HS2 - the case for a review

[najaB]

Does HS1 have a "reduced maintenance budget", compared to other main lines?

The indications are that it is more expensive to maintain. Which partly explained why Eurostar UK had to be bailed out to the tune of £5.1 billion.

I'm not sure what the financial position of the train operator has to do with the maintenance costs of the infrastructure. As I understand it - and I'm happy to be corrected - HS1 is maintained by Network Rail, not Eurostar.

 

[Voglitz]

The damn thing cost more in inflation adjusted pounds than HS2-1 will, including the optimism bias and contingency.

"The £9 billion WCML renewal and modernisation programme comprised £2.5 billion of investment in infrastructure upgrades and £6.5 billion of investment in infrastructure renewals", according to the government.

£2.5 billion - or even £9 billion - is nothing like £42.6 billion, or £55.7 billion.

If deferred maintenance from running ~nine 100mph trains each hour on the WCML came to "£6.5 billion", what would be the repairs bill for eighteen trains per hour, running at 200mph, on HS2?

I'm not sure what the financial position of the train operator has to do with the maintenance costs of the infrastructure. As I understand it - and I'm happy to be corrected - HS1 is maintained by Network Rail, not Eurostar.

Who pays the maintenance costs of rail infrastructure? The train operators, and the government.

 

[DerekC]

We seem to be back into arguing the case for and against HS2. That battle has been won (or lost depending on your point of view). The question this thread started with is whether HS2 is gold-plated and could be re-engineered to reduce the cost. To which the answer (in my opinion) is an emphatic "yes". There are aspects (principally the maximum speed but also the junction and station track layouts) which show up the gold plating very clearly. That would logically release funds for more investment in conventional lines elsewhere.

 

[MarkRedon]

The indications are that it is more expensive to maintain. Which partly explained why Eurostar UK had to be bailed out to the tune of £5.1 billion.

The approval of state aid in 2009 was to both London & Continental Railways and Eurostar. The intention was in large part to reduce the indebtedness of the infrastructure company so as to make lower track access charges feasible.This can be seen from a careful reading of the quoted European Commission document.

 

[JamesT]

We seem to be back into arguing the case for and against HS2. That battle has been won (or lost depending on your point of view). The question this thread started with is whether HS2 is gold-plated and could be re-engineered to reduce the cost. To which the answer (in my opinion) is an emphatic "yes". There are aspects (principally the maximum speed but also the junction and station track layouts) which show up the gold plating very clearly. That would logically release funds for more investment in conventional lines elsewhere.

My understanding from previous statements is the extra cost of going to high speed is only about 10% of the budget. Which wouldn't release much for conventional lines.

 

[The Ham]

"The £9 billion WCML renewal and modernisation programme comprised £2.5 billion of investment in infrastructure upgrades and £6.5 billion of investment in infrastructure renewals", according to the government.

£2.5 billion - or even £9 billion - is nothing like £42.6 billion, or £55.7 billion.

If deferred maintenance from running ~nine 100mph trains each hour on the WCML came to "£6.5 billion", what would be the repairs bill for eighteen trains per hour, running at 200mph, on HS2?



Who pays the maintenance costs of rail infrastructure? The train operators, and the government.

HSTEd referanced HS2 phase 1 (HS2-1), which according to the following PDF says:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn00316.pdf

The cost estimate for Phase 1, published alongside the Hybrid Bill, was for a total construction cost of £19.39 billion in 2011 prices, while the ‘target price’ (i.e. the amount that the Government wanted to bring the scheme in for) was £16.34 billion. However, the statement on financial effects in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill gave an overall ‘funding envelope’ for Phase 1 of £21.4 billion, including £5.75 billion of contingency

Although this is still some way adrift of the circa £11bn that it would like to have cost in 2011 prices it is no where near as far apart as it is for the total HS2 cost quoted.

