HS2 in the press

[Heartland]

It would be useful to know, what has been spent so far in setting up HS2 Ltd, and there is also the cost of the new centres for training to be bore in mind.

The potential for engineering excellence is an unknown parameter, but the chance that engineering methods will benefit is an interesting prospect.

Making Crossrail has added new skills to general engineering portfolio, what will HS2 produce?

 

[snowball]

The NAO report is here:

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/progress-with-preparations-for-high-speed-2/

and HS2 Ltd's response is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hs2-ltd-response-to-nao-report

 

[The Planner]

If the BBC figures are anything to go by then it is 0.7% over budget by my reckoning, and it being a year late could also bring the benefit of Euston to Crewe opening in one go.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

If the BBC figures are anything to go by then it is 0.7% over budget by my reckoning, and it being a year late could also bring the benefit of Euston to Crewe opening in one go.

Could the Handsacre link to the WCML be simplified to save costs to have say 2tph rather than the originally planned 18 that would be sufficient to provide a service to Stafford and Stoke on Trent.

 

[The Planner]

I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if that isn't being looked at.

 

[deltic]

Could the Handsacre link to the WCML be simplified to save costs to have say 2tph rather than the originally planned 18 that would be sufficient to provide a service to Stafford and Stoke on Trent.

If you are looking to save money you axe it and open to Crewe at the same time as Birmingham and provide connection to WCML at Crewe. How many seats are you going to lose by not serving Stafford and Stoke?

 

[snowball]

I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if that isn't being looked at.

Did you mean that with the number of negatives you wrote?

 

[edwin_m]

If you are looking to save money you axe it and open to Crewe at the same time as Birmingham and provide connection to WCML at Crewe. How many seats are you going to lose by not serving Stafford and Stoke?

Perhaps so on strict financial grounds, but Stoke would probably lose is fast classic service to London and some parts are very deprived. Together with the local authorities kicking up a huge stink when the Crewe route was preferred, I think not serving Stoke at all would be politically and perhaps also morally unacceptable. Not so sure about Stafford but if you get the one you probably get the other too.

 

[snowball]

Not sure there's a right thread for this.

HS2's status remains at amber/red in the latest annual report of the Major Projects Authority.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infrastructure-and-projects-authority-annual-report-2016

 

[snowball]

BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36820702

The new transport secretary, Chris Grayling, said he did not intend to scrap the high-speed HS2 rail project.

The Stop HS2 campaign group had called on Mr Grayling to urgently review the project on cost grounds, and the effect on towns and cities near the route.

But Mr Grayling told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "I have no plans to back away from the HS2 project."

After Mr Grayling's remarks, Stop HS2 campaign manager Joe Rukin told the BBC the transport secretary's comments were "hardly a ringing endorsement" of the project.

The new transport secretary also said he wanted to reach a quick decision on where a new runway should be built to meet growing demand for air travel to and from London.
'Increasing capacity'

On rail, Mr Grayling told the BBC: "The thing that's important for people to understand is that HS2 is not simply a speed project, it's a capacity project.

"We have lines at the moment which have seen huge increases in the number of passengers, the amount of freight in recent years."

He said the West Coast main line was becoming "really congested" and was limiting the capacity of services to places such as Northampton and Milton Keynes.

Mr Grayling added: "Of course it makes sense if we're going to build a new railway line for it to be a fast railway line, to increase travel times or reduce travel times from north to south - that's logical.

"But actually we need a better transport system for the 21st century and HS2 is part of increasing the capacity of our transport system."

 

[jon0844]

I wish the capacity argument had been used from day one. Of course a new line would be faster by default, but it would be about offering more track for passenger and freight trains to use - benefitting even those not actually next to a HS2 station.

 

[JohnB57]

I wish the capacity argument had been used from day one.

I don't think they'd thought of that argument on day one...

 

[jon0844]

I don't think they'd thought of that argument on day one...

It has cost everyone dearly as a result and likely contributed to delays and extra cost, as well as giving the anti HS2 mob perfect arguments, all along the lines of it being unnecessary to save just a few minutes here and there, and it being about serving only the rich/elite etc.

Something for people to remember for HS3!

 

[quantinghome]

Capacity was always part of the case 'from day one'. Unfortunately the initial publicity focussed on speed, so when capacity was brought into the discussion later it allowed the antis to accuse HS2 of changing the rationale.

