HS2 Review ongoing

[hwl]

I presume the reduction in frequency is to reduce the number of platforms needed at Euston, and the amount of rolling stock needed. Both are pretty marginal and won't save money.

It is about a guaranteed minimum service level - doubts have been expressed by another European HS operator about the achievablity of 18tph given infrastructure (inc track layout), stopping patterns, braking performance (i.e. if everything goes wrong using 100% friction braking which is tricky with the amount of distributed traction required for the HS2 spec) and their advice was 14tph easily do-able which more getting harder. Also some caution on ETCS L3 performance.

 

[Meerkat]

Calvert station would be ridiculous, High Speed is an InterCity product, not outer suburban commuter.
You would be creating thousands of car journeys from sprawling estates in the various towns to the station, filling up seats that should be kept free for long distance travellers.
A station there would be in a maze of small roads so would require loads of link roads pushed through the countryside too.

 

[The Planner]

I'd imagine you would have a dynamic passing loop with a regular stopping pattern dependent on dwell times, acceleration and braking etc. Let's say the main line has a train every 3 minutes, then every third train would make a stop, assuming it could decelerate, dwell, and then accelerate back to hit the slot 9 minutes behind the one it vacated, taking the place of the next train due to stop. Or every 4th train with 12 minute gaps.

Given the present uncertainty though, I think it would be better to just allow for passive provision of a station. It's clearly quite a strategic location and who knows what it could provide in the future.

All of which would need a new TWAO or hybrid bill amendment as their limits of deviation won't cover that as it is. It would also likely have to be north of Calvert in the middle of nowhere or East West needs a redesign on both arms at Claydon.

 

[option]

If Calvert was allowed, then you'd have problems resisting calls for other stations.
eg. Kenilworth area, Lichfield

 

[ABB125]

I personally don't see how reducing the frequency of trains will reduce the construction costs (although it will reduce operating costs). Having said that, perhaps initially (when the full network is open) it would be better to have a few less TPH so that the operator learns how the system works first. Then the full 18tph could be moved to later.

 

[Ianno87]

I personally don't see how reducing the frequency of trains will reduce the construction costs (although it will reduce operating costs). Having said that, perhaps initially (when the full network is open) it would be better to have a few less TPH so that the operator learns how the system works first. Then the full 18tph could be moved to later.

To fair, you get that anyway by virtue of the infrastructure phases. And no doubt when the time comes the eventual service will be phased in Crossrail/Thameslink-style anyway...but probably too early to think about that just yet, when the focus is about getting the end state right.

 

[hwl]

I personally don't see how reducing the frequency of trains will reduce the construction costs (although it will reduce operating costs). Having said that, perhaps initially (when the full network is open) it would be better to have a few less TPH so that the operator learns how the system works first. Then the full 18tph could be moved to later.

The only bit of infrastructure that really springs to mind as regards potential costs is possibly the Euston throat but the savings there won't be huge.

The BCR is still OK at 14tph which blocks a potential criticism. This may well be tactical.

 

[Speed43125]

This may well be tactical.

Explain? To appear to reduce spec now to improve PR and make it look like they're taking steps? or to reduce teething problems to start with?

 

[quantinghome]

A 20% reduction in capacity is a big hit. I could understand if it's physically impossible to get 18tph working, but not if the only benefit is marginal cost savings. I'd prefer a speed reduction over losing capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

minutes. It will take something like 4 minutes for a train to slow down, stop, and speed up again, so any train that stops at Calvert is then occupying the path of the following train (unless you make that train stop there as well - and by that logic, you then have to stop every train there, which then slows down every train for the benefit of relatively few passengers)

Typically 7 minutes for a 300km/h railway. If there is a station near Calvert - and it’s big if in my view - it will be only a fraction of the service calling. I suspect that initially it will simply be passive provision.

The Chairman of SNCF had one piece of advice for the UK regarding HS2 when it was being designed - don't build politically motivated intermediate stations in the middle of nowhere.
There are quite a few of those dotted about the TGV network.

Gare des Betteraves. TGV Haut-Picardie being the finest example.

I personally don't see how reducing the frequency of trains will reduce the construction costs (although it will reduce operating costs). Having said that, perhaps initially (when the full network is open) it would be better to have a few less TPH so that the operator learns how the system works first. Then the full 18tph could be moved to later.

Phase 1 is intended to be slab track, which cost at least 3-4 times more than ballasted track. AIUI this was on the basis that with the tonnage (ie frequency) and speed involved, the ballast deterioration would be such that you would need to start the reballasting cycle almost immediately the line was open in order to get it all done before the ballast deteriorated to a condition where speed restrictions became likely. Slab track avoids that.