With regards to maintenance, given that last modernisation phase of works on the WCML was done in the 1970's then £6.5bn over 30 years works out at about £216 million per year, given that it is about 400 miles long that works out at £500,000 per mile per year. Therefore assuming the same for HS2 in about 2060 it would be about £5bn (as HS2 is shorter than the WCML), although that doesn't make any allowance for the fact that the WCML is often 4 tracks and is based on a route that has been around for a lot longer than 30 years whilst HS2 would only be 2 tracks and built totally from scratch as a high speed line, however nor does it take into account the faster line speeds nor inflation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My understanding from previous statements is the extra cost of going to high speed is only about 10% of the budget. Which wouldn't release much for conventional lines.

Either you build it with faster than conventional track speeds (which adds a little to the cost) or you run the risk of less people switching from the slower services and it having less of a benefit.

If you only have (say) fifteen minutes of time savings at (say) 90% of the cost then you are likely to only have (say) 50% of the benefits which means that there will be no new line. No new line means that if we have another 10 years of 4% of passenger growth (48% more passengers), then the peak time trains which were 60% full (in 2012, but we'll assume now) that would mean that those trains could be 89% full (which wouldn't be comfortable), but hey what do I care I don't use the WCML.

 

[Voglitz]

HSTEd referanced HS2 phase 1 (HS2-1), which according to the following PDF says:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn00316.pdf

Although this is still some way adrift of the circa £11bn that it would like to have cost in 2011 prices it is no where near as far apart as it is for the total HS2 cost quoted.

Where does £11bn come from?

With regards to maintenance, given that last modernisation phase of works on the WCML was done in the 1970's then £6.5bn over 30 years works out at about £216 million per year, given that it is about 400 miles long that works out at £500,000 per mile per year. Therefore assuming the same for HS2 in about 2060 it would be about £5bn (as HS2 is shorter than the WCML), although that doesn't make any allowance for the fact that the WCML is often 4 tracks and is based on a route that has been around for a lot longer than 30 years whilst HS2 would only be 2 tracks and built totally from scratch as a high speed line, however nor does it take into account the faster line speeds nor inflation.

Cutting to the chase, people are confusing and conflating construction costs and maintenance costs. The cost of upgrading the West Coast Main Line was nothing like the cost of building HS2. Not even in the same ball park.

Either you build it with faster than conventional track speeds (which adds a little to the cost)

There's no way of knowing what it adds to the costs. 10% is a number straight from the air.

or you run the risk of less people switching from the slower services and it having less of a benefit.

Deutsche Bahn are in the process of slowing down their intercity services with ICE4 trains (at least 50 km/h slower). Why are they doing it, if it has "less of a benefit"?

 

[The Ham]

£11bn is £9bn an inflation rate for 2006 (mid point of the works) to 2011 (the year that HS2 was priced) so as to provide a fair comparison.

 

[HSTEd]

Where does £11bn come from?

If you are going to compare prices from years apart then you have to do an inflation adjustment calculation to make sure you are comparing apples with apples.

Cutting to the chase, people are confusing and conflating construction costs and maintenance costs. The cost of upgrading the West Coast Main Line was nothing like the cost of building HS2. Not even in the same ball park.

Considering just how little benefit the WCRM actually provided in terms of capacity and journey times they are surprisingly close in capital costs.
£11bn for the WCRM versus £21bn for HS2-1 including contingency.
You get far more from the latter than the former.

There's no way of knowing what it adds to the costs. 10% is a number straight from the air.

I believe there was a study on the CTRL about this that indicated that a colour light signalled line at 125mph would not be significantly cheaper than what we actually got.
But I have not read the study myself.

Deutsche Bahn are in the process of slowing down their intercity services with ICE4 trains (at least 50 km/h slower). Why are they doing it, if it has "less of a benefit"?

Are they?
The ICE4 fleet is the result of the ICEx programme, which is primarily intended to replace aging conventional loco hauled sets (Which are slower than the new MUs) or ICE1s and 2s which are not enormously faster.

ICE1s and 2s are only capable of 280km/h, and the faster ICE4 sets which will replace them are electronically limited to 249km/h to escape requirements associated with the European TSIs that only affect trains with a top speed of 250km/h and up.
Considering the performance of the new sets will be far superior by virtue of distributed traction there is not really a significant loss there, considering the benefits of avoiding said TSIs.
This is not the case when your route design speed is much higher than 280km/h, many ICE routes are not built for anything more than that.

