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

[The Ham]

I don't watch threads like this much, and the reason is it's often full of "Re-open the Great Central instead" and "Re-open the Woodhead" among other things.

Why am I opposed to HS2?

- I don't approve of the idea of the Birmingham and Leeds termini, for example, not being linked to the existing main line such as to enable realistic through services.
- I don't think we are appropriately considering to what extent HS2 should be built for. When you actually look at the route alignment, and the sort of cities that will not be added to the network (thinking explicitly of Nottingham and Liverpool but also places like Milton Keynes and Coventry) it would be totally in order to build a 4-track alignment north of the tunnels at Ruislip so that a combination of 'stopping' and 'express' services can run. Think of building stations for 'stopping' services (akin to 395s) at Calvert (EWR), Brackley, Kenilworth (LEM-COV) and Castle Bromwich all with big car parks and all for the the purpose of building housing outside of London.
- I don't care much for the fact that Sheffield is basically on a limb.
- I don't think we have bothered to factor into cost all the work we need to make existing main lines at least mildly ready for freight. No fourth track from Rugby to Nuneaton, can't see much evidence of Colwich being done ready for Phase One, or the two track section from Colwich to Milford and such.
- I don't think it's appropriate to spend so much money to then have so many 'NR-compatible sets' which are going to be smaller and have less capacity when realistically we need to bite the bullet and 'build out' the routes they are operating on to attempt to get some bigger, higher-capacity sets to places like Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
- We are seemingly happy to thrust trains onto existing parts of the route known for unreliability and where more freight is likely to be encouraged such as York, Wigan / Preston / Lancaster, Crewe, the route through Dronfield and Masborough and such.
- We aren't being anywhere near ambitious enough. If you're going to spend loads of money, might as well build a much bigger network that is all open from Day 1 (no stupid phased building) and encompass more cities, more accompanying infrastructure and more integrated transport planning. No point building some stupid Toton station where people in Nottingham then have to get on a tram for ~35 minutes which won't handle train loads appearing on the Tram network as well as satisfying locals.

All in all, I want a High Speed network built in Britain but one that's full of interchange opportunities, more cities on the routes and therefore more likely to bring about vast modal shift rather than just movement of current flows onto expensive trains that then keeps demand on existing Intercity services and therefore doesn't free up capacity at places like Milton Keynes, Leicester, Stoke, Peterborough and the like into London.

Whilst I agree that in some regards HS2 isn't ambitious enough, the problem with that is that it would be easy to cut (why are we spending £0.25 trillion on rail) and runs the risk of being unusable until it's all built (if you don't allow it to be built in phases).

Although having a masterplan for a wider HS network with the timetable for when it would happen being decided as time progresses.

We've got a bit of a start of that with HS2 & NPR, however if each region could see that they were on the list for something down the line out would take a some of the resentment or of the argument.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Let's be honest there's no good reason for London > Leeds to go via Birmingham when it's then going to pull up at a 90 degree angle to existing network and therefore make it impossible to even reverse and go down to Bradford or continue north to York / east to Hull. It's basically a load of tosh.

 

[The Ham]

Let's be honest there's no good reason for London > Leeds to go via Birmingham when it's then going to pull up at a 90 degree angle to existing network and therefore make it impossible to even reverse and go down to Bradford or continue north to York / east to Hull. It's basically a load of tosh.

Other than it allows a lot of extra capacity on services which run between London and Leeds, either on the new HS2 services or on the existing services, without the need to build another line.

Personally I think that another line down the East of the UK is probably fairly likely (possibly via Cambridge) when HS2 starts looking for extra paths and/or passenger numbers as spike.

 

[DPWH]

It would be better through Leicester than Cambridge. Cambridge is well served by trains, Leicester isn't despite being about 3x the size of Cambridge.

 

[Ianno87]

It would be better through Leicester than Cambridge. Cambridge is well served by trains, Leicester isn't despite being about 3x the size of Cambridge.

Cambridge's connections to anywhere other than towards London or King's Lynn/Norwich/Ipswich are not fit for purpose.

