• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
On the WCML, you can't go any faster on existing infrastructure due to curvature, especially south of Rugby where tilt squeezes the maximum already, and even a theoretically possible increase from 125mph to 140 in certain very limited locations would have a tiny effect on journey times as well as reducing capacity by opening up a bigger margin between pendolinos and other non tilting traffic on the fasts. The very high frequency timetable exploits current capacity to the full.

One thing that is notable is that had the original WCML 140mph project (PUG2) happened, there would have been significantly less capacity for the present LNR services as these were to be banished to the slows. The only way to then get more capacity would be to go more Crossrail-style and have something like 30tph of 12-car all stations services. The 90 minute journey to London from Northampton would not exactly serve to endear, though.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
One thing that is notable is that had the original WCML 140mph project (PUG2) happened, there would have been significantly less capacity for the present LNR services as these were to be banished to the slows. The only way to then get more capacity would be to go more Crossrail-style and have something like 30tph of 12-car all stations services. The 90 minute journey to London from Northampton would not exactly serve to endear, though.

Did the 140mph proposals involve in cab signalling?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Did the 140mph proposals involve in cab signalling?

That's a very good question. I think they did, though there were also proposals involving "flashing green" or "double green".

Either way they were a bad idea and would have resulted in the south WCML looking rather more like latter-day (pre-EMU) suburban GWR in terms of the level of overcrowding and service patterns, and only MKC having an acceptably fast service to London.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
That's a very good question. I think they did, though there were also proposals involving "flashing green" or "double green".

Either way they were a bad idea and would have resulted in the south WCML looking rather more like latter-day (pre-EMU) suburban GWR in terms of the level of overcrowding and service patterns, and only MKC having an acceptably fast service to London.

I did wonder whether the answer might be flashing green. Which afaik has been trialed on the ECML and there may still be flashing greens there now?

If it was flashing green based rather than in cab signalling, I wonder whether that would conform to EU regulations regarding the signalling needed over 125. Wasn't there a theory that coloured signals cannot accurately be read to the level needed above 125mph? The narrator on the original Eurostar cab ride video i believe refers to that.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I did wonder whether the answer might be flashing green. Which afaik has been trialed on the ECML and there may still be flashing greens there now?

If it was flashing green based rather than in cab signalling, I wonder whether that would conform to EU regulations regarding the signalling needed over 125. Wasn't there a theory that coloured signals cannot accurately be read to the level needed above 125mph? The narrator on the original Eurostar cab ride video i believe refers to that.

Thinking on, wasn't the original proposal some kind of moving block signalling?
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Thinking on, wasn't the original proposal some kind of moving block signalling?

I think so - it was supposed to be the first use of moving block on a mainline or high speed railway, if I remember right.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
I'm sure someone, don't know if it was one of the planners who write on here, said that in the end the full Rugby remodeling gave nearly as much of a time benefit as what 140 in certain places would have done anyway?
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
The WCML spec was a full transmission based cab signalling system and was supposed to be 'moving block'. The only problem with that was that nobody had ever built such a thing for a high speed main line railway, and they still haven't ... anywhere in the world. Flashing green had been dismissed years before after the ECML experiments. BR and safety regulators had concluded that observing lineside signals was not adequately safe for speeds above 125mph.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
The WCML spec was a full transmission based cab signalling system and was supposed to be 'moving block'. The only problem with that was that nobody had ever built such a thing for a high speed main line railway, and they still haven't ... anywhere in the world. Flashing green had been dismissed years before after the ECML experiments. BR and safety regulators had concluded that observing lineside signals was not adequately safe for speeds above 125mph.
Was it to be Pendolinos fitted with in cab signalling or would the procurement had to have been for a different model of train in the first place?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Was it to be Pendolinos fitted with in cab signalling or would the procurement had to have been for a different model of train in the first place?

It was Pendolinos - which is the entire reason they are 140mph capable trains even though it is unlikely they will ever reach that in passenger service. 125mph trains would have been a bit cheaper, and could, like Voyagers, have had less empty space in the end coaches.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Reason for been against HS2 are as follows

(1) Waste of public Money

(2) The time it gets into Yorkshire ( if it gets that far) i will be in my mid sixties so why would i want to use it

(3) The money its going to cost to build HS2 it could go to renewing the whole of the railway system & probably renew all rolling stock as well....