 

[MarkyT]

Deutsche Bahn are in the process of slowing down their intercity services with ICE4 trains (at least 50 km/h slower). Why are they doing it, if it has "less of a benefit"?

It is not true that ordering of the the ICE4 fleet represents a general slowing down the DB ICnetwork, as the 330 kph ICE3 design will remain in use and indeed more have been purchased recently in the form of the latest Velaro D. The ICE4 was conceived initially as a replacement for loco hauled IC and Eurocity trains. Some of these trains already run partly over NBS infrastructure with locos today and many of the earlier HS lines were specifically built with mixed traffic in mind. It was announced later that ICE1 and 2 trains will eventually be replaced by similar ICE4 trains with a top speed of 250kph compared to the 280kph limit of the earlier designs. Many German IC routes incorporate significant mileage on the earlier slower NBS lines and on parts of the classic network, so the slightly slower top speed may not actually result in slower journey times on many schedules, possibly also being helped by a better power to weight ratio. resulting in better acceleration on both HS and classic networks. I expect the ICE3s will continue to be concentrated on the later higher speed lines as now and they, one day, will be replaced by another train with a similar top speed. The very large final ICE4 fleet will offer a great deal of standardisation across the entire IC network, with consequent savings in maintenance, training etc. In many ways the ICE4 design looks a lot like the Hitachi AT300 family of UK trains (without the bi-mode feature), with a variable number of standard self-contained power cars mixed with standard trailers and driving trailers. The ratio of power cars to trailers can be altered to suit the power requirements of the route concerned, so a higher powered unit can be specified for higher speed or better hill climbing capability for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ICE1s and 2s are only capable of 280km/h, and the faster ICE4 sets which will replace them are electronically limited to 249km/h to escape requirements associated with the European TSIs that only affect trains with a top speed of 250km/h and up . . . performance of the new sets will be far superior by virtue of distributed traction there is not really a significant loss there, considering the benefits of avoiding said TSIs.

Thanks for that clarification. I assume exceeding 249kph triggers a whole additional set of requirements for crash worthiness etc. Keeping the new trains' speed below that limit may enable significant weight savings to be achieved, so acceleration is likely to be much better than the heavy 1st and 2nd series trains.

 

[Voglitz]

It is not true that ordering of the the ICE4 fleet represents a general slowing down the DB ICnetwork, as the 330 kph ICE3 design will remain in use and indeed more have been purchased recently in the form of the latest Velaro D.

So far as can be established, the ICE4 fleet is going to vastly outnumber the ICE3 fleet. So it is true to say intercity services, as a whole, are going to be slowed down. Unless you think 280 km/h is slower than 249 km/h, that is.

According to Wikipedia, further ICE3s were considered to replace older high speed trains, but lost out to slower ICE4s.

If you are going to compare prices from years apart then you have to do an inflation adjustment calculation to make sure you are comparing apples with apples.

If you are going to compare costs between upgrading track and building new track, you have to compare apples with apples. So the relevant base WCRM figure is roughly £2.5 billion, versus £21 billion for HS2 phase 1, including contingency.

You get far more from the latter than the former.

In capacity? No.

Considering the performance of the new sets will be far superior by virtue of distributed traction there is not really a significant loss there, considering the benefits of avoiding said TSIs.
This is not the case when your route design speed is much higher than 280km/h, many ICE routes are not built for anything more than that.

You're claiming ICE4 will not operate on routes where design speed is higher than 280km/h?

 

[MarkyT]

Unless you think 280 km/h is slower than 249 km/h, that is.

Clearly I do not, but top speed is only one component of actual journey time determination for a specific IC route schedule, which may be limited by classic route speed limits in places, and the older heavier trains will also have inferior acceleration. How much running on a typical ICE1 or 2 duty involves running at the maximum speed of 280kph?

. . . claiming ICE4 will not operate on routes where design speed is higher than 280km/h?