Leicester has fast trains to London, half hourly trains to Brum, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield for onward links and will be in easy reach of East Midlands Hub.

 

[tasky]

Cambridge's connections to anywhere other than towards London or King's Lynn/Norwich/Ipswich are not fit for purpose.

Leicester has fast trains to London, half hourly trains to Brum, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield for onward links and will be in easy reach of East Midlands Hub.

Once the second eastern line via Stansted/Cambridge/Peterborough/Lincoln/Doncaster was in place you could build a relatively short stretch of line linking Coventry and Leicester to HS2, as there would be paths on HS2 for another spur. The services could go OOC, Coventry, Leicester, and potentially continue to Nottingham on the MML if it's electrified by then.

Even if you didn't do that you could run a classic compatible service to Coventry and Leicester at the very least, as there would be paths available

 

[hwl]

Once the second eastern line via Stansted/Cambridge/Peterborough/Lincoln/Doncaster was in place you could build a relatively short stretch of line linking Coventry and Leicester to HS2, as there would be paths on HS2 for another spur. The services could go OOC, Coventry, Leicester, and potentially continue to Nottingham on the MML if it's electrified by then.

Even if you didn't do that you could run a classic compatible service to Coventry and Leicester at the very least, as there would be paths available

Or just do something about the Digswell viaduct bottleneck and 4 (re-)tracking all the way to Peterborough which would be far cheaper than a new eastern HS line. (a complete contrast to WCML capacity issues.)

 

[quantinghome]

Let's be honest there's no good reason for London > Leeds to go via Birmingham when it's then going to pull up at a 90 degree angle to existing network and therefore make it impossible to even reverse and go down to Bradford or continue north to York / east to Hull. It's basically a load of tosh.

This makes no sense whatsoever, which becomes clear when you apply the same argument to HS1/LGV Nord:

Let's be honest there's no good reason for Paris > London to go via Lille when it's then going to terminate at St. Pancras and therefore make it impossible to go to Reading or continue north to Cambridge. It's basically a load of tosh.

 

[Ianno87]

Or just do something about the Digswell viaduct bottleneck and 4 (re-)tracking all the way to Peterborough which would be far cheaper than a new eastern HS line. (a complete contrast to WCML capacity issues.)

Wouldn't provide the same level of capacity - 4 tracking Welwyn would only create a couple of paths an hour, tops (the ECML timetable is very well optimised around it already).

 

[quantinghome]

Or just do something about the Digswell viaduct bottleneck and 4 (re-)tracking all the way to Peterborough which would be far cheaper than a new eastern HS line. (a complete contrast to WCML capacity issues.)

How much additional long distance capacity would this provide? Another 4tph, assuming King's Cross station doesn't constrain capacity? I could see that getting used up within 10 or 20 years. Then what do you do? You can't lengthen trains much or use double deckers on the classic network.

 

[hwl]

How much additional long distance capacity would this provide? Another 4tph, assuming King's Cross station doesn't constrain capacity? I could see that getting used up within 10 or 20 years. Then what do you do? You can't lengthen trains much or use double deckers on the classic network.

4tph extra on the ECML along with HS2 phase 2b for Leeds especially should keep things going for a while.

IETs replacing the dead space of 91s/DVT/powercars with more passenger space will also help over the next few years.

CR2 New Southgate branch would also help the inner capacity issues.

Better using OA paths than with just the current 5 cars will also help.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Wouldn't provide the same level of capacity - 4 tracking Welwyn would only create a couple of paths an hour, tops (the ECML timetable is very well optimised around it already).

I realise this is getting waay off topic, but just out of curiosity: Does optimising the ECML around Digswell carry a secondary cost because it imposes restrictions on the ECML timetable - and that may then make it impossible to optimise the timetable for capacity or good connections etc. somewhere else along the route? (With Thameslink up and running, that presumably also has implications for the Southern network).

(And I also realise that, even if your answer is 'yes', 4-tracking Digswell is still a hugely expensive project, and there are probably hundreds of other potential rail investments - including HS2 itself - where £ for £ you'd get a much bigger return).

