to accept passengers again. And you wouldn't clean at the end of every journey.

 

[edwin_m]

Sterling work, thanks.

One thing I don't really get- why are the dwell times for HS2 trains so much quicker than conventional intercity trains?

The sizing of the stations for HS2 is based on a 30min turnaround* time, so 11 platforms can handle the 18 trains per hour expected on the HS2 route on completion of Phase 2. This is similar to the turnaround times seen in the timetables for other long distance services, such as the 35min referred to in the article for existing Euston trains, and incidentally means that Paul's refutation of that point should be slightly different.

*We shouldn't really be referring to dwell times here, as this is normally used to refer to stops at intermediate stations though as with most railway terminology there is no hard and fast rule.


However I consider Gilligan's main points can't be dismissed so quickly, and to try to do so reduces the credibility of Paul's arguments.

It is indeed correct that the WCML has four tracks between Euston and Hanslope (and beyond if you consider the Northampton Loop to be the slow lines). But it does have six tracks between Euston and Watford so reducing to four into Euston does potentially create a bottleneck. The answer to this is that much of the traffic on the WCML (freight and Bakerloo line and possibly in future the Tring locals) doesn't go as far south as Euston.

However, I'm not aware that anybody has actually given any assurances on the DC service continuing to serve Euston, this may be a valid point from Gilligan.

I'd also suggest that using a name like "Gilligoon" stoops towards the level of some of the anti-HS2 campaigners rightly ridiculed on Paul's blog, and that whatever you think of Gilligan many people regard his piece on the Iraq dossier as contributing significantly to the public interest.

 

[The Planner]

Dwell times are the completely wrong term to use, the times people are talking about are turnarounds, dwell is station stop en-route, nothing else.

Turnarounds at Euston vary on the distance travelled, EBW are as short as 20, Glasgow 30 - 35 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if the HS2 model follows this with Curzon St services being 20 minutes at Euston increasing with distance travelled again.

People need to understand how Euston works before believing the the 6 tracks to 4 is going to make it all implode. Yes, it is going to be very difficult to make it work reliably, but the killer with this is losing line X as it is grade separated. DC and LM tend to sit in the middle, Virgin use the outsides. Therefore stuff coming in on the low side on lines can get out onto the fasts conflict free.

As for DC trains not going into Euston, no chance, that will continue as is.

 

[swt_passenger]

However, I'm not aware that anybody has actually given any assurances on the DC service continuing to serve Euston, this may be a valid point from Gilligan.

It was stated that there were no plans in a Mayoral question/answer back in July:

Euston London Overground service (1)

Navin Shah (15-Jul-2015):
Do you have an aspiration for Watford Junction LO trains continuing to run indefinitely into Euston station, rather than being diverted at Primrose Hill (and/or Willesden Junction) on to the North London Line?

Would any Primrose Hill diversion likely require a financial contribution towards four-tracking the short section of two-track North London Line west of Camden Road station?

The Mayor (15-Jul-2015):
There is no current proposal for London Overground services originating at Watford to be diverted from Euston towards Stratford.

Analysis by TfL suggests that there is greater demand for journeys towards Euston than Stratford. Those who wish to travel towards Stratford can do so with a straightforward interchange at Willesden Junction.

Original may be found by searching for "Euston London Overground service (1)" here: http://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/

I reckon diversion of the DC line services to Stratford has mainly been a rumour started by people dreaming of reopening Primrose Hill...

All of TfL's recent future network maps show the DC line running into Euston, and as is fairly well known, they can always use dual voltage stock into AC platforms anyway...

 

[Tubby Isaacs]

Turnaround time, not dwell time. Apol for confusion.

And thanks for all the replies.

 

[edwin_m]

It was stated that there were no plans in a Mayoral question/answer back in July:



Original may be found by searching for "Euston London Overground service (1)" here: http://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/

I reckon diversion of the DC line services to Stratford has mainly been a rumour started by people dreaming of reopening Primrose Hill...

All of TfL's recent future network maps show the DC line running into Euston, and as is fairly well known, they can always use dual voltage stock into AC platforms anyway...

Thanks for the information. However I can't help thinking that a politician is involved here, and "no current proposal for" isn't the same thing as "it won't"...