Trains running at different speeds can be accomodated on high speed lines as long as it is recognised that it limits capacity. That's already a constraint on some parts of the German HS network, where some loco hauled passenger traffic is present alongside ICE trains. Whether that is a problem or not in future is dependent on what kind of traffic mix and density is being planned. The high capacity required by HS2 on the common trunk main line section demands a consistent speed capability. That speed need not be very high purely for capacity, but a higher speed equates to more attractive, faster journeys for the passenger, but also importantly it gets better utilisation from the rolling stock; a faster round trip cycle can achieve more journeys in a given period, or to put it another way the carrying capacity of a given size fleet increases with speed.

 

[The Ham]

If you are going to compare costs between upgrading track and building new track, you have to compare apples with apples. So the relevant base WCRM figure is roughly £2.5 billion, versus £21 billion for HS2 phase 1, including contingency.



In capacity? No.

The thing is that more capacity on the WCML has been got from the £2.5bn of investment and no one is saying that we should have built HS2 at that time. The problem is how much extra capacity would you get from improvements to the WCML by doing works now and how much would that cost?

What is being said is that having spent all that time and money improving the WCML (and much as you like to say otherwise the maintenance element is also valid to include in the overall cost, as although it needed doing anyway you certainly wouldn't have been able to run faster trains on rails that needed replacing) do we want to go through that again to gain another small increase in capacity when it may just push the problem a few years down the line.

If your last point in the quote above is saying what I think it is, you are claiming that HS2 isn't going to gain us any capacity. If that is what you are saying then that would mean that HS2 would have to only be running trains of the same size at the same frequency as those it takes off the WCML and no alternative services be provided on the WCML. Even if that were to happen (oooo flying pigs...) when HS2 first opened it wouldn't stay like that forever and so there is (at the very least) spare capacity for future trains which doesn't exist now.

A more likely (zero growth from now scenario, which is what those opposed to HS2 fear) is that the numbers of passengers are spread over more services as HS2 removes services from the WCML (I.e. those that don't stop south of Birmingham) and individual stations see more trains calling there.

However, how long will a more frequent service see zero passenger numbers? It's not going to be long, as whenever TOC's put on a more frequent service passenger numbers grow.

By building HS2 we get a big capacity increase (even just a like for like service provision could easily see capacity on the HS2 services go up by about a quarter just because of the ability to use longer trains). However, like when we built the motorways, there is much future capacity.

 

[PR1Berske]

A well argued response, but as a HS2 sceptic, too much "maybe" "possible" "could be". As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

 

[najaB]

As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

All the low hanging fruit has been gathered and we would be well into the realm of diminishing returns with WCML improvements.

 

[NSEFAN]

As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

Assuming no new railway is built, what would you do to the WCML to increase capacity?

 

[YorkshireBear]

A well argued response, but as a HS2 sceptic, too much "maybe" "possible" "could be". As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

And a resounding success it was too.

 

[PR1Berske]

Assuming no new railway is built, what would you do to the WCML to increase capacity?

I'm sure improvements can be made to platform lengths, signals, timetables and infrastructure to avoid building a new line into Euston .

 

[HSTEd]

I would hardly say the WCRM was anything but a disaster for the railway

 

[tbtc]

I'm sure improvements can be made to platform lengths, signals, timetables and infrastructure to avoid building a new line into Euston .

What though?

Anti-HS2 people are quick to suggest that we could just spend that money on upgrading the existing network, which sounds a nice argument, but what realistic/ affordable/ simple changes could you make on the WCML?

There's nine "fast" services an hour already (3x Birmingham, 3x Manchester, one to Glasgow, one to Liverpool, one to Chester/ Holyhead)...

...there's peak extras for Liverpool too.

The majority of 390s are eleven coaches, so I don't think the infrastructure could take much more (bear in mind that the cab vehicles are over twenty five metres long, the intermediate vehicles around twenty four metres long).

You could get some more capacity by expanding the remaining ones to eleven coaches, but that limits where they can run (e.g. platforms at Lime Street).

Replace Voyagers with something longer? Fair enough, though that doesn't make much difference to the main markets (Birmingham and Manchester to London). You then create the problem that there's no bi-mode train capable of tilting (to reach over 110mph on the WCML) - or do you abandon through services to Holyhead etc?

LM are running twelve coach services out of Euston, so not much more scope to increase those.