 

[hwl]

I realise this is getting waay off topic, but just out of curiosity: Does optimising the ECML around Digswell carry a secondary cost because it imposes restrictions on the ECML timetable - and that may then make it impossible to optimise the timetable for capacity or good connections etc. somewhere else along the route? (With Thameslink up and running, that presumably also has implications for the Southern network).

(And I also realise that, even if your answer is 'yes', 4-tracking Digswell is still a hugely expensive project, and there are probably hundreds of other potential rail investments - including HS2 itself - where £ for £ you'd get a much bigger return).

Yes and Yes

 

[quantinghome]

4tph extra on the ECML along with HS2 phase 2b for Leeds especially should keep things going for a while.

IETs replacing the dead space of 91s/DVT/powercars with more passenger space will also help over the next few years.

CR2 New Southgate branch would also help the inner capacity issues.

Better using OA paths than with just the current 5 cars will also help.

It seems I was wrong about my guess of 4tph; Ianno87 is more informed so 2tph may be all the increase we get.

Standing back for a moment, what are we looking to achieve? I'd assume that any eastern upgraded or new high speed route would be built to relieve HS2 Phase 1. I could well imagine that future demand from West Midlands, the North-west and Scotland could well max out HS2's capacity, so you'd want to move all the East Midlands, Yorkshire and North-east services elsewhere. By this stage in the proceedings (2040-50s) the ECML will have had at least a decade working as a consistent amd frequent semi-fast regional connecting service (something which we can only dream of at present), and serving currently under-represented destinations such as Hull and Lincoln. Passenger numbers will have grown and new travel patterns established.

Onto this, there would be added the London-bound HS2 Phase 2b trains from the eastern branch. That's 6tph, which under the indicative service pattern for HS2 include 2 joining trains (i.e. 400m length) and 2 captive trains (also 400m length and possible double decker). That equates to around 10 conventional-length trains. And that's before considering any additional services worth running (e.g. to Nottingham city centre). It would destroy the regional ECML network developed from the capacity released by the opening of HS2. I can't see this being viable even with an upgraded ECML.

 

[hwl]

It seems I was wrong about my guess of 4tph; Ianno87 is more informed so 2tph may be all the increase we get.

Standing back for a moment, what are we looking to achieve? I'd assume that any eastern upgraded or new high speed route would be built to relieve HS2 Phase 1. I could well imagine that future demand from West Midlands, the North-west and Scotland could well max out HS2's capacity, so you'd want to move all the East Midlands, Yorkshire and North-east services elsewhere. By this stage in the proceedings (2040-50s) the ECML will have had at least a decade working as a consistent amd frequent semi-fast regional connecting service (something which we can only dream of at present), and serving currently under-represented destinations such as Hull and Lincoln. Passenger numbers will have grown and new travel patterns established.

Onto this, there would be added the London-bound HS2 Phase 2b trains. That's 6tph, which under the indicative service pattern for HS2 include 2 joining trains (i.e. 400m length) and 2 captive trains (also 400m length and possible double decker). That equates to around 10 conventional-length trains. And that's before considering any additional services worth running (e.g. to Nottingham city centre). It would destroy the regional ECML network developed from the capacity released by the opening of HS2. I can't see this being viable even with an upgraded ECML.

MML fast capacity is hardly well utilised at the moment either given the train lengths...

 

[si404]

It's be honest there's no good reason for Paris > London to go via Lille

while the rest of the OPs argument is tosh, there is a point here. And LGV Picardie is the solution, just as a later London-Toton HSR avoiding Birmingham is the answer here. But note that LGV Picardie (relieve LGV Nord, serve intermediate markets and speed up London-Paris) is still merely mooted a good 25 years after the Chunnel opened. The issue of London-Paris trains taking a detour (without stopping) is also the least of the reasons for building the LGV, despite it adding about 20 minutes, rather than the 10 going via Birmingham Interchange rather than a more direct line south of Toton.

 

[Halifaxlad]

.... Captive trains (also 400m length and possible double decker). That equates to around 10 conventional-length trains.

I'm looking forward to seeing how these 400m long captive trains fit into Liverpool Lime St ?

