What if...HS2 is scrapped?

[tbtc]

From my perspective, if the WCML truly was congested, it would have ground to a halt by now. It cannot be that vital to build HS2 if the timetable is for the first stage to be completed in so many years from now

You don’t think that the WCML is congested?


The WCML, with an eleven/twelve coach train every three minutes (given the twenty five metre long front/rear carriages, the eleven coach 390s are around the same length as the twelve coach 350s). Where ticket prices are already too high for a lot of people? That WCML?


Since HS2 is being built to cater to demand in the 2030s/2040s etc, even if you assume only 1% growth each year until then (yes, we might all be using smart technology by then and working from home, but most people have had email for twenty years now so it’s not a brand new phenomena)…


…how do you squeeze in more capacity on the WCML? Other than some magical thinking about “smarter scheduling and super-duper signalling”?


I was against HS2, once upon a time – I’d be happy to be against it again in future if someone can change my mind with a better alternative to solve the actual problems we have (nb you can spend all the money you want on backwaters like Redcar and Colne but it’s not going to affect the congested corridor between the West Midlands and Greater London).


I’ll listen to anyone’s “solutions” but the current infrastructure is pretty much at maximum capacity – there are going to be tens of thousands of people living around places like Milton Keynes who the railway cannot accommodate – we need to plan infrastructure for the medium/ long term.


Patching up one trouble spot just pushes the problem further along the line (e.g. Welwyn Viaduct appears a bottleneck but even if you doubled capacity there then you’d just hit problems on the two/three track sections further north).


Trains are already about as long as conventional infrastructure can accommodate (extending them isn’t just about longer platforms, it’s about taking longer to clear junctions, it’s about signalling, you’d have to rip certain stations up and start again so that longer trains didn’t foul everything).


A train almost two hundred and fifty metres long every three minutes is about as “smart” as I’d want my schedules to be, on current infrastructure.


So, what’s the alternative? As you’ll know from living in Preston, trying to upgrade existing lines (electrification etc) causes months of disruption/ closures… things go over-budget, things take longer than expected.

Would axing HS2 truly be a bad thing or could the scrapping be a way to focus infrastructure spending more closely?

It's not just about infrastructure spending (although infrastructure spending is a very important thing), but also the revenue that HS2 will bring. People are always quick to moan about the cost of it but ignore the revenues it'll contribute.

 

[158756]

That may well be a good policy, but it doesn't really relate to HS2.

In a way it does. HS2 is necessary because of capacity on the southern end of the WCML. The line is full because practically the country's entire economy is concentrated in London. We are in a spiral of depression in the regions and ever worsening overcrowding in the South East. HS2 is an aid to this, making it possible for more workers to commute longer distances. It will likely be full within a few years of opening, and then we'll need something else to help London continue to grow. This may be the way a 21st century service economy works, but capacity in London might not be so short if our regions were not the poorest in western Europe.

 

[ainsworth74]

(nb you can spend all the money you want on backwaters like Redcar and Colne but it’s not going to affect the congested corridor between the West Midlands and Greater London)

Oi!

 

[Andy25]

Sorry, I'm a bit slow on the uptake at the moment. Could some of the 9-car sets be made up to slightly slower 10-cars a) technically and b) still be fitted within the existing timetable?
The name of the game is to get the absolute maximum capacity that we can out of existing assets. Anyway, this is mitigating our current problem rather than thinking about post-HS2.
My biggest concern is that salvaging the pride of the London end will trump all other considerations, like maintaining (let alone improving) what we currently have north of Crewe. People are already proposing (and apparently accepting without complaint) speed reductions on the WCML to Scotland, no service improvements "because extra demand from HS2 will take up the capacity" when all sorts of improvements would already pay for themselves in short order.
Trivial (or basic) things like a second Crewe to Scotland hourly service, grade-separating rather than single-lead at key junctions (Golborne)...

Extending just wouldn't be worth it, who's going to scrap a £10M 9 car Pendolino just to give another and extra 100 seats and reduce the total fleet size.