However slab track is a pig to renew when it does become due, ask someone who’s done it (raises hand).

With fewer paths, and a lower top speed (I’m assuming this is still on the cards), ballasted track becomes more viable. Whether or not this is a recommendation of the report, I don’t know.

 

[The Planner]

With fewer paths, and a lower top speed (I’m assuming this is still on the cards), ballasted track becomes more viable. Whether or not this is a recommendation of the report, I don’t know.

The problem they have with that is the type of ballast required and getting enough of it, quick enough and being able to get it to the trace. The amount of trains it would require, and the paths is one of the reasons slab was chosen.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

However slab track is a pig to renew when it does become due, ask someone who’s done it (raises hand).

Presumably the older slab track systems are the ones that are failing and being renewed now. Often a continuous slab predominantly cast insitu and therefore much harder and time consuming to rip out and relay.

I think for HS2 precast a discrete panel system (Such as the OBB-Porr) with minimal on-site concrete casting has been mooted.

Is a continuous access road proposed for majority of the route still? Lopping that out would be a whopping saving on civils costs.

 

[HSTEd]

On the capacity reduction, if it allows the dwell times at Old Oak Common to be increased by 20%, that could lead to the abandonment of the high level platforms and the adoption of UIC platforms, which would enable captive double decker trains to be adopted which would get most of the capacity lost back.

There's only 17 trains allocated, so only 3 disappear:
3 Birmingham
3 Manchester
1 Liverpool/Preston (split at Crewe)
1 Liverpool/Crewe (so 400m long south of Crewe)
2 Scotland
1 Macclesfield
2 Newcastle
1 York/Sheffield (split at Toton)
1 Leeds/Sheffield (split at Toton)
2 Leeds

Not building Handsacre junction suggests the Macclesfield goes. I'd imagine the other 2 are the Yorkshire services becoming 2tph to Leeds and Sheffield, removing the third train from both York and Leeds. Or perhaps the Newcastle trains pick up a stop south of York where they form the front portion of a Yorkshire-terminating train - which wouldn't remove capacity.

So we have:
3 Birmingham
3 Manchester
1 Liverpool/Preston
1 Liverpool/Crewe
2 Scotland
2 Newcastle/Leeds
1 Leeds/Sheffield
1 York/Sheffield

Are we allowed to divide trains at Birmingham International?

We could delete the short-terminating half trains.
So dropping the Crewe/Preston/York components gets us 1.5 formations dropped.
Drop the Macclesfield train with Handsacre and that leaves us with only half a formation remaining to be found.
Cutting the length of the Newcastle trains gets us some extra, and we can win some of it back by having a full length Leeds formation.

So we end up with

3 Birmingham
3 Manchester
1 Liverpool/Sheffield
1 Liverpool/Newcastle
2 Scotland
1 Newcastle/Sheffield
3 Leeds

That gets us 14 trains per hour without losing any destinations, and by concentrating the captive trains into all Captive formations, we can have 400m double decks potentially to win back our capacity.

(Potentially 9 of the 14 trains is captive)

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the capacity reduction, if it allows the dwell times at Old Oak Common to be increased by 20%, that could lead to the abandonment of the high level platforms and the adoption of UIC platforms, which would enable captive double decker trains to be adopted which would get most of the capacity lost back.

Not unless you abandon through running onto classic routes, which would seriously reduce its utility.

 

[HSTEd]

Not unless you abandon through running onto classic routes, which would seriously reduce its utility.

Classic Compatible trains have been demonstrated to load from UIC platforms for decades..... see Eurostar.
The argument about dwell times for boarding at Old Oak Common, which was already dying before the scrutiny of EU standards bodies, falls apart entirely now the dwell times have expanded by 20%

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Classic Compatible trains have been demonstrated to load from UIC platforms for decades..... see Eurostar.
The argument about dwell times for boarding at Old Oak Common, which was already dying before the scrutiny of EU standards bodies, falls apart entirely now the dwell times have expanded by 20%

How do you reason that dwell times are OOC would increase? I would have assumed that the aim is to keep dwell times there as small as possible in order to keep good journey times for passengers travelling all the way to/from Euston. Only running 14tph isn't going to change that, is it? (Unless you mean, more people boarding each train?)

 

[HSTEd]

How do you reason that dwell times are OOC would increase? I would have assumed that the aim is to keep dwell times there as small as possible in order to keep good journey times for passengers travelling all the way to/from Euston. Only running 14tph isn't going to change that, is it? (Unless you mean, more people boarding each train?)

The constraint HS2 is trying to use to get the EU to grant a derogation allowing their non-standard high level platforms is that completely level boarding of classic compatible trains is required to meet the dwell time criterion at Old Oak Common to enable their station to handle the 18tph timetable.