 

[Snapper]

It is indeed correct that the WCML has four tracks between Euston and Hanslope (and beyond if you consider the Northampton Loop to be the slow lines). But it does have six tracks between Euston and Watford so reducing to four into Euston does potentially create a bottleneck. The answer to this is that much of the traffic on the WCML (freight and Bakerloo line and possibly in future the Tring locals) doesn't go as far south as Euston.

The DC lines cannot be used by IC services. They are essentially a separate service so are irrelevant to 'Gilligoons' argument. Also, one of the two lines 'taken out' by Hs2 rebuilding is temporary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd also suggest that using a name like "Gilligoon" stoops towards the level of some of the anti-HS2 campaigners rightly ridiculed on Paul's blog, and that whatever you think of Gilligan many people regard his piece on the Iraq dossier as contributing significantly to the public interest.

As a former Londoner who had to put up with years of 'Gilligoon' rubbish in the Evening Standard where the man told all sorts of rubbish about bendy buses & cyclists (he was a cheerleader for Boris Johnson) I have a far less charitable view of the man.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dwell times are the completely wrong term to use, the times people are talking about are turnarounds, dwell is station stop en-route, nothing else.

Fair point. I'll change it in the blog. My defense was I typed it up quickly this morning as I wanted to get a riposte out quickly.

 

[edwin_m]

The DC lines cannot be used by IC services. They are essentially a separate service so are irrelevant to 'Gilligoons' argument.

Devil's advocate here, but they do still contribute to the total number of trains entering and leaving Euston, and if anything has to be removed (apart from the Tring locals) they are the obvious choice. They are the shortest trains serving Euston and the two stations between Queens Park and Euston are within 5min walk of Tube stations. North of Queens Park could be catered for by handing the DC lines fully over to the Bakerloo line, supplemented by HS2 capacity release allowing more calls by AC services at the stations with main line platforms. This solution would disbenefit far fewer people and cost the public purse far less than any other means of releasing paths into Euston, should it be necessary to do so.

So, in the absence of any definite statement that they won't, it is understandable that people will expect that they will disappear. However I also think it would be unwise of anyone to commit to keeping them!

 

[Tubby Isaacs]

As a former Londoner who had to put up with years of 'Gilligoon' rubbish in the Evening Standard where the man told all sorts of rubbish about bendy buses & cyclists (he was a cheerleader for Boris Johnson) I have a far less charitable view of the man..

Current Londoner here, similarly irritated by Gilligan's serial fraud. Not least his setting up David Kelly by revealing his name to MPs, not what a journalist should do with a source.

 

[Metrailway]

The DC services share the same pair of tracks with the AC slow services between Camden and Euston.

Presumably knocking out AC only Lines E and X will have an effect on the number of services being able to run into Euston?

Especially considering Line X is grade separated meaning that fast IC services leaving Euston platforms 1- 5 will be forced to cross the station throat on the flat.

 

[The Planner]

The DC lines cannot be used by IC services. They are essentially a separate service so are irrelevant to 'Gilligoons' argument. Also, one of the two lines 'taken out' by Hs2 rebuilding is temporary.

Is that common knowledge and out there now about one line coming back? Wasnt aware it was..

 

[Snapper]

Here's a new blog updating the Labour position on Hs2:

"As expected, Jeremy Corbyn has been elected as new Labour party leader – with an unexpectedly huge majority. This has wrong-foooted a number of people (including Corbyn himself it seems). Amongst those people are the opposition to Hs2 who’ve desperately looking for a new messiah ever since UKIP left them in the lurch."

More here...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2298289#post2298289
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is that common knowledge and out there now about one line coming back? Wasnt aware it was..

It's in the public domain now..

Goodwill mentioned it on the Hs2 Euston additional provisions bill debate in Parliament yesterday. I've updated my blog in light of what was said...

 

[Snapper]

Latest blog on the anti Hs2 campaign is here; http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2308058#post2308058
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
New blog on Osborne, Hs2 & China can be found here..

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2308974#post2308974

 

[Trog]

The DC lines cannot be used by IC services.

Not strictly true in that it has been done in the past, but the low speed and lack of capacity probably make it true to say that the DC lines cannot usefully be used by IC services. It is a better than walking type option.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiRO3ZvYrFI

 

[The Planner]

Can only be done in the down direction anyway, no way of reaching the DCs on the up at Watford.

 

[Trog]

Pass Watford in the up direction, reverse in platform 6 at Wembley Central, US to DS at Wembley Central North, DS to DF at North Wembley, reverse in platform 6 at Watford Junction WM526/2592 points onto the DC, trundle to Euston. But such a long way round it would only be worth doing if the alternative was walking.