 

[VT 390]

I think that all the phases of HS2 are needed in the long term because currently the WCML Birmingham services are busy all day with little room for improvement, and all the Virgin West Coast services are well used and there is not the capacity on the West Coast Main line to improve these services much. Also on the ECML there are 5 LNER trains an hour (with a peak extras along with a few Open Access services) and the only ones which ever seam to have spare seats available are the slower ones to Newark/York with all the longer distance ones including Leeds and Scotland are usually full or close to full all day. And even if a few extra services could be added in the future it will get to the point where they will be overcrowded. So by building HS2 which may seam like it is not needed north of Birmingham that much now in the future the extra capacity will be needed.

 

[AndrewE]

Extending just wouldn't be worth it, who's going to scrap a £10M 9 car Pendolino just to give another and extra 100 seats and reduce the total fleet size.

see post 12 onwards. It was about how to get the absolute maximum number of seats with the paths currently available: one answer is to make every train that you run as long as physically possible. Yes we need more trains, but the ones we have now are wasting the resource to an extent. So keep them all but at maximum length, while adding in some new-build Pendolino-equivalents, plus shorter bi-mode variants designed to couple up en route for serving places like Shrewsbury and Holyhead.

 

[Bald Rick]

see post 12 onwards. It was about how to get the absolute maximum number of seats with the paths currently available: one answer is to make every train that you run as long as physically possible. Yes we need more trains, but the ones we have now are wasting the resource to an extent. So keep them all but at maximum length...

A wise statement... trains are a lot cheaper to buy than infrastructure. Some people campaigning for new lines across the Pennines would do well to take note.

Of course when all the trains are at maximum length, then you need more infrastructure, and that is what HS2 is about.

 

[Chester1]

A wise statement... trains are a lot cheaper to buy than infrastructure. Some people campaigning for new lines across the Pennines would do well to take note.

Of course when all the trains are at maximum length, then you need more infrastructure, and that is what HS2 is about.

I would guess the uplift through longer trains on WCML would be about 30% which will be needed to cope before HS2 phase 1 opens. I think the assumption with transpennine capacity is current overcrowding has stiffled use and that with a half decent passenger experience the 5 coach units and double 185s will quickly fill and a new line is 15 years or more away.

 

[AndrewE]

I would guess the uplift through longer trains on WCML would be about 30% which will be needed to cope before HS2 phase 1 opens. I think the assumption with transpennine capacity is current overcrowding has stiffled use and that with a half decent passenger experience the 5 coach units and double 185s will quickly fill and a new line is 15 years or more away.

There's not much space at the ends of the platforms at Euston even now (with 11-coach pendolinos) and apart from running only 12-car trains on the slow lines I can't really see where your longer trains might increase capacity.
I know the Sleepers are a lot longer, but someone will soon tell us the maximum practical length for day trains in squadron service.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's not much space at the ends of the platforms at Euston even now (with 11-coach pendolinos) and apart from running only 12-car trains on the slow lines I can't really see where your longer trains might increase capacity.
I know the Sleepers are a lot longer, but someone will soon tell us the maximum practical length for day trains in squadron service.

On the WCML, the maximum practical length for long distance service is that of an 11 coach Pendolino.

It’s worth remembering that the West Coast Pendolinos were conceived as an 8 coach, 185m long train, and only ‘extended’ to 9 car late in the day around the time of the order. As such they are already (in seating terms) carrying 40% more capacity than envisaged at the time the original franchise was let 21 years ago, and that the original franchise (with 8 coach Pendolinos) was going to be getting on for double the capacity of the previous operation. Combined with the increased capacity provided by LM services that go beyond Rugby, I would say that long distance seating capacity on the WCML from London to the Midlands and North has nearly trebled in under two decades.

 

[VT 390]

On the WCML, the maximum practical length for long distance service is that of an 11 coach Pendolino.

It’s worth remembering that the West Coast Pendolinos were conceived as an 8 coach, 185m long train, and only ‘extended’ to 9 car late in the day around the time of the order. As such they are already (in seating terms) carrying 40% more capacity than envisaged at the time the original franchise was let 21 years ago, and that the original franchise (with 8 coach Pendolinos) was going to be getting on for double the capacity of the previous operation. Combined with the increased capacity provided by LM services that go beyond Rugby, I would say that long distance seating capacity on the WCML from London to the Midlands and North has nearly trebled in under two decades.

Is there a reason why all the Pendolino's were not extended to 11 carriages?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there a reason why all the Pendolino's were not extended to 11 carriages?

Didn’t need to be. At least that’s what the DfT thought.

Also I think that there was the issue with Liverpool Line St platform lengths, which has only just been resolved (I may well be wrong on that point).

 

[6Gman]

Is there a reason why all the Pendolino's were not extended to 11 carriages?

Money, basically.

Every extra carriage costs (a lot of) money.

 

[Ianno87]

Money, basically.

Every extra carriage costs (a lot of) money.

Not just to buy, but to operate and maintain for up to 35 years.

And VT do seem to be fairly good at diagramming then to match capacity to demand - not just running 11 cars on everything where 9 cars would suffice.

 

[NSEFAN]

If HS2 is scrapped at this stage then it will be a national embarrassment. The demand may not be there right now, but looking at the long-term trends of increased amounts of train travel and need for efficient mass transit, it makes sense to be building more railways. To me the solution proposed by HS2 makes sense, certainly phase one does anyway. It's the government's job to act upon these kind of long-term requirements for the good of the country, although honestly, I sometimes thing that big infrastructure like the national grid or the phone network wouldn't get built in today's political climate.

"Rather than waste money putting up those unsightly electricity pylons, why don't we instead just improve the existing gas infrastructure. People manage just fine with gas lighting, why do they need a duplicated energy source? And anyway, all that's needed is to increase the volume of the existing pipes, that's easy to do! The maintenance work will only take their gas main out for a few months, they can make do with a coal fireplace until then!

And why exactly does everybody need a telephone line to their house? All it will do is encourage even MORE people to communicate, and further afield than they already do by letter! People could keep their conversations local and have a nice chat with the neighbours instead!"

 

[Chester1]

Didn’t need to be. At least that’s what the DfT thought.

Also I think that there was the issue with Liverpool Line St platform lengths, which has only just been resolved (I may well be wrong on that point).

Lime Street definitely could not fit 11 coach Pendolinos when the order was made. There are stations with a limited number of platforms that long enough so an all 11 coach fleet would have less opperational flexibility.

All the slow services should be increased to 12 coaches but there is a clear limit to capacity on the WCML. At the Manchester end long distance services are stiffling opportunity for local services e.g. a 4th Hazel Grove service or a second Mid Cheshire Line service. 5 paths are used by services to London and Birmingham/the south that after HS2 phase 2 will be available for local services.

An alternative for Manchester would be something like rebuilding the Airport and Styal lines. Maybe rebuilding Heald Green as an Airport Parkway, rebuilding Styal as part of a big passing loop and 4 tracking more of Wilmslow-Crewe. Maybe turning the Didsbury Metrolink line into a loop by using the old Kingsway tram route to allow Burnage and Mauldeth Road to be closed. The cost would be huge and probably only allow 2/3 VT and 1/2 XC to run via Crewe and the Airport due to capacity constraints south of Crewe. The HS2 alternatives are like "Triggers brush"!

 

[VT 390]

At the Manchester end long distance services are stiffling opportunity for local services e.g. a 4th Hazel Grove service or a second Mid Cheshire Line service. 5 paths are used by services to London and Birmingham/the south that after HS2 phase 2 will be available for local services.

Once HS2 is fully built then fewer Virgin West Coast services can serve Manchester but there would still be the need for 2 XC trains per hour to maintain a good service between Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Birmingham/Manchester but it would be good it these were a regular half hourly service so they would fit better with other service patterns.

 

[The Ham]

If we get the hard Brexit and the economy goes tits up then I'm sure the Government will have to cut spending quite drastically. We'll not only maybe not get the second phase of HS2 but lots of other works canned too.

There certainly won't be any money saved or available for anything else.

Is that why Jacob Rees-Mogg is against HS2:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/bin-hs2-now-jacob-rees-mogg-says/

Jacob Rees-Mogg urges the government to scrap the controversial HS2 rail line before spending a further £98bn on it.

 

[The Ham]

Again I do accept the point. We don't know how things will own out over the next ten years. But by the same token ten years ago the arguments for building the thing were based on projections which haven't come to pass.

I'm interested by this 30% claim. We see ups and downs in rail use when we focus on year on year usage statistics. Such an increase would be quite remarkable given existing WCML usage, particularly "whole route" passengers.

What claims which haven't come to pass?

HS2 was based on an assumption of 2.5% growth each year, by the end of 2017/18 the account of long distance passengers in the UK had exceeded that to the point where it was beyond the expected growth for 2019/20.

As such the predictions were wrong, but not in a way which those opposed to HS2 like.

 

[Chester1]

What claims which haven't come to pass?

HS2 was based on an assumption of 2.5% growth each year, by the end of 2017/18 the account of long distance passengers in the UK had exceeded that to the point where it was beyond the expected growth for 2019/20.

As such the predictions were wrong, but not in a way which those opposed to HS2 like.

There really is no point in saying stuff like that. It doesn't matter what the usage figures or the price of tenders show the "alternative facts" that HS2 is based on overestimated usage or that it will cost £100bn will be repeated. Any forum member who has read through some of the forum threads on HS2 will have seen what you have posted before. I am sure @PR1Berske has seen that fact before but has chosen to make the opposite statement which can be easily disproved. I said "I would guess" because 30% is just that, it's a guesstimate based on current vs maximum train lengths.

 

[The Ham]

There is scope to eke out a bit more capacity if that was necessary in addition to fare increases to manage the demand:
- All Pendolinos to 11-car, or if that's not possible split some 9-cars up to make some more 11s and order some additional new stock;
- All local services 240m long (probably 10 x 24m fixed formation) and 3+2 seated, either SDO or platform extensions north of Northampton. Euston rebuild to go ahead despite no HS2 to create a set of uniform 240m platforms. Maybe even consider longitudinal seated stock for Tring stoppers, again 240m fixed formation;
- Abolish First Class or reseat it to 2+2 as SWR are doing with the differential being posher seats and service rather than 2+1 seating.

I reckon with those three plus a bit of yield management you'd cover a 20-30% increase in patronage without making trains much busier than they are now.

The problem is such improvements week work for that time period, however what do you do if you need more capacity after that?

If it involves any new infrastructure you can't just build it overnight, and so there's always going to be some delay in implementing it.

30% growth, if we carry on in the same vein as the last 10 years, will be used up in 10 years (2029), so not much later than phase 1 opens.

The other thing that's worth noting is that each 390 has something like 600 seats whilst each HS2 train has circa 1,100 seats so even if there's no extra train services on any given route that's >80% capacity increase.

 

[VT 390]

Though HS2 will help the capacity on the WCML the most it is also needed to help XC capacity as the majority of passengers on routes like Manchester to Birmingham and Newcastle to Birmingham would switch to HS2 freeing up capacity for shorter distance passengers on current XC services

 

[AndrewE]

Though HS2 will help the capacity on the WCML the most it is also needed to help XC capacity as the majority of passengers on routes like Manchester to Birmingham and Newcastle to Birmingham would switch to HS2 freeing up capacity for shorter distance passengers on current XC services

... if it is built north of Brum.
This is a thread on "What can we possibly do if HS2 isn't built?" The answer has to be to sweat the assets we have (capacity) which means no short trains (so build more stock quickly) and smart operating.

 

[Chester1]

... if it is built north of Brum.
This is a thread on "What can we possibly do if HS2 isn't built?" The answer has to be to sweat the assets we have (capacity) which means no short trains (so build more stock quickly) and smart operating.

Smart opperating?

 

[AndrewE]

Smart operating?

Minimise station dwell times (review door opening/closing/despatch procedures) - and train the staff and the passengers to play their parts!
maximise acceleration with new trains,
optimise stopping patterns
Path trains without backside-covering padding so that junctions and platforms are not blocked by trains just "waiting time"
Use permissive block where it will allow a second train into a platform when one would not otherwise be available
plus...
tweak the infrastructure where it constrains capacity (eliminate single lead junctions, etc.)
put in low-tech intermediate block sections where train headways are impacted by long signal sections
p.s. should have also said keeping on top of maintenance to ensure no loss of capacity due to train, points and signal failures!

 

[Ianno87]

Minimise station dwell times (review door opening/closing/despatch procedures) - and train the staff and the passengers to play their parts!
maximise acceleration with new trains,
optimise stopping patterns
Path trains without backside-covering padding so that junctions and platforms are not blocked by trains just "waiting time"
Use permissive block where it will allow a second train into a platform when one would not otherwise be available
plus...
tweak the infrastructure where it constrains capacity (eliminate single lead junctions, etc.)
put in low-tech intermediate block sections where train headways are impacted by long signal sections
p.s. should have also said keeping on top of maintenance to ensure no loss of capacity due to train, points and signal failures!

Pretty sure that's all done already. Or does the industry just need to try a bit harder in your eyes?

 

[AndrewE]

Pretty sure that's all done already. Or does the industry just need to try a bit harder in your eyes?

It certainly doesn't feel like it. The interplay between station and train staff got fossilised with Railtrack and hasn't recovered. The UK has suffered from lots of incompetents writing backside-covering procedures or not knowing enough to stand their ground, just caving in when they could have stood up for themselves. Risk assessments written by people who don't know the job have done a lot of damage to British industry.
Have you not waited after arriving at a station while someone gets back to their cab, waits for a powered door to open, gets out and checks that they are actually at a platform, gets back in, pushes a button, then the powered doors slowly open?
Or noticed 2 or 3 players on a platform coordinating a dispatch - after which 1 of them ambles across a platform to push a button, wasting another 10 to 15 seconds?

 

[Ianno87]

It certainly doesn't feel like it. The interplay between station and train staff got fossilised with Railtrack and hasn't recovered. The UK has suffered from lots of incompetents writing backside-covering procedures or not knowing enough to stand their ground, just caving in when they could have stood up for themselves. Risk assessments written by people who don't know the job have done a lot of damage to British industry.
Have you not waited after arriving at a station while someone gets back to their cab, waits for a powered door to open, gets out and checks that they are actually at a platform, gets back in, pushes a button, then the powered doors slowly open?
Or noticed 2 or 3 players on a platform coordinating a dispatch - after which 1 of them ambles across a platform to push a button, wasting another 10 to 15 seconds?

Well yes, you do see examples of where operating practice could be slicker.

But where is this actively stopping more trains from being accommodated in the timetable? Bear in mind that (for example) the southern WCML fasts (the main beneficiaries of HS2) see up to 15 trains per hour (at 3 minute headways on a 90-120 second technical signalling capability), 60-120 second scheduled dwell times at critical locations and relatively little schedule "padding", so what sloppy operating that does exist (of which there is very little) is noticeable through poor performance, not the timetable.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

.
This is a thread on "What can we possibly do if HS2 isn't built?"

Perhaps quadruple the existing Chiltern line to Birmingham as a 125 mph line maybe with a bit of Great Central reinstatement for good measure. Some of the new track could be on a new alignment.

If capacity at the London end is a problem, run through to Old Oak Common and terminate there. That would give connections to East and West through Crossrail and also to North and South via the West London line. It assumes stations at Old Oak Common.

The GCR bit could be Banbury to Rugby.

 

[The Ham]

... if it is built north of Brum.
This is a thread on "What can we possibly do if HS2 isn't built?" The answer has to be to sweat the assets we have (capacity) which means no short trains (so build more stock quickly) and smart operating.

The problem is that there's no viable options, even the 51m's shopping list has been spent (and in some cases and then some), see this thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs2-alternatives-based-on-51ms-suggestions.175943/

HSUK uses the MML to get out of London and isn't properly coated.

Any other suggestions?