If the railway is only running 14tph, this criterion is significantly relaxed.

 

[quantinghome]

Will two classic-compatible, 200m-long trains per hour to Newcastle be sufficient? It's no more than current capacity, although in mitigation the trains won't be carrying Edinburgh traffic.

 

[AndrewE]

Will two classic-compatible, 200m-long trains per hour to Newcastle be sufficient? It's no more than current capacity, although in mitigation the trains won't be carrying Edinburgh traffic.

nor the people to and from (and connecting in and out at) Peterborough, Doncaster and York etc. This aspect is going to be one of the best consequences/functions of HS2, allowing semi-fast services to return to the southern ends of the ECML and the WCML.
It's not just about traffic to or from London, it releases the existing railway for use by the rest of the country again!

 

[HSTEd]

nor the people to and from (and connecting in and out at) Peterborough, Doncaster and York etc. This aspect is going to be one of the best consequences/functions of HS2, allowing semi-fast services to return to the southern ends of the ECML and the WCML.
It's not just about traffic to or from London, it releases the existing railway for use by the rest of the country again!

Well they will still carry York passengers

 

[Goldfish62]

I read a few of the Daily Mail comments. Interesting reading...

• Scrap HS2 - it will go over budget because Crossrail has
• Scrap HS2 - it will go over budget. Build HS3 instead (because that won't ever go over budget will it?...thought not!)
• Scrap HS2 - no-one will use it (except for all the people who will use it so they can live in the cheap north and work in London...)
• Scrap HS2 - no-one will be able to afford to use it
• Scrap HS2 - it only saves 25 minutes (on what journey i'm not too sure)
• Scrap HS2 - upgrade existing lines instead
• Scrap HS2 - reopen the Great Central Railway ()

There are one or two slightly less hysterical comments, but they likely fall into the category of "conspiracy theory":

• Of course the review recommends proceeding - it was lead by the former HS2 chairman
• Of course it will go ahead, as it will be lining the pockets of those promoting it

There's only one comment which I would regard as true (although I fully expect a firm rebuttal from those on the forum who work in the industry!):

• The reason the cost is increasing is because contractors bid too low, knowing that the government will have to give them the contract, safe in the knowledge that when they reveal that the actual amount of money they need is double what they quoted the money will be available

Nevertheless, this does appear to be good news.

All your typical Daily Mail reader wants is more roads to drive their car(s) on.

 

[HSTEd]

Will two classic-compatible, 200m-long trains per hour to Newcastle be sufficient? It's no more than current capacity, although in mitigation the trains won't be carrying Edinburgh traffic.

Well it would carry traffic from (effectively) between York and Newcastle.
The reduced journey time might also allow significant reductions in non passenger carrying space - ie. less need for a catering offer if your peak journey time is only 2h20, rather than having to cater to the 4 hour journey between Edinburgh and London at the present time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Classic Compatible trains have been demonstrated to load from UIC platforms for decades..... see Eurostar.

Yes, but you don't get the double deck benefit and you do get a massive step up and so a need for lifts rather than ramps for wheelchair users. Better would be a UK standard platform height with low-floor rolling stock such as Stadler's Swiss IC units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The constraint HS2 is trying to use to get the EU to grant a derogation allowing their non-standard high level platforms is that completely level boarding of classic compatible trains is required to meet the dwell time criterion at Old Oak Common to enable their station to handle the 18tph timetable.

If the railway is only running 14tph, this criterion is significantly relaxed.

Level boarding of classic compatible trains can of course be by ensuring those trains have a low floor (to UK platform height). Stadler can do it, so everyone else can too. Then it's level boarding everywhere, not just at new build platforms. A non UK standard platform height (higher or lower) is of no benefit.

Nobody is going to run UIC-size trains from the Tunnel to HS2 - it simply isn't going to happen, it didn't happen last time and it won't happen this time. Just build it to UK standards.

 

[HSTEd]

Level boarding of classic compatible trains can of course be by ensuring those trains have a low floor (to UK platform height). Stadler can do it, so everyone else can too. Then it's level boarding everywhere, not just at new build platforms. A non UK standard platform height (higher or lower) is of no benefit.

Nobody is going to run UIC-size trains from the Tunnel to HS2 - it simply isn't going to happen, it didn't happen last time and it won't happen this time. Just build it to UK standards.

You might be able to build a practical double deck train for a 915mm platform height, but the 1200mm platform has no chance at all.
But 760mm would give reasonable bording height into a Stadler/Talgo style classic compatible and potential for near level boarding into a double deck train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might be able to build a practical double deck train for a 915mm platform height, but the 1200mm platform has no chance at all.
But 760mm would give reasonable bording height into a Stadler/Talgo style classic compatible and potential for near level boarding into a double deck train.

Double deck trains are irrelevant, because a significant amount of services will need to run onto classic lines to complete their journeys for the foreseeable future. There is no point doing double-deck just for Manchester and Birmingham.

The practical option is to build everything single-deck and to UK loading gauge with low floor for level boarding at every single platform they will ever serve, be they on HS2 or elsewhere. These trains are going to be 400m long. They don't need to be double-deck too. How often is a Eurostar totally full? It's surprisingly rare except when flights are disrupted.

In any case, once you consider luggage provision (which can't go overhead on a double decker) you barely get 1.2-1.3x capacity. That has to be one reason why Germany just isn't interested, unlike regional traffic where people tend to carry less stuff and you can pack the seats in - even then it only gets you about 1.5x. The Swiss are, but IC2000 stock is awful for luggage space, and there are barely any true long distance services anyway as the country just isn't big enough.

 

[HSTEd]

Double deck trains are irrelevant, because a significant amount of services will need to run onto classic lines to complete their journeys for the foreseeable future. There is no point doing double-deck just for Manchester and Birmingham.

The Leeds branch has not yet been abandoned.
Which means potentially 9 formations out of 14......

A modern double deck train can pack 740 people into 200m.

(EDIT: Even a Class 395 only fits 68 people into one of its 20m intermediate vehicles, with no toilet! Even if we just added four of those vehicles into a Class 395 you only get a seating capacity of ~612 permanent seats)

The practical option is to build everything single-deck and to UK loading gauge with low floor for level boarding at every single platform they will ever serve, be they on HS2 or elsewhere. These trains are going to be 400m long. They don't need to be double-deck too. How often is a Eurostar totally full? It's surprisingly rare except when flights are disrupted.

Eurostar is constrained by a long journey time, lack of economic integration across the areas served and the passport and security requirements.

In any case, once you consider luggage provision (which can't go overhead on a double decker) you barely get 1.2-1.3x capacity.

20% is still rather drastic.
You are throwing away a fifth of the potential final capacity of the route to remove.... a six inch change in height from platform into the train?

(From a 760mm platform to a low floor 915mm platform height unit)

That has to be one reason why Germany just isn't interested, unlike regional traffic where people tend to carry less stuff and you can pack the seats in - even then it only gets you about 1.5x.

But this is the UK.
The captive trains are regional trains.
You really think a 45 minute jaunt to Birmingham counts as true "intercity".
Or a 68 minute jaunt to Manchester
Or even the 88 minute jaunt to Leeds?

The corrolary of HS2 increasing passenger numbers will be a reduction of the luggage requirement per passenger.
People who travel needing luggage probably already travel, you will pick up day passengers with less need of luggage.

EDIT:

HS2 puts Birmingham somewhere near Folkestone, and Manchester someone near Dover.

What is the composition of passengers on those HS1 trains?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Tony Berkeley has just been on Radio 4 PM explaining his concerns about the review.
I can't say I'm much more enlightened, but the gist is the costings are still obscure, and the draft report didn't include any significant options for the DfT to consider.
He wants more attention on the midlands and northern connectivity and benefits.
He is not trying to rubbish the review and report, but wants all the detail presented and not a partial view.
He also doesn't believe 18tph is feasible anyway.

 

[MarkyT]

Tony Berkeley has just been on Radio 4 PM explaining his concerns about the review.
I can't say I'm much more enlightened, but the gist is the costings are still obscure, and the draft report didn't include any significant options for the DfT to consider.
He wants more attention on the midlands and northern connectivity and benefits.
He is not trying to rubbish the review and report, but wants all the detail presented and not a partial view.
He also doesn't believe 18tph is feasible anyway.

Rail expert Piers Connor concluded that 16tph was possible on a railway like HS2, with maybe an additional 1 or 2tph feasible with ATO:
http://www.railway-technical.com/books-papers--articles/high-speed-railway-capacity.pdf

The discussion in this paper suggests that, under perfect conditions, 16 trains per hour capacity could be obtained, without including recovery time. If Automatic Train Operation was provided, 1-2 more trains per hour is possible by taking the driver out of the performance loop.

 

[jfowkes]

Even if 18tph isn't feasible or required now, the provision for it should surely be there so that if and when the technology allows, the infrastructure can support it? Same for designing for higher speed. We shouldn't hamper ourselves now.

Look at all the decisions made on the classic network 100 years ago that are causing issues now because they didn't foresee the needs of today's railway. We should at least try to anticipate future needs.