 

[The Planner]

You have answered your own question, you wouldn't do it as it is too far a move to do. You would dump out at Watford.

 

[WatcherZero]

£1.8bn-£3.3bn phase 2 Crewe section will be tendered at the same time as phase 1 next Spring which should keep it on track to open 6 years early.

 

[Camden]

Doesn't that mean legally they will have had to have done all the consultation etc before then? You surely can't after all sign a contract for something you're not legally entitled to go ahead with yet. What if it got turned down at the last minute, for example?

And if they are getting the legal stuff out of the way, basically inventing a Phase 1b, it leaves the remainder of Phase 2, at least in the western half, in a funny place.

 

[The Planner]

Would still assume it would need some sort of hybrid bill and its called phase 2a apparently.

 

[edwin_m]

Doesn't that mean legally they will have had to have done all the consultation etc before then? You surely can't after all sign a contract for something you're not legally entitled to go ahead with yet. What if it got turned down at the last minute, for example?

And if they are getting the legal stuff out of the way, basically inventing a Phase 1b, it leaves the remainder of Phase 2, at least in the western half, in a funny place.

They can sign a contract for the design, but they may need to vary it if the Parliamentary process leads to changes. That's no different from any other contract but variations are that much more likely. If the whole thing gets thrown out then the designers will be stood down with a contractual notice period and paid for what they have done thus far.

I don't think they can do much in the way of construction until they get the powers.

 

[Camden]

I don't see how that can be right. It's spending significant sums of public money. Surely this cannot be done without all the legal T&Cs being done, with that subject to all due democratic process, first? Whether it's a penny or a £1bn, surely the government has no right to spend anything on this until process is followed?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't see how that can be right. It's spending significant sums of public money. Surely this cannot be done without all the legal T&Cs being done, with that subject to all due democratic process, first? Whether it's a penny or a £1bn, surely the government has no right to spend anything on this until process is followed?

HS2 Ltd had already spent many hundreds of millions of pounds on consultancy and design fees before the Hybrid Bill reached Second Reading. So long as nothing is built, there is no real problem in spending the money. Indeed, spending money is necessary to get a scheme which is then worth the time of Parliament to then deliberate on and approve.

 

[Camden]

But there is surely a difference between spending money to identify a possible scheme and prove it has a business case and is feasible (which is necessary to get approval). At that point the work should surely stop, while it waits for approval and funding agreement?

It is surely not acceptable to just go ahead and start work until that approval is gained? Just because work isn't digging into the ground, doesn't mean it would not be "work" and certainly wouldn't mean it's not presumptuously spending money when appropriate approval for the project has not yet been secured.

So I can't see how they can do anything other than get all of the necessaries out of the way for this phase 1b / 2a whatever you want to call it, and completely orphan it from phase 2. With the rump phase 2 then also needing to go through the same process later on (since I assume it won't be put through at the same time as phase 1, but that this bit to Crewe will have to be, considering the timescales it has taken for phase 1).

 

[edwin_m]

Most large infrastructure schemes don't need Parliamentary approval at all, as Parliament has given powers to relevant Secretaries of State to approve them as "secondary leglislation". For example nobody asked Parliament to approve the Hinckley Point deal, which rightly or wrongly commits the Governement to significant spending guarantees over a long period. So it's arguably a bit of an anomaly that HS2 should need a Hybrid Bill at all.

 

[Camden]

It might be arguable that it's an anomaly... but it's not arguable that it's a stated fact!

(I don't think it's arguable to be honest, HS2 is a different kettle of fish because it stretches across vast lengths of the country and directly affects so many more people than a power station will ever do)

 

[Haydn1971]

(I don't think it's arguable to be honest, HS2 is a different kettle of fish because it stretches across vast lengths of the country and directly affects so many more people than a power station will ever do)

To be fair, a new nuclear power station has the potential to affect vast areas of the country if something goes wrong.

 

[Metrailway]

Hinkley Point C will be built next door to the existing Hinkley Point B nuclear plant.

HS2 is quite different. Adding an additional pair of tracks directly beside the existing WCML, would IMHO be analogous to Hinkley Point C and I believe would not require an Act of Parliament.

 

[Camden]

To be fair, a new nuclear power station has the potential to affect vast areas of the country if something goes wrong.

That never happens.

hock: