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

[Bletchleyite]

If I recall the programme correctly the de scope was in the southern part only (nothing was said as to what constituted the de scope)

My thoughts are simply get something built and running and once its realised how effective it is there will be clamours for add ons ie the eastern leg , continuation to Scotland from the SNP etc

If the descope is Old Oak to Euston then you might as well can the whole thing. I hope it's a reduced top speed to a conventional 186mph LGV, or even 140mph, which would allow cheaper rolling stock with better use of train length (no massive nose) and a less dead-straight formation. Potentially, with less of a speed differential, Pendolinos and 80x could also run onto it.

 

[Ianno87]

The Today programme this morning is saying London - Brum will be built as will Brum northwards to Manchester but de scoped , lower speeds but the eastern leg NOT built

Pretty much the polar opposite of what the Torygraph is claiming.

As long as the speed doesn't go below 200mph I'm happy with that. I wonder what could be descoped from the Manchester branch? Maybe all that means is it will be transferred to the Northern Powerhouse Rail project. The eastern leg can be built later, possibly incorporated into a new eastern high speed line from London.

My reading of that is basically building Phase 1 and 2a to Crewe, then passing the rest to NPR.

Conversely, I believe that a lower top speed actually increases rolling stock costs because you need more trains to run the same timetable.

And bigger depots, sidings, etc.

 

[ABB125]

If I recall the programme correctly the de scope was in the southern part only (nothing was said as to what constituted the de scope)

My thoughts are simply get something built and running and once its realised how effective it is there will be clamours for add ons ie the eastern leg , continuation to Scotland from the SNP etc

Thanks, that sounds more positive.

 

[ABB125]

My reading of that is basically building Phase 1 and 2a to Crewe, then passing the rest to NPR.

Is this a sensible idea? Superficially it does appear to be, potentially resulting in better integration between HS2 and NPR, as well as the existing network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretty much the polar opposite of what the Torygraph is claiming.

What is the Torygraph claiming, sorry? Nowt on their front page, and much of it requires a subscription or buying the rag, neither of which I am enthusiastic to do.

 

[Ianno87]

What is the Torygraph claiming, sorry? Nowt on their front page, and much of it requires a subscription or buying the rag, neither of which I am enthusiastic to do.

Just going off post 4032 https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-hs2-discussion.177112/page-135#post-4390070

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just going off post 4032 https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-hs2-discussion.177112/page-135#post-4390070

Edited:

New thread for "how could infrastructure work around no HS2 southern leg" here:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ructure-be-improved-on-the-south-wcml.198617/

 

[B&I]

If the descope is Old Oak to Euston then you might as well can the whole thing. I hope it's a reduced top speed to a conventional 186mph LGV, or even 140mph, which would allow cheaper rolling stock with better use of train length (no massive nose) and a less dead-straight formation. Potentially, with less of a speed differential, Pendolinos and 80x could also run onto it.

Exactly. We should be working on a lower speed, but higher capacity, railway, acting as a trunk for a variety of long distance services rather than a point to point between a handful of cities. If the speed obsession is intended to cut air travel to Scotland, use the money saved on improving the routes to Scotland, and tax domestic air travel (where there are viable rail alternatives) out of existence.

If it is true that anything north of Crewe is being fobbed off on NPR, this might have the beneficial side effect that the route could be pre-planned to prioritise east-west rather than north-south journeys. Perhaps we could get rid of the absurd Manchester Airport dog leg, double deck city centre terminus, and boomerang tunnel under the city centre, and install a simpler tunnel under the city for long distance services with access from the west from the HS2 trunk. Not of course that the rumoured government decision will be based on a desire to improve the system, as opposed to juggling their spending promises and shift blame for Tory cuts onto others.

As for scrapping the eastern leg, I Have No Words. This is the part of HS2 as planned which makes the most sense, bypassing a congested and painfully slow line between several large cities. If anything, its scope should be extended e.g. proper city centre connections for Derby and Nottingham, a northbound connection at Sheffield to improve it's current joke connections to Leeds.

 

[Ianno87]

Exactly. We should be working on a lower speed, but higher capacity, railway, acting as a trunk for a variety of long distance services rather than a point to point between a handful of cities.

You mean other than:
London-Birmingham
London-Crewe-Liverpool
London-Preston-Glasgow
London-Preston-Edinburgh
London-East Midlands-Chesterfield-Sheffield
London-East Midlands-Leeds
London-East Midlands-York-Darlington-Newcastle
Birmingham-Manchester
Birmingham-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow
Birmingham-Preston-Carlisle-Edinburgh
Birmingham-Leeds
Birmingham-York-Darlington-Newcastle

Many with other intermediate stations too, plus opportunities for connections at Birmingham, Old Oak Common, etc.

Strikes me as plenty for one line to be getting on with for now...