Anyway, I don't think it matters much now. HS2 continues to progress through its legislative and procurement stages. It has backing from government and all major political parties. The anti-HS2 organisations have nowhere to go - the project is now so far down the road that there are no avenues left for them to mount challenges; they have no resources to do so anyway, having exhausted all their money on ineffective court cases. Their only profile is online, much of which is an echo chamber, and providing the occasional spokesperson to say a few sentences when the project is in the news.

 

[WatcherZero]

Wouldn't of worked, if you had focused entirely on capacity argument then critics would have had a field day questioning why it had to be built in a straight line creating a winding wound avoiding green spaces and built up areas while others would argue for calling at every single village and hamlet, only following roads that would have been slower than todays existing service.

 

[HSTEd]

Also reducing speed does actually improve capacity, the original Bombardier signalling study study implies that 150mph operation would give you six extra paths per hour.

 

[MarkyT]

Wouldn't of worked, if you had focused entirely on capacity argument then critics would have had a field day questioning why it had to be built in a straight line creating a winding wound avoiding green spaces and built up areas while others would argue for calling at every single village and hamlet, only following roads that would have been slower than todays existing service.

The 400 kph design speed is also pragmatic future proofing. There is no train on the market that can do that today, but the infrastructure will be in place for decades if not centuries to come so there's every likelyhood that speed will be possible one day. Over that sort of timescale the alignment might even be converted eventually to some form of new technology, a maglev or hyperloop perhaps that could achieve even higher maximums with those gentle curves. Japan is having to incorporate a small degree of tilt on some of it's latest Shinkansen stock so speed can be raised on the earliest routes where original curvature has become a limitation.

 

[edwin_m]

Also reducing speed does actually improve capacity, the original Bombardier signalling study study implies that 150mph operation would give you six extra paths per hour.

However extra services would require extra platforms particularly at the London terminus, and it's difficult to see how a bigger terminus could have been provided.

 

[Haydn1971]

Local petition to parliament to stop HS2 passing through "lovely countryside near Bramley" is currently at a eye watering 318 signatures... Long way to go before a discussion

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Also reducing speed does actually improve capacity, the original Bombardier signalling study study implies that 150mph operation would give you six extra paths per hour.

(a) it's Bombardier and if they're involved the extra six paths will be wasted by a signalling system that won't work properly. Shameful was, I believe, the term the London Assembly audit committee used to describe their behaviour concerning their aborted system for TfL.

(b) if you drop the speed you drop the need for linearity and you get into an argument once again about route, and when you inevitably start adding additional curves to avoid some cost or relatively important site, you then get the questions about why tighter curves can't be used and what's wrong with tilting trains.

 

[The Ham]

...

(b) if you drop the speed you drop the need for linearity and you get into an argument once again about route, and when you inevitably start adding additional curves to avoid some cost or relatively important site, you then get the questions about why tighter curves can't be used and what's wrong with tilting trains.

Which then in turn leads to higher land costs (as more land would be needed), higher construction costs (as more track, etc. is needed, as the shortest route is always the straightest) and higher train costs (due to needing more trains and/or tilting trains). All of which could mean that any savings from the lower speeds are lost.

 

[snowball]

Which then in turn leads to higher land costs (as more land would be needed), higher construction costs (as more track, etc. is needed, as the shortest route is always the straightest)

That doesn't sound too convincing. By adopting a lower design speed allowing tighter curves, you have more flexibility in the choice of route, so you're likely to be able to reduce the need for tunnels, viaducts, bridges, high embankments, deep cuttings, geologically difficult areas, the demolition of expensive property, and destruction of natural or heritage assets.

 

[HSTEd]

(a) it's Bombardier and if they're involved the extra six paths will be wasted by a signalling system that won't work properly. Shameful was, I believe, the term the London Assembly audit committee used to describe their behaviour concerning their aborted system for TfL.

Find me a signalling firm that hasn't produced at least one disaster.

(b) if you drop the speed you drop the need for linearity and you get into an argument once again about route, and when you inevitably start adding additional curves to avoid some cost or relatively important site, you then get the questions about why tighter curves can't be used and what's wrong with tilting trains.

Then perhaps you should win those arguments rather than screaming "SPEEEEEEEEEEED"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which then in turn leads to higher land costs (as more land would be needed), higher construction costs (as more track, etc. is needed, as the shortest route is always the straightest) and higher train costs (due to needing more trains and/or tilting trains). All of which could mean that any savings from the lower speeds are lost.

IF the lower speed alignment costs more than the higher speed one, why would you build the former, no matter what your planned operational speed is?
That is a rather strawman-ish argument.