(4) The money could also be spent on local transport planning up & down the UK before our towns & cities grind to a halt... Bring back modern trams or modern trolleybuses rather than motor buses which could also help cut pollution.....


SC 43090

1) it's only a waste if it's not used, we are already at 35% above 2009 long distance passenger numbers, when the calculations for HS2 would have had us at 25% by this point. Given that we're 2/3rds of the way to phase 1 opening the passenger numbers are going to be broadly where they should be (it things carry on like they have done we would be ahead of where was expected). As such there's not going to be a shortage of people who would likely switch from the current services to HS2 services.

2) as things stand it's unlikely that I would use HS2 a significant amount. However just because we don't use something doesn't mean that we don't benefit.

3) since 2009 £25bn had been spent on enhancements to the existing rail network (with extra for renewals and further spending on Crossrail), we certainly haven't replaced nearly half the network. Even if you think that we may spend £100bn on HS2, we also haven't replaced a quarter of the network.

4) although there's a good argument for providing better urban transport you need a good rail network to ensure that there's good alternitves most journey options.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
Well said. The bigger the project the bigger the overspend even if the percentage is identical. Many on here seem to think that a cost of 100bn is acceptable for a project like this when in reality it is most certainly not.

Many on here think £100bn is a figure calculated by one person, not directly involved in the project, and keenly used by the anti-HS2 lobby.

The official budget AIUI remains £56bn.
 
Joined
18 Aug 2018
Messages
704
Many on here think £100bn is a figure calculated by one person, not directly involved in the project, and keenly used by the anti-HS2 lobby.

The official budget AIUI remains £56bn.

Whether it be 100bn or 56bn it's still to much. 56bn could upgrade and improve many line across the country instead of building a single route that only benefits those in London, Manchester and Birmingham.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,910
Location
Hope Valley
It may seem that '£100,000,000,000' would enable one to transform/renew the existing network and its rolling stock but that sort of money doesn't actually buy as much as some people might think.

The ORR Final Determination for Control Period 6 broadly allocates Network Rail £35,000,000,000 for the next five years (only), for operations, maintenance and renewal - i.e. not significant enhancements. This will flow from both DfT and Transport Scotland.

Certainly there are expected to be some improvements, with performance expected to turn the corner from its recent decline and start to climb back towards historically achieved levels. There is scope for more timetablers - taking the establishment up from 700 to 800 - and an expectation of improving asset condition. But as I see it Network Rail will need around £100,000,000,000 of public funding just to keep it 'ticking over' until 2034, let alone cope with continuing growth.

I realise that enhancements are expected to be delivered through additional funding under the 'pipeline' approaches endorsed by DfT and Transport Scotland. These will be in addition to HS2.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Capacity?

In this specific case the amount of seats winging their way from the London urban area to the West Midlands urban area - or have I completely missed the point?

You want to put more trains on the "underused" Chiltern line so I was hoping you were clear on this!
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
I wonder whether any of the vast public opinion against HS2 is down to austerity having been imposed for so long?

I.e. people have struggled, pay rises were nothing until last year, inflation was creeping prices up, housing costs were shooting up. council cuts, police cuts. Perhaps people feel that charity begins at home? And that money should be directed to improving basic things in life first?

However, in reality, if the money is already allocated to transport then it's likely to be used for that purpose rather than be directed say towards the health service for example.

It certainly annoys people when they board a full 3 car commuter train and see HS2 on the news. But is one a direct consequence or cause of the other? Probably not. Any franchise shortcomings or little scope in some previous franchise specs (Wales previously?) do not come down to HS2 and HS2 does not prevent improvements being made elsewhere as well.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Did the 140mph proposals involve in cab signalling?

Thinking on, wasn't the original proposal some kind of moving block signalling?

Yes it was moving block signalling, called TCS, before the E was added. Effectively the West Coast Route Modernisation helped to pay for the development of ETCS, which is now used all over the world. Test trains were running at Asfordby nearly 20 years ago on ETCS Principles.


I'm sure someone, don't know if it was one of the planners who write on here, said that in the end the full Rugby remodeling gave nearly as much of a time benefit as what 140 in certain places would have done anyway?

That was me. The original plan for Rugby was to leave it much as it was. The Remodelling saved about 2 minutes, which is not far off what 140mph would have saved south of Rugby. But Rugby was much cheaper, and, at the time, it was actually possible.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
.
That was me. The original plan for Rugby was to leave it much as it was. The Remodelling saved about 2 minutes, which is not far off what 140mph would have saved south of Rugby. But Rugby was much cheaper, and, at the time, it was actually possible.
Rugby was a definite win then.

Wonder whether a remodel like that would be worth it at Stafford? I.e. the cost of making it so that passing trains could go through in both directions at 125mph. How would that stack up Vs minutes it might shave off?

It's one of the only places I could think of left on the mid to South WCML that could be remodelled as part of a regional scheme rather than going the whole hog and building the new line with HS2.

Also, what are the reasons the speeds appear to be so limited on parts of the stour valley? I.e. between Coventry and Birmingham. Can they get up to 125 anywhere there? Could they have done if further upgrades had been carried out?
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Here's another non news story against HS2:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-known-boss-controversial-rail-scheme-admits/

Basically saying we should bin HS2 as nobody knows what the true cost will be (even though contractors haven't been appointed).

Anyone who has any dealings within the building industry will know that no matter what you plan for the true cost isn't fully known until you have gone out to tender.

In fact most people undertaking cost estimates will pad the prices and allow for a fair amount of unknown risks so that the tender prices are likely to come in a bit under budget, so that the client isn't told it will cost £2 million and then the cheapest tender price is £2.25 million. Rather the early cost estimates would probably cite £2.5 million so that the client has a robust figure.

Especially given that often projects can take a number of years to design, during which time construction costs will go up. It is why it is likely the actual amount paid out for HS2 may exceed £56bn, even though it may not exceed £56bn in 2015 prices.

It is also the reason for part of the increase from earlier budgets, in that they were produced for previous years. In that in construction inflation (which is often noticably higher than general inflation) terms a 10% increase could be seen in just 3 years, whilst general inflation is likely to see that in about 5 years (assuming it stays on track at about 2% per year).

The difference per year may be small, but over a 15 year period construction could be 50% higher whilst general inflation is 30% higher (or 15% more).
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,834
Wonder whether a remodel like that would be worth it at Stafford? I.e. the cost of making it so that passing trains could go through in both directions at 125mph. How would that stack up Vs minutes it might shave off?
Do you mean the Stafford by-pass? There is no other way of doing it as the Queensville curve cannot be straightened out and that is 85mph EPS. Either side you are a mixture of 100, 115 and 125EPS. Colwich would need sorting, I doubt there is much more than 2 minutes.

Also, what are the reasons the speeds appear to be so limited on parts of the stour valley? I.e. between Coventry and Birmingham. Can they get up to 125 anywhere there? Could they have done if further upgrades had been carried out?
They aren't that slow, 100mph with bits of 110mph EPS. Considering everything stops at Coventry and Birmingham International you aren't going to get anything.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
Do you mean the Stafford by-pass? There is no other way of doing it as the Queensville curve cannot be straightened out and that is 85mph EPS. Either side you are a mixture of 100, 115 and 125EPS. Colwich would need sorting, I doubt there is much more than 2 minutes.


They aren't that slow, 100mph with bits of 110mph EPS. Considering everything stops at Coventry and Birmingham International you aren't going to get anything.
Sounds like a good reason to be planning (even building) a new pair of fast lines to me... Just don't over-egg it and jeopardise the case for it! (and don't forget the improvements needed across other regions too, otherwise people will start to feel that it's only London-focussed stuff that gets done.);)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,550
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The WCRM "Stafford Upgrade" has turned into the Norton Bridge scheme (finished, very successful) and HS2 (Armitage-Crewe) to come.
Birmingham-Crewe on HS2 will completely bypass the Stour Valley and the remaining complications at Stafford.

