We need High speed Rail, but Is HS2 really Needed?

[Senex]

Pre World War 2 the German rail network was very Berlin-centric. The post WW2 division of Germany, with Berlin in East Germany and cut off from the west led to the re-alignment of the West German inter city network basically on a north-south alignment.

That's not entirely true. The Saxon network was based on Dresden and Leipzig, the Bavarian network on Munich, that of Württemberg on Stuttgart, and there were also very important north-south routes. Remember that much of the system was in place before the unfication of Germany under Prussia and was developed by the individual states. Thus it was possible after WW2 in what became West Germany to develop a pretty coherent railway network with really remarkably little investment in new lines (though lots of electrification, of course).

 

[Hetlana]

Putting the big cities on branch lines does make sense as it avoids the need to construct lines both north and south of the city centre with the cost of land acquisition and/or tunneling. Also with terminating trains stopped at platforms for longer periods you would need through lines to run either through the centre of the station or, better operationally, each side of the station. I am assuming that with the speed of the through trains you would need much more than the classic 6 footway between the tracks.

But surely making Manchester a through station on the route to Glasgow would be way cheaper than making it a terminus of it’s own branch line? Termini require multiple platforms - a through station, only two.

Zone 1 isn't some random zone drawn on a map - it represents the central activities zone for the capital. Every other country with a high speed rail network has chosen to have a station or stations in the centre of their capital city, and for good reason - it's where people want to go. It's the same reason the original main stations are built where they are.

In China intermediate stations on HS lines are almost never built in the old city centre but either in the edge or the inner suburbs. In France they are often out of town. And in both cases, they can drive development and create new centers of their own.

 

[quantinghome]

No, I am not against expensive tunnelled infrastructure at all, I just think that the cost and disruption caused by trying to fit more platforms in at Euston are not justified, especially as it's not the main destination for people off the WCML (commuters, yes.) I would prefer to see a through station and the line continuing on to somewhere else more useful - like HS1 or Brighton.

No station location will be the main destination for travellers. You put it in the most convenient location to serve most of the people. It's not as if someone at HS2 said 'Euston it is' and that was that; there was quite a significant siting study which included extending St Pancras and possible new stations sites in the parks. Euston came out top of that selection process, and for good reason.

A through station has been discussed ad infinitum. There are too few passengers on through journeys to justify the vast cost of constructing a link to the places you mention. Plus the train types (long distance highs peed versus predominantly commuter) are mismatched.

Except that Spain (at least) is putting its high-speed stations outside city centres in several places - not that I approve of that, mind.

Spain's capital is served by AVE at a centrally-located station, and yes, there are stations on the AVE network outside city centres, and on the TGV and ICE networks for that matter. Likewise, HS2 plans to have a mix. Some city-regions (Manchester, Birmingham, London) are getting both. Sheffield had a very long debate before going for a centrally-located station. Point is, it's horses for courses. It doesn't appear to me that HS2 have done anything illogical by their choice of station location.

And the ststions are only where they are (not in "the City") because the railways were forbidden to penetrate the centre. Which is why teh Underground was invented, as was explained in the very good documentary presented by Michael Buerk last week.

That's the precise point - the railways put their stations as close as they were able to the economic centre. They would have put them even closer if they had been allowed. Heck, enough people complain about Paddington being too far out of the centre. HS2 is taking pretty much the entire long distance traffic from WCML, MML and ECML. How is it a good idea to drop all that traffic in the suburbs?

And if Zone 1 is already has the highest economic activity it makes more sense to avoid driving it into meltdown. After all, if [HS1] was good for spreading activity east, why not let a different side benefit too?

If only HS2 included a station in west london? NEWS FLASH - it does! By having Old Oak Common station AND Euston they are achieving a number of positive goals. It's not either-or.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A comment I made on my return from my first visit to Berlin in 1998 was to compare the Stadtbahn with putting the entire rail network of London north of the Thames through the City Widened Lines (now the Hammersmith and City Line).

In some ways it's also comparable with the Manchester Castlefield line as it's more mixed use than Thameslink, but I do see what you mean. I did go through a phase of referring to Castlefield as the Manchester "Verbindungsbahn" as it's near identical in concept to the very similar Hamburger Verbindungsbahn (Altona-Dammtor-Hbf), which is in turn similar to Berlin.

I was also confused because my train tickets were made out to Berlin Stadtbahnhof, a station that did not then exist on the Berlin railway map.

I think it'd have been "Berlin Stadtbahn" which is the same basically as "London Thameslink".

 

[BluePenguin]

The reason HS1 Phase 2 (Ashford-London) has a 140mph limit is that that was the best way to maximise capacity on that section of route with regularly stopping Javelins. 'On route' HS2 stops will be far less regular.