 

[Polarbear]

I'm looking forward to seeing how these 400m long captive trains fit into Liverpool Lime St ?

I think the answer to that is, “they won’t”. What’s proposed for Liverpool is a new station to cope with said train lengths.

 

[quantinghome]

I'm looking forward to seeing how these 400m long captive trains fit into Liverpool Lime St ?

I was talking about the trains which will use the eastern branch, some of which will be 400m long captive trains.

Nonetheless, I hope that Liverpool will see a new station to take these in the future.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I was talking about the trains which will use the eastern branch, some of which will be 400m long captive trains.

Nonetheless, I hope that Liverpool will see a new station to take these in the future.

I suspect it will probably see a new station although just not under the banner of HS2.

 

[si404]

And probably not 400m long, either. Ditto the other NPR stations.

Liverpool's paths are slated to split at Crewe anyway, so you'd need more track capacity south of Brum than there is to serve Liverpool with 400m trains.

 

[matacaster]

If all the commuter traffic from Milton Keynes southwards was removed from the WCML, by creating a new 50 mile long railway to Euston, would we need HS2 and why? All 4 tracks (with slow lines uprated) could then be used mainly for longer distance passenger and some freight.

The needs of London commuters is driving HS2 and a new commuter line would be cheaper than a 200 mile+ railway and might even be part of the tube network, perhaps even mostly underground. Wouldn't this release sufficient capacity for long distance services?

 

[158756]

If all the commuter traffic from Milton Keynes southwards was removed from the WCML, by creating a new 50 mile long railway to Euston, would we need HS2 and why? All 4 tracks (with slow lines uprated) could then be used mainly for longer distance passenger and some freight.

The needs of London commuters is driving HS2 and a new commuter line would be cheaper than a 200 mile+ railway and might even be part of the tube network, perhaps even mostly underground. Wouldn't this release sufficient capacity for long distance services?

To take the existing commuter traffic it'd have to run through the urban areas, so largely underground, with a lot of underground stations, which are massively expensive. Mixing freight and fast trains on the same track doesn't work because the passenger trains would quickly catch the freight. Higher frequencies of long distance trains would be limited by constraints further north. And perhaps most importantly in terms of getting such a costly project approved it doesn't offer any sop to anywhere on the proposed Eastern leg of HS2.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If all the commuter traffic from Milton Keynes southwards was removed from the WCML, by creating a new 50 mile long railway to Euston, would we need HS2 and why? All 4 tracks (with slow lines uprated) could then be used mainly for longer distance passenger and some freight.

The needs of London commuters is driving HS2 and a new commuter line would be cheaper than a 200 mile+ railway and might even be part of the tube network, perhaps even mostly underground. Wouldn't this release sufficient capacity for long distance services?

What you're proposing would be massively more expensive than HS2 phase 1, but at the same time give fewer benefits than HS2 phase 1. As @158756 has pointed out, to build a new commuter line, you'd need to do tunneling and build lots of new underground stations. And you'd leave the long distance trains running on a curvy, slower, 125mph max railway, instead of on a the straight, faster, railway that HS2 gives them.

Consider that we already have a railway that does exactly what a commuter railway should do: The WCML: It curves around, taking a somewhat indirect route between London and Birmingham, in order to serve many of the various towns en route. What we do not have is what the long distance non-stop trains ideally need: A railway that basically runs in a straight line from London as far as Birmingham, going through open countryside, allowing the long distance trains to run as fast as possible, and saving them from having to go through lots of towns that they wouldn't stop at anyway. Why would you build something that we already have, when you could instead build the thing we don't have more cheaply?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If all the commuter traffic from Milton Keynes southwards was removed from the WCML, by creating a new 50 mile long railway to Euston, would we need HS2 and why? All 4 tracks (with slow lines uprated) could then be used mainly for longer distance passenger and some freight.

The needs of London commuters is driving HS2 and a new commuter line would be cheaper than a 200 mile+ railway and might even be part of the tube network, perhaps even mostly underground. Wouldn't this release sufficient capacity for long distance services?