 

[Voglitz]

Which then in turn leads to higher land costs (as more land would be needed), higher construction costs (as more track, etc. is needed, as the shortest route is always the straightest) and higher train costs (due to needing more trains and/or tilting trains). All of which could mean that any savings from the lower speeds are lost.

The idea that 'HS2 requires less land because it's shorter and straighter' doesn't fit well with the facts. HS2 chainage from London to Manchester, or London to Birmingham, or London to Leeds, is not much different to that of the existing lines.

Without a shadow of a doubt, building HS2 would increase total intercity train costs, and total infrastructure management costs.

 

[Haydn1971]

Without a shadow of a doubt, building HS2 would increase total intercity train costs, and total infrastructure management costs.

Would it ? HS2 shifts the long distance trains to a new track, giving more flexibility to work on the classic network in the day, reducing damage by constant battering by long/heavy trains travelling at speed... Out of hours working is a huge cost burden on our current network.

It's way more complex than a simple either or statement though.

 

[HSTEd]

Without a shadow of a doubt, building HS2 would increase total intercity train costs, and total infrastructure management costs.

Well yes, but with a massive increase in passenger flows leading to a drop in costs per passenger-km, which is the important metric.

 

[Voglitz]

Would it ? HS2 shifts the long distance trains to a new track, giving more flexibility to work on the classic network in the day, reducing damage by constant battering by long/heavy trains travelling at speed... Out of hours working is a huge cost burden on our current network.

It's way more complex than a simple either or statement though.

HS2's Released Capacity slides do not show much difference in intensity of use of the WCML, or much in the way of 'shifting long distance trains to a new track'. Out of hours maintenance is a key feature of HS2.

Consider also the overall chainage and number of trains required to provide London - Birmingham intercity, with and without HS2.

HS2 would require a net increase of 350-odd km in the track to be maintained, along with a new fleet of captive trains. Two thirds of the intercity WCML trains would have to be retained.

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 would require a net increase of 350-odd km in the track to be maintained, along with a new fleet of captive trains. Two thirds of the intercity WCML trains would have to be retained.

Why would two thirds have to be retained?
You can quite easily remove the majority of ICWC services as they are rendered superfluous in large part by HS2 journeys.

You don't need 3tph to Birmingham or Manchester for example, and I am not sure you need any to Liverpool at all.

EDIT:
How about:

The only real loser is Coventry, and Coventry will lose a significant fraction of its traffic to Birmingham Airport anyway.

 

[Voglitz]

Why would two thirds have to be retained?
You can quite easily remove the majority of ICWC services as they are rendered superfluous in large part by HS2 journeys.

You don't need 3tph to Birmingham or Manchester for example, and I am not sure you need any to Liverpool at all.

I was referring to London to Birmingham. Half hourly service would imply retention of two thirds of the trains.

EDIT:
How about:

I don't know where that diagram comes from. It doesn't look like anything produced by Network Rail, the Department for Transport, HS2 Ltd, or Centro. According to Patrick McLoughlin, West Coast service would be 'broadly comparable' to the existing provision. Centro stated they wanted three Coventry intercity trains per hour, but would settle for two.

The only real loser is Coventry, and Coventry will lose a significant fraction of its traffic to Birmingham Airport anyway.

HS2 would not have a station at Coventry, or the Airport. The parkway station at Bickenhill would be over a mile from the airport, and according to the Independent Transport Commission, possibly connected by travelator. What is Bickenhill's forecast share of the Coventry - London market?

 

[The Ham]

HS2's Released Capacity slides do not show much difference in intensity of use of the WCML, or much in the way of 'shifting long distance trains to a new track'. Out of hours maintenance is a key feature of HS2.

Consider also the overall chainage and number of trains required to provide London - Birmingham intercity, with and without HS2.

HS2 would require a net increase of 350-odd km in the track to be maintained, along with a new fleet of captive trains. Two thirds of the intercity WCML trains would have to be retained.

The total number of trains are only two less (by my counting) which isn't that much difference (only about 10%), however, if the trains are 8 coach (20m coaches) trains that run at 110mph that is less wear and tear than 11 coach (25/23m coaches) trains that truly and run at 125mph.

If 5 services (those that don't stop early on their journey, I.e. those where there first stop is North of Rugby) then that is 15 coaches less every hour, over a week that's about 1,200 less coaches and over a year that's about 62,000. That equates to 250,000 wheel movement on the tracks every year.