 

[Yindee8191]

Exactly. We should be working on a lower speed, but higher capacity, railway, acting as a trunk for a variety of long distance services rather than a point to point between a handful of cities

So... the WCML? The idea is that HS2 is being built as a high-speed point-to-point railway because we already have a mixed traffic trunk route to multiple destinations. HS2 removes the majority of current high-speed journeys so the relatively fast trains can be expanded and commuter trains can have more space.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, there was the opportunity. What there wasn’t was any will to do it by the politicians, by the developers or by Railtrack. It would have required a much bigger project, but the hole could have been excavated to track level, the throat widened allowing platforms to be extended, and then the Bull Ring to be built over the top.

But anyway, the alternative arrangements such as platform extensions simply won’t deliver what HS2 will.

It would have been massive and unaffordable at the time (it would be now too), it would have required the entire resignalling of New St to be brought forward (phases 4, 5, 6 and 7 which still isn't until 2022) as well as re-modelling of Proof House (again) and the throat which is constrained by the tunnel entrances so the platform extensions would be minuscule. The benefits would be small as well as it doesn't create a lot of capacity.

If the descope is Old Oak to Euston then you might as well can the whole thing. I hope it's a reduced top speed to a conventional 186mph LGV, or even 140mph, which would allow cheaper rolling stock with better use of train length (no massive nose) and a less dead-straight formation. Potentially, with less of a speed differential, Pendolinos and 80x could also run onto it.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking the route will be changed, that is going back practically to the start to do that. The route is fixed.

 

[InOban]

I hope that the route isn't fixed. It should be a) redesigned for not more than 300km/hr, possibly only 250 which would allow
b) a less straight route close to the existing transport corridor to which there would be few objections,and for it to have
c) links to the existing network so that it can be built in stages (like most major road projects eg the A1(M) between London and Newcastle) and
d) the use of standard trains to existing designs.
It can start in the north because much of it is already designed for the lower speed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So... the WCML? The idea is that HS2 is being built as a high-speed point-to-point railway because we already have a mixed traffic trunk route to multiple destinations. HS2 removes the majority of current high-speed journeys so the relatively fast trains can be expanded and commuter trains can have more space.

HS2 isn't being built as a high-speed point-to-point railway. It's more like a German or Swiss NBS (Neubaustrecke = new build line) - it is built to add capacity and/or speed to existing routes, and most services will run on both it and classic lines together. It is not the French model at all, not even slightly.

 

[The Planner]

I hope that the route isn't fixed. It should be a) redesigned for not more than 300km/hr, possibly only 250 which would allow
b) a less straight route close to the existing transport corridor to which there would be few objections,and for it to have
c) links to the existing network so that it can be built in stages (like most major road projects eg the A1(M) between London and Newcastle) and
d) the use of standard trains to existing designs.
It can start in the north because much of it is already designed for the lower speed.

It is fixed, if you want to re-open that one you are adding at least another 5 years on it and the starting in the north bit doesn't really work as discussed in the speculative ideas forum.

 

[B&I]

So... the WCML? The idea is that HS2 is being built as a high-speed point-to-point railway because we already have a mixed traffic trunk route to multiple destinations. HS2 removes the majority of current high-speed journeys so the relatively fast trains can be expanded and commuter trains can have more space.

If capacity is the greatest problem, why does it have to be built to cater for speeds in excess of those seen almost anywhere else in the world ? (Before you say 'well we might as well build high speed if we're going to build it's, that one's got bells on. Higher speeds increase costs and reduce capacity.)

 

[B&I]

HS2 isn't being built as a high-speed point-to-point railway. It's more like a German or Swiss NBS (Neubaustrecke = new build line) - it is built to add capacity and/or speed to existing routes, and most services will run on both it and classic lines together. It is not the French model at all, not even slightly.

Nope. It is a plan to connect 4 cities with high speed high capacity lines, from which a few other places will benefit incidentally and to extremely varied degrees.

 

[B&I]

I hope that the route isn't fixed. It should be a) redesigned for not more than 300km/hr, possibly only 250 which would allow
b) a less straight route close to the existing transport corridor to which there would be few objections,and for it to have
c) links to the existing network so that it can be built in stages (like most major road projects eg the A1(M) between London and Newcastle) and
d) the use of standard trains to existing designs.
It can start in the north because much of it is already designed for the lower speed.

It is certainly fixed in the minds of some on here.

 

[B&I]

You mean other than:
London-Birmingham
London-Crewe-Liverpool
London-Preston-Glasgow
London-Preston-Edinburgh
London-East Midlands-Chesterfield-Sheffield
London-East Midlands-Leeds
London-East Midlands-York-Darlington-Newcastle
Birmingham-Manchester
Birmingham-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow
Birmingham-Preston-Carlisle-Edinburgh
Birmingham-Leeds
Birmingham-York-Darlington-Newcastle

Many with other intermediate stations too, plus opportunities for connections at Birmingham, Old Oak Common, etc.

Strikes me as plenty for one line to be getting on with for now...