As I understand it, the 140mph WCML would have replaced the lineside equipment and used TASS (or a development of it) on the trains.
I think the fast lines would have been dedicated to TASS-fitted trains.
Not dissimilar to the current plans for the ECML with ETCS, except that all rolling stock will be ETCS-equipped, not just the IEPs.
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
There's nothing in Galashiels or Colne - a future as a dormitory town is better than any alternative on offer. It will be disastrous for whole regions if the city centres of Birmingham or Manchester follow that route. Even with HS2 only so many people will be able to commute to London. City centre office jobs are highly mobile - as HS2 contributes to further increasing London's advantages over everywhere else, and makes it easy to just pop out of the office to the North or Midlands, why would anyone (not on the brink of bankruptcy) choose to locate their business anywhere other than London? Some of the improved connectivity benefits also apply to other cities on HS2, but they're never going to win in a straight choice with London. House prices will dictate that the commuter flow on HS2 will only ever go one way.

There are also many reasons not to be located in London - high rents, higher payroll costs, congestion etc.

There is a lot of business development happening outside of London. Have you been to Birmingham recently - there is a huge amount of office development in the city centre including HSBC UK's head office (who I presume aren't on the brink of bankruptcy) and the area around Cambridge railway station has been totally redeveloped.

What is important to businesses is not being in London but being close enough to it. If you are within an hour of clients in London you can make a morning meeting there and be home for lunch. HS2 not only increases the radius of the one hour trip to London but it also does for the business hinterlands of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
Whether it be 100bn or 56bn it's still to much. 56bn could upgrade and improve many line across the country instead of building a single route that only benefits those in London, Manchester and Birmingham.

Crewe, East Midlands, Sheffield, Leeds.

Preston, Liverpool, York ...
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Rugby was a definite win then.

Wonder whether a remodel like that would be worth it at Stafford? I.e. the cost of making it so that passing trains could go through in both directions at 125mph. How would that stack up Vs minutes it might shave off?

It's one of the only places I could think of left on the mid to South WCML that could be remodelled as part of a regional scheme rather than going the whole hog and building the new line with HS2.

Also, what are the reasons the speeds appear to be so limited on parts of the stour valley? I.e. between Coventry and Birmingham. Can they get up to 125 anywhere there? Could they have done if further upgrades had been carried out?


To add to what @The Planner has said, you’d need to start amending the laws of Physics to get round the Stafford curves at 125mph.

West Coast Route Mod looked at a ‘Stafford cut off’, to resolve that and Colwich; this pretty much became part of the route of HS2 Ph2a.

Re the Stour Valley, the modelling (back in 1996 and again in 1998) showed between Cov and Birmingham that by the time a train has got to 125, it is more or less time to start braking for the next stop. The time saving for 125 vs 100 is 7 seconds a mile, and there are very few miles where it would apply.

re the cab signalling - TASS actually uses part of the ETCS architecture. If cab signalling had been implemented, it would have been ETCS. The originsl plan was that all lines would be controlled this way, with ‘signals away’
 
Last edited:

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,415
There really does seem to be a lot of “carry on regardless” going on here, that HS2 is worth it whatever it costs.
What was the BCR on the original budget, what is it currently, and what cost sends it below one?
“Running out of capacity” isn’t enough to justify massive public spending - there actually has to be a real benefit to the taxpayer for expanding capacity in excess of the cost.
I think Crossrail might have been the final straw for HS2 - not only does it demonstrate a continued inability to deliver major rail schemes to time and budget, but they have destroyed the trust of politicians with what was either a cover up or utter incompetence over knowing the progress.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
There really does seem to be a lot of “carry on regardless” going on here, that HS2 is worth it whatever it costs.
What was the BCR on the original budget, what is it currently, and what cost sends it below one?
“Running out of capacity” isn’t enough to justify massive public spending - there actually has to be a real benefit to the taxpayer for expanding capacity in excess of the cost.
I think Crossrail might have been the final straw for HS2 - not only does it demonstrate a continued inability to deliver major rail schemes to time and budget, but they have destroyed the trust of politicians with what was either a cover up or utter incompetence over knowing the progress.

The BCR was based on the estimate as it stands now. Indeed the BCR will be better now, because you don’t include costs already spent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top