You're approaching this from the wrong angle. The real problem with capacity on the southern portion of the WCML is that there are many freight trains on the slow lines which force the 100mph services from Northampton to use the fast lines. The signalling allows trains on the fast lines to run at three minute intervals; in fact at times they already run at two minutes intervals. If all trains ran at the same speed and had the same stopping patterns, the fast lines would have a theoretical capacity of 20 tph in each direction. (Obviously Euston would not be able to cope but that's a separate issue) By allowing slower trains from Northampton to use them, the fast lines are not being used optimally. The first main question that should have been asked and researched is: if freight were banished from the southern end of the WCML, could all the 100mph passenger trains be confined to the slow lines, leaving the fast lines exclusively for 140 mph capable trains. N. B. not even the most ardent HS2 fan-boys claim there is a need for 20 tph in each direction. The second main question should have been: how much would it cost to provide track capacity for freight trains displaced from the WCML?

 

[hwl]

If all the commuter traffic from Milton Keynes southwards was removed from the WCML, by creating a new 50 mile long railway to Euston, would we need HS2 and why? All 4 tracks (with slow lines uprated) could then be used mainly for longer distance passenger and some freight.

The needs of London commuters is driving HS2 and a new commuter line would be cheaper than a 200 mile+ railway and might even be part of the tube network, perhaps even mostly underground. Wouldn't this release sufficient capacity for long distance services?

Not with the average cost of stations at it current level!

 

[Bald Rick]

You're approaching this from the wrong angle. The real problem with capacity on the southern portion of the WCML is that there are many freight trains on the slow lines which force the 100mph services from Northampton to use the fast lines.

I’m afraid you are approaching this on the basis of a false premise.

It is not the freight trains which ‘force’ the Northampton services on to the fasts. It is the combination of freight services, and the mix of stopping patterns of passenger services on the slows. An all stations stopper on the slows is slower than a freight.

Just shifting the frieght, or the stopping services, would release few, if any ‘fast’ paths. You’d need to shift them both.

 

[RLBH]

Just call it the New Mainline and be done with it...

If they'd called it the New Main Line, it might have got more support by drawing more emphasis to capacity and placing less emphasis on speed.

- We aren't being anywhere near ambitious enough. If you're going to spend loads of money, might as well build a much bigger network that is all open from Day 1 (no stupid phased building) and encompass more cities, more accompanying infrastructure and more integrated transport planning.

I basically agree, we should be building a network - but even if we threw money at it, we wouldn't get the whole network open on Day One. There isn't the manpower, the trains would have to be delivered over a period of time, and so forth. So why shouldn't you open bits of the network as they become ready?

What's lacking is the 'network' planning. What's being offered as HS2 is a line from London to lots of different places, but mostly Birmingham and Manchester, with other benefits tacked on where it's relatively easy. If we were approaching it as a network, there'd already be a provisional alignment for HS3 to run Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds, and serious studies would be under way for HS4 and HS5.

 

[tasky]

If they'd called it the New Main Line, it might have got more support by drawing more emphasis to capacity and placing less emphasis on speed.

I basically agree, we should be building a network - but even if we threw money at it, we wouldn't get the whole network open on Day One. There isn't the manpower, the trains would have to be delivered over a period of time, and so forth. So why shouldn't you open bits of the network as they become ready?

What's lacking is the 'network' planning. What's being offered as HS2 is a line from London to lots of different places, but mostly Birmingham and Manchester, with other benefits tacked on where it's relatively easy. If we were approaching it as a network, there'd already be a provisional alignment for HS3 to run Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds, and serious studies would be under way for HS4 and HS5.

Always worth repeating that Shinkansen means "new trunk line"

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I’m afraid you are approaching this on the basis of a false premise.

It is not the freight trains which ‘force’ the Northampton services on to the fasts. It is the combination of freight services, and the mix of stopping patterns of passenger services on the slows. An all stations stopper on the slows is slower than a freight.

Just shifting the frieght, or the stopping services, would release few, if any ‘fast’ paths. You’d need to shift them both.

Thank you for that. I admit I'm surprised because the slow lines always seem to me to have masses of spare capacity.