Indeed. Far too much for one line to be getting on with, which is why HS2 will be full as soon as it opens, despite itsind boggling cost, despite carrying fewer services to some of those cities than they currently have on existing lines.

 

[PartyOperator]

If capacity is the greatest problem, why does it have to be built to cater for speeds in excess of those seen almost anywhere else in the world ? (Before you say 'well we might as well build high speed if we're going to build it's, that one's got bells on. Higher speeds increase costs and reduce capacity.)

Higher speed increases capacity because a single twin-track railway with short branches to Birmingham and Manchester can replace a quad-track railway with multiple separate alignments most of the way north of Milton Keynes. Much of the WCML is effectively at least two different railways with multiple extra lines, and a single conventional railway would not be able to match times to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. More than this, a very fast twin-track Y-shaped railway can do the same for trains to the East Midlands, Yorkshire, Newcastle and Edinburgh in addition to the area served by the WCML. Speed means one railway can enormously enhance capacity on all of the main lines heading north from London, rather than just helping the Birmingham branch of the WCML.

Plus the speed will be about the same as high-speed lines currently being built elsewhere in the world. It’s not that radical, it won’t initially operate at 400kph (or maybe ever) but most people building high-speed lines seem to agree that it’s a reasonable target when it comes to curve radii etc. The expensive bits of the line (in cities) are already being designed for lower speeds - it’s only the long stretches through open countryside that will see very high speeds, and the land for the London to Birmingham bit has already been purchased. The cost savings by reducing maximum speed of the alignment would be fairly marginal.

 

[B&I]

Higher speed increases capacity because a single twin-track railway with short branches to Birmingham and Manchester can replace a quad-track railway with multiple separate alignments most of the way north of Milton Keynes. Much of the WCML is effectively at least two different railways with multiple extra lines, and a single conventional railway would not be able to match times to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. More than this, a very fast twin-track Y-shaped railway can do the same for trains to the East Midlands, Yorkshire, Newcastle and Edinburgh in addition to the area served by the WCML. Speed means one railway can enormously enhance capacity on all of the main lines heading north from London, rather than just helping the Birmingham branch of the WCML.

Plus the speed will be about the same as high-speed lines currently being built elsewhere in the world. It’s not that radical, it won’t initially operate at 400kph (or maybe ever) but most people building high-speed lines seem to agree that it’s a reasonable target when it comes to curve radii etc. The expensive bits of the line (in cities) are already being designed for lower speeds - it’s only the long stretches through open countryside that will see very high speeds, and the land for the London to Birmingham bit has already been purchased. The cost savings by reducing maximum speed of the alignment would be fairly marginal.

I'm sorry, I'm not following this. Why would a 'conventional' railway (in the sense of one not built for speeds which, by your own admission, its services may never reach) be unable to match current times to the cities you ?mention ? How does increasing speed increase capacity, when it reduces the number of trains that can be run in a given time period ? While I get the point about HS2 relieving capacity on the existing WCML, how does it provide more capacity than (say) a new 4 track railway separate from the WCML ? And are you saying that elements of the HS2 design designed to enhance speed (e.g. boring through much of the Chilterns in tunnel to take the straightest possible route) have had no significant effect on its likely cost ?

 

[B&I]

London-Brum is the most important bit, so I'm glad that's in. That's the bit that relieves the south WCML for everyone and will allow both improved reliability and more semifast services on the WCML itself. With a plan having just been announced to take MK's population from circa 250K as it is now to 400K+ we need it!

Brum-Manchester will allow improved local services in south Manchester and north Brum, so good there too. It will also mean Brum to Manchester is a far less awful journey!

The other bit has somewhat of a weaker case, because the ECML is already straight and fast and nowhere near as congested. It could I guess be added afterwards, though.

How does the ECML enable the improvement in speed and capacity of journeys between Yorkshire, the East Midlands, and the West Midlands which seems to.me to be one of the clearest advantages of the current HS2 plan ?

 

[B&I]

I suspect that if HS2 doesn't get canned, the money available for HS3 will be pretty much zilch as HS2 will take it all up.

When I travel to various parts of the country, it is always the trains to and from London which are the best appointed and have the best timings. The quality and speed of trains appears inversely proportional to the distance from London, ie the further away the worse it gets. Even those to Scotland get slower from Preston.

Cross-Country trains should be double the length and many journeys which should be cross-country are actually cheaper and quicker via London because the trains are too short and the line speed is pathetic.
Transpennine is replacing its 185's with longer trains, but these will be full within a year or two - in London they would have been 6 coach trains ages ago and 8 coaches now. Look at the miserable service in the South West, North East. Because travel to / from London has been made so much better than any other journeys, people travel to / from London and London becomes ever-more the greater focus as they dream up CrossRail1, then CrossRail 2. Government and business needs spreading more around the country. Execs and Senior Civil servants will not move to the sticks unless the CEO / directors or top Civil servants move too.

The best way to get proper transport planning in this country would be to move the Department of Transport away from London to Hull, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds or Exeter.

A further point