Norton Bridge will make some improvements, but too often with these kind of schemes you just find yourself running into the next bottleneck up the line.

You could try remodelling places like Crewe (to allow more services to run by grade separating), but that's going to cost silly money and mean the current route is disrupted for a long time.

Longer platforms will generally mean fouling junctions - of major disruption if you try to do this at the "buffer end" of termini.

We've four tracked routes already, and any further loops are going to potentially mean demolishing the various houses/ businesses that back onto the WCML.

Erm... 3+2 seating on Pendolinos? A handful of seats by removing a couple of toilets? I jest, but I really don't know what the alternatives are.

Stand at somewhere like Milton Keynes for half an hour, watch all the 200m+ trains try to cope with 2016 capacity - imagine how much more capacity you'll need for the 2030s if population/ travel continue to increase.

We've done all of the "easy" stuff - we are struggling to meet current demand - there is no magic bullet. I get that some people don't want HS2, I get that it's not going to benefit everywhere, maybe I'd do things slightly differently if I were in charge, but I can't see a realistic better option.

If you are more of an expert than the professionals then I'd be interested in hearing your ideas though.

 

[6Gman]

A well argued response, but as a HS2 sceptic, too much "maybe" "possible" "could be". As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

But do what?

Oh, and do you remember the years of disruption we suffered during the last modernisation?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What though?

Anti-HS2 people are quick to suggest that we could just spend that money on upgrading the existing network, which sounds a nice argument, but what realistic/ affordable/ simple changes could you make on the WCML?

There's nine "fast" services an hour already (3x Birmingham, 3x Manchester, one to Glasgow, one to Liverpool, one to Chester/ Holyhead)...

...there's peak extras for Liverpool too.

The majority of 390s are eleven coaches, so I don't think the infrastructure could take much more (bear in mind that the cab vehicles are over twenty five metres long, the intermediate vehicles around twenty four metres long).

You could get some more capacity by expanding the remaining ones to eleven coaches, but that limits where they can run (e.g. platforms at Lime Street).

Replace Voyagers with something longer? Fair enough, though that doesn't make much difference to the main markets (Birmingham and Manchester to London). You then create the problem that there's no bi-mode train capable of tilting (to reach over 110mph on the WCML) - or do you abandon through services to Holyhead etc?

LM are running twelve coach services out of Euston, so not much more scope to increase those.

Norton Bridge will make some improvements, but too often with these kind of schemes you just find yourself running into the next bottleneck up the line.

You could try remodelling places like Crewe (to allow more services to run by grade separating), but that's going to cost silly money and mean the current route is disrupted for a long time.

Longer platforms will generally mean fouling junctions - of major disruption if you try to do this at the "buffer end" of termini.

We've four tracked routes already, and any further loops are going to potentially mean demolishing the various houses/ businesses that back onto the WCML.

Erm... 3+2 seating on Pendolinos? A handful of seats by removing a couple of toilets? I jest, but I really don't know what the alternatives are.

Stand at somewhere like Milton Keynes for half an hour, watch all the 200m+ trains try to cope with 2016 capacity - imagine how much more capacity you'll need for the 2030s if population/ travel continue to increase.

We've done all of the "easy" stuff - we are struggling to meet current demand - there is no magic bullet. I get that some people don't want HS2, I get that it's not going to benefit everywhere, maybe I'd do things slightly differently if I were in charge, but I can't see a realistic better option.

If you are more of an expert than the professionals then I'd be interested in hearing your ideas though.

An extremely good posting.

Spot on.

 

[Hadders]

A well argued response, but as a HS2 sceptic, too much "maybe" "possible" "could be". As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

We'll not get too much extra out of the existing WCML, however hard we try. We also had years of pain doing it.

It's a good job the Victorian's didn't take the same view when they built much of the country's railways.

 

[Ships]

Apart from opinion, is there any actual evidence for this? According to Railway Technology's article about the West Coast modernisation,

"The quality of the upgraded track is claimed by engineers to be to continental high-speed line standards

I almost fell off much chair. That's a load of rubbish. Because of WCRM budget constraints in the south many of the track renewal were just components and skim dig it might be mainly a G44 CEN60 railway but the track bed was generally not improved. This means now that WCML south is have major issues with formation failure. A very large part of their conventional renewals are ROW 12 (formation only).

 

[The Ham]

A well argued response, but as a HS2 sceptic, too much "maybe" "possible" "could be". As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

Most of my maybe's and possibly's and could were based on trying to point out what could (but is unlikely) to happen if demand flat lines whilst it is being built. A new to line railway is likely to allow for the existing 9tph (giving 9tph on the WCML and giving noticeable capacity increase to those services) as well as a futher new services (12 tph, one every 5 minutes, should be fairly easy to achieve, so that an additional 3 tph with 1000+ seats each way).

HS2 will give a lot of extra capacity.

 

[Voglitz]

Anti-HS2 people are quick to suggest that we could just spend that money on upgrading the existing network, which sounds a nice argument, but what realistic/ affordable/ simple changes could you make on the WCML?

The changes you could make are much the same ones which have been, and are being, used on other parts of the railway network to support a doubling of national passenger demand by 2030.

If journey demand into and out of Euston (West Coast fast and slow lines) doubled, that would mean annual trip volume increasing from around 50 million now, to perhaps 100 million.

If the national annual journey total doubled (from the figure used by Network Rail), that would mean another 1,300 million being accommodated.

Travel to and from Euston isn't even 5% of national rail journeys. So HS2's potential to accommodate future demand growth, is more than a little exaggerated.

But do what?

Oh, and do you remember the years of disruption we suffered during the last modernisation?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


An extremely good posting.

Spot on.

Most of the WCRM spend was on renewals. If the WCRM had been only renewals (with no enhancements), the disruption probably wouldn't have been that much different.

If the West Coast Main Line were not upgraded in the future, it would be still be disrupted by the need for renewals, to maintain railworthiness.

In much the same way, if HS2 were built, it would inevitably be disrupted by the need for renewals, to maintain its railworthiness.

 

[Harbornite]

A well argued response, but as a HS2 sceptic, too much "maybe" "possible" "could be". As you imply, we know WCML work has increased capacity. Let's do that again, as it's proven to work, than leap into the unknown.

But eventually you won't be able to make worthwhile improvements without causing considerable disruption.

 

[HSTEd]

The changes you could make are much the same ones which have been, and are being, used on other parts of the railway network to support a doubling of national passenger demand by 2030.

If journey demand into and out of Euston (West Coast fast and slow lines) doubled, that would mean annual trip volume increasing from around 50 million now, to perhaps 100 million.

If the national annual journey total doubled (from the figure used by Network Rail), that would mean another 1,300 million being accommodated.

Travel to and from Euston isn't even 5% of national rail journeys. So HS2's potential to accommodate future demand growth, is more than a little exaggerated.

That assumes that only people who would make their journeys out of Euston today would be accommodated on HS2..... which is a rather bad approximation to make considering that it will be taking traffic from a all three major london termini, and from Birmingham, Manchester and the like.
It also assumes that the railway was at capacity at every route before the growth began - this is blatantly not the case.

Liverpool-Norwich was two cars throughout, and without significant infrastructure work it could probably support five throughout at minimum, which is more than your doubling in capacity, for a few tens of millions for the extra required stock.

If the WCRM had been only renewals (with no enhancements), the disruption probably wouldn't have been that much different.

If the West Coast Main Line were not upgraded in the future, it would be still be disrupted by the need for renewals, to maintain railworthiness.

Doubtful, because simple renewals would have not required newly complex track loayouts and signalling systems to squeeze in additional capacity.
Installing more and more signal blocks for example drastically increases the complexity of projects, which drastically increases the cost.

 

[Chester1]

What though?

Anti-HS2 people are quick to suggest that we could just spend that money on upgrading the existing network, which sounds a nice argument, but what realistic/ affordable/ simple changes could you make on the WCML?

There's nine "fast" services an hour already (3x Birmingham, 3x Manchester, one to Glasgow, one to Liverpool, one to Chester/ Holyhead)...

...there's peak extras for Liverpool too.

The majority of 390s are eleven coaches, so I don't think the infrastructure could take much more (bear in mind that the cab vehicles are over twenty five metres long, the intermediate vehicles around twenty four metres long).

You could get some more capacity by expanding the remaining ones to eleven coaches, but that limits where they can run (e.g. platforms at Lime Street).

Replace Voyagers with something longer? Fair enough, though that doesn't make much difference to the main markets (Birmingham and Manchester to London). You then create the problem that there's no bi-mode train capable of tilting (to reach over 110mph on the WCML) - or do you abandon through services to Holyhead etc?

LM are running twelve coach services out of Euston, so not much more scope to increase those.

Norton Bridge will make some improvements, but too often with these kind of schemes you just find yourself running into the next bottleneck up the line.

You could try remodelling places like Crewe (to allow more services to run by grade separating), but that's going to cost silly money and mean the current route is disrupted for a long time.

Longer platforms will generally mean fouling junctions - of major disruption if you try to do this at the "buffer end" of termini.

We've four tracked routes already, and any further loops are going to potentially mean demolishing the various houses/ businesses that back onto the WCML.

Erm... 3+2 seating on Pendolinos? A handful of seats by removing a couple of toilets? I jest, but I really don't know what the alternatives are.

Stand at somewhere like Milton Keynes for half an hour, watch all the 200m+ trains try to cope with 2016 capacity - imagine how much more capacity you'll need for the 2030s if population/ travel continue to increase.

We've done all of the "easy" stuff - we are struggling to meet current demand - there is no magic bullet. I get that some people don't want HS2, I get that it's not going to benefit everywhere, maybe I'd do things slightly differently if I were in charge, but I can't see a realistic better option.

If you are more of an expert than the professionals then I'd be interested in hearing your ideas though.

There is one option: huge upgrade to Chiltern Mainline to take all Birmingham to London express traffic. Use one path to run give a semi fast service to stations that would lose out and give the remaining two paths for extra services to the north / Scotland. Really clutching at straws would be to run 2 out of 3 Manchester services via Hope Valley and non stop from Sheffield to London. I imagine allot of work would be required to gain the extra capacity and get the speed to 2 hours 30 mins. I imagine the current service 2 hours 10 mins would be nearly impossible. East Coast Main Line has some decent options left, 4 tracking Welwyn for instance but its not the main problem. Perhaps standardising all WCML services at 110 mph with the same stopping pattern south of Crewe would create more paths but cause a huge time penalty.

I am a strong supporter of HS2 but I admit the capacity could be scraped together for another decade or so of growth but with the consquence of less reliable and slower services.

 

[MarkyT]

In much the same way, if HS2 were built, it would inevitably be disrupted by the need for renewals, to maintain its railworthiness.

True, but for both maintenance and renewals HS2 will be designed with much better safer access in mind and will be equipped with bidirectional signalling and better clearances between tracks throughout so one line can be closed at quiet times to enable work to take place whilst traffic is accommodated on the other. As far as civil engineering is concerned, being an all new construction, modern techniques in earthwork soil mechanics and structure design etc should ensure that the route is much less trouble to maintain than the underlying Victorian infrastructure of the existing main line for many many years to come.

 

[The Ham]

There is one option: huge upgrade to Chiltern Mainline to take all Birmingham to London express traffic. Use one path to run give a semi fast service to stations that would lose out and give the remaining two paths for extra services to the north / Scotland. Really clutching at straws would be to run 2 out of 3 Manchester services via Hope Valley and non stop from Sheffield to London. I imagine allot of work would be required to gain the extra capacity and get the speed to 2 hours 30 mins. I imagine the current service 2 hours 10 mins would be nearly impossible. East Coast Main Line has some decent options left, 4 tracking Welwyn for instance but its not the main problem. Perhaps standardising all WCML services at 110 mph with the same stopping pattern south of Crewe would create more paths but cause a huge time penalty.

I am a strong supporter of HS2 but I admit the capacity could be scraped together for another decade or so of growth but with the consquence of less reliable and slower services.

Given that HS1 phase 1 is over 10 years away we may have to do both (some WCML upgrades and HS2) to get us through.