But they don't NEED do stop regularly! I'm sure that most people would be much more satisfied with trains going to at a faster speed and not stopping at Ebbsfleet or Stratdord if it meant getting to their destination quicker. Ebbsfleet is a massive white elephant and no one asked for it to be built. Stratford is convenient for some people travelling to Essex but that is about it. It doesn't help timings that the Javenins don't join HS1 one until Ashford, up to which point they trundle along the third rail from Folkestone past the Channel Tunnel instead of merging onto HS1 straight away - countless minutes lost.

 

[quantinghome]

But surely making Manchester a through station on the route to Glasgow would be way cheaper than making it a terminus of it’s own branch line? Termini require multiple platforms - a through station, only two.

While you would reduce the number of platforms, the through station would need to be built underground, massively increasing its cost. In addition, it would require a large amount of tunnelling to send it North - more cost. If you wanted non-stopping services as an option you would need additional through tracks - more cost.

In China intermediate stations on HS lines are almost never built in the old city centre but either in the edge or the inner suburbs. In France they are often out of town. And in both cases, they can drive development and create new centers of their own.

But we're not talking about intermediate stations are we? We're talking about how capital cities are served by high speed rail. Even China (an exceptional case given the pace of development) has a city centre station in Beijing for its high speed rail services.Yes, France has a mixture (as does HS2 for that matter), but the utility of out of town stations is the subject of much debate there. And of course pretty much all TGVs going to Paris serve the city centre. Massy serves the same purpose as Old Oak Common on HS2.

HS2 includes Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Manchester Interchange, and East Midlands Hub, all of which will 'drive development'.

I'll say it again, HS2 is following a similar pattern to other high speed networks. Perhaps the main difference is the new construction required at city centre stations due to constraints on capacity, which would still be there whether or not long distance trains used high speed or conventional tracks.

 

[DavidGrain]

But surely making Manchester a through station on the route to Glasgow would be way cheaper than making it a terminus of it’s own branch line? Termini require multiple platforms - a through station, only two.
.

Manchester Central HS2 would require multiple platforms for terminating trains from London and Yorkshire and for any Manchester-Glasgow trains. You could not stop these on the through lines. Operationally it is better to have the terminating trains at platforms between the fast through lines as at Edinburgh Waverley. Imagine the land grab necessary for the large radius curves on the approach lines to accommodate this.

Monaco Monte Carlo is the only high speed station that I know that is completely underground and I can tell you that it does seem weird walking along a 400 metre platform underground especially with a high roof! However it does have the advantage of 7 entrances so almost everywhere in the principality is within walking distance of the railway station. It also means that the former open air line can be converted into valuable building land and parkland.

 

[Clip]

But they don't NEED do stop regularly! I'm sure that most people would be much more satisfied with trains going to at a faster speed and not stopping at Ebbsfleet or Stratdord if it meant getting to their destination quicker. Ebbsfleet is a massive white elephant and no one asked for it to be built. Stratford is convenient for some people travelling to Essex but that is about it.

What on earth are you on about? Loads of people get off at Stratford as they can link into the city and Docklands very easily from there

 

[jyte]

But they don't NEED do stop regularly! I'm sure that most people would be much more satisfied with trains going to at a faster speed and not stopping at Ebbsfleet or Stratdord if it meant getting to their destination quicker. Ebbsfleet is a massive white elephant and no one asked for it to be built. Stratford is convenient for some people travelling to Essex but that is about it. It doesn't help timings that the Javenins don't join HS1 one until Ashford, up to which point they trundle along the third rail from Folkestone past the Channel Tunnel instead of merging onto HS1 straight away - countless minutes lost.

It wasn't just because of the regular stops - most of HS1 section 2 is in tunnels (the two stratford tunnels and then the Thames tunnel), which would have been disproportionately expensively large in order to accommodate higher running speeds. A similar(ish) decision has been taken over HS2, which I believe will run at 150mph in the first London Tunnel and 175mph in the second, but will not reach its top speed in any deep bored tuneled sections - it's just too expensive.

Also yes, Ebbsfleet's passenger numbers as disappointing, Ashford has done better - possibly because that's where the interchange location was. Ashford was part of the original CTRL (HS1 Section 1) and was decided as the point at which future domestic high-speed services would leave the line. My understanding is that the section 1/2 boundary is just south of Ebbesfleet and so any replacement Javelins could certainly travel faster over this stretch, except the stations are too close to hit the 186mph line speed of Section 1 before they have to break, hence 140mph. There's already been some discussion about Javelin services reducing Eurostar capacity, but as long as Eurostar is only running max 3tph it's not a hugely pressing issue.

The bigger factor in long CTRL journey times is the slightly circuitous route HS1 takes to get from the south east into London, in part due to a desire to tie in with the regeneration of Stratford. Imagine if HS2 terminated at Waterloo, but came in via Clapham junction. At the time of construction, there were concerns that the extra few route miles would undermine its aims.

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester Central HS2 would require multiple platforms for terminating trains from London and Yorkshire and for any Manchester-Glasgow trains. You could not stop these on the through lines. Operationally it is better to have the terminating trains at platforms between the fast through lines as at Edinburgh Waverley. Imagine the land grab necessary for the large radius curves on the approach lines to accommodate this.

I think the argument would be that there would be no terminating trains at all.

The trains would all run to the ends of the high speed line or beyond the ends of the high speed lines.

 

[richieb1971]

I'm all for through trains. Too much keeping everything the same as before seems silly.

 

[BluePenguin]

What on earth are you on about? Loads of people get off at Stratford as they can link into the city and Docklands very easily from there

I am talking about the long distance inter city passengers who have no interest in going to Stratford, the docklands or to anywhere in London in general, even though there are many city professionals who do. I could have worded my post more clearly.

 

[Ianno87]

I am talking about the long distance inter city passengers who have no interest in going to Stratford, the docklands or to anywhere in London in general, even though there are many city professionals who do. I could have worded my post more clearly.

Long distance passengers on Javelins will be very much in the minority. The significant majority will be bound for the inner London Zones somewhere.

 

[BluePenguin]

Long distance passengers on Javelins will be very much in the minority. The significant majority will be bound for the inner London Zones somewhere.

That is currently true as that is the only place the trains go, but doesn't mean that people would not stay on them though if they continued on to a useful destination beyond London like CrossCountry. They are not the minority in the summer or off off peak though.

At the moment London bound passengers and people who are only travelling to London to make connections to other long distance services are all bundled on the same train. If they were separated then it would be a whole lot better

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of building a Chatelet Les Halles superstation in London, I am not entirely sure where you would put it.
Or how you would convince people to pay for it.

 

[takno]

I think the argument would be that there would be no terminating trains at all.

The trains would all run to the ends of the high speed line or beyond the ends of the high speed lines.

It's an interesting theory, but as they've amply shown at Gatwick people do place a significant premium on the train being there at their starting station so that they can get on as they arrive. The dwell times you'd need to disembark all the passengers from the north and boarding all the southbound passengers would significantly damage the full-distance times anyway to the point where you'd still want to run a proportion of the trains straight through. It's a nice idea on paper, but basically more expensive and less effective.

 

[Bald Rick]

At the moment London bound passengers and people who are only travelling to London to make connections to other long distance services are all bundled on the same train. If they were separated then it would be a whole lot better

Why??

 

[HSTEd]

It's an interesting theory, but as they've amply shown at Gatwick people do place a significant premium on the train being there at their starting station so that they can get on as they arrive. The dwell times you'd need to disembark all the passengers from the north and boarding all the southbound passengers would significantly damage the full-distance times anyway to the point where you'd still want to run a proportion of the trains straight through. It's a nice idea on paper, but basically more expensive and less effective.

I think the Gatwick Express shows how misleading marketing can gouge unsuspecting or otherwise not well informed people.
But that's just me.

a single trunk HSL concept would undoubtedly be far more frequency focussed and would orerate a simple calling pattern system.
Turn up and go frequencies would be the norm - imagine something like the NY Subway Express system or the Metropolitan Line writ large

 

[takno]

I think the Gatwick Express shows how misleading marketing can gouge unsuspecting or otherwise not well informed people.
But that's just me.

a single trunk HSL concept would undoubtedly be far more frequency focussed and would orerate a simple calling pattern system.
Turn up and go frequencies would be the norm - imagine something like the NY Subway Express system or the Metropolitan Line writ large

The NY Subway is utterly vile, awful to the point of being unfit for humans, and irregular and unreliable. It seems like an astonishing thing to bring into the discussion. The idea of it being writ any larger frankly terrifies me

 

[richieb1971]

Places like Bedford have both terminating and through trains. Best of both worlds.

 

[quantinghome]

That is currently true as that is the only place the trains go, but doesn't mean that people would not stay on them though if they continued on to a useful destination beyond London like CrossCountry. They are not the minority in the summer or off off peak though.

At the moment London bound passengers and people who are only travelling to London to make connections to other long distance services are all bundled on the same train. If they were separated then it would be a whole lot better

One of the benefits of the Javelin service is that it's made Kent far more accessible from the North. But I don't think there is the market for through services from HS1 to the North. After all, the physical infrastructure is already in place to allow such a service, but no train company has expressed an interest in developing it.

I used the Javelin service for a long distance trip from Leeds to Gillingham. The connection in London was easy; I wasn't bothered at all by the stop at Stratford - more the crawl when we left the high speed line. I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The NY Subway is utterly vile, awful to the point of being unfit for humans, and irregular and unreliable. It seems like an astonishing thing to bring into the discussion. The idea of it being writ any larger frankly terrifies me

It is a bit rubbish, but it contains some good concepts - principally the one under discussion, which is the way express and local services are operated with cross platform connections, something that would work well on the south WCML if only the lines were laid out slow-fast-fast-slow rather than paired by speed. The other nifty thing they have is moving gap fillers on curved platforms.

Evidence that this would be popular is that a lot of Bletchley passengers do the same-platform change at Leighton each evening to get home a bit quicker. Widening that as an option would be a big improvement were it feasible.

 

[richieb1971]

The pro London spin in here is making me dizzy. Penzance is a terminus because the land runs out. London is a central focus point in the middle of land and as EWR is trying to move non London commuters away from central London other railways are hell bent on forcing people through it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Long distance passengers on Javelins will be very much in the minority. The significant majority will be bound for the inner London Zones somewhere.

And the same from the WCML. Cross London traffic is relatively small compared with to London traffic, largely because London is in the bottom right corner of England (unlike say Berlin which is a *bit* more central and has the whole of Eastern Europe past it).

About the only sensible destination, other than Paris/Brussels, for through services from the North is the Brighton line, i.e. specifically Clapham Jn and Gatwick. I'd struggle to justify more than 1tph for that, so if we say that 1tph goes there, one goes to Paris and one to Brussels, what do you do with the other 7tph (based on present ICWC frequencies)?

Hence a terminus is required. There is nowhere sensible to send them other than a "terminus of convenience" like the ever-controversial Manchester Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The pro London spin in here is making me dizzy. Penzance is a terminus because the land runs out. London is a central focus point in the middle of land and as EWR is trying to move non London commuters away from central London other railways are hell bent on forcing people through it.

EWR is doing nothing of the sort. It's adding connectivity that is presently quite weak because the roads are poor but there is high demand from successful bus services. Nobody is travelling Milton Keynes to Aylesbury via London, that's silly and would cost more than taking a taxi, let alone the bus. Similarly on a Sunday if you want public transport from MK to Bedford you use the X5, and again travel via London costs more than a taxi. Oxford is probably the only one where via London isn't *utterly* silly.

What EWR will do is take car journeys off the rather poor country roads and probably kill off the X5 in its current form and some of the Arriva bus service between MK and Aylesbury. It won't do anything to London.

 

[AndrewE]

And the same from the WCML. Cross London traffic is relatively small compared with to London traffic, largely because London is in the bottom right corner of England (unlike say Berlin which is a *bit* more central and has the whole of Eastern Europe past it).

About the only sensible destination, other than Paris/Brussels, for through services from the North is the Brighton line, i.e. specifically Clapham Jn and Gatwick. I'd struggle to justify more than 1tph for that, so if we say that 1tph goes there, one goes to Paris and one to Brussels, what do you do with the other 7tph (based on present ICWC frequencies)?

Hence a terminus is required. There is nowhere sensible to send them other than a "terminus of convenience"

Well, Brighton might be a "terminus of convenience." A desperately overcrowded line, no obvious options for improvement, Why not?
HS2 northbound calling from there at Gatwick, Clapham & maybe one other station could unload passengers onto other routes into London to avoid the accusation that routes into the City from OOC will be desperately overloaded.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, Brighton might be a "terminus of convenience." A desperately overcrowded line, no obvious options for improvement, Why not?
HS2 northbound calling from there at Gatwick, Clapham & maybe one other station could unload passengers onto other routes into London to avoid the accusation that routes into the City from OOC will be desperately overloaded.

Where will these trains go, when there is no fast line capacity?

 

[AndrewE]

Where will these trains go, when there is no fast line capacity?

Sorry, I got carried away: I was imagining enhancing the network by building HS2 southwards beyond west London.
Could there be synergy between the BML2 proposal and this, without building another new line to Brighton? Some HS2 trains could terminate at Gatwick (relieving GX of W London passengers,) some could run through to Brighton and non-HS2 Brighton starters could run to the City and E London via BML2, besides the thinned-out existing services.

 

[HSTEd]

BML2 is silly, a new Brighton Line should run Clapham,Gatwick, Brighton and then potentially westward along the coast.

But that is a bit off topic.

Really the proposed Birmingham International station is a wasted opportunity, the existing station should be rebuilt with classic platforms interleaved with HS2 ones

 

[B&I]

If only the plans for HS2 included direct services between regional cities...

News flash! They do!

1 regional city gets connected to 2 others. That's a really, really impressive development which will close the north-south gap overnight. Oh wait, it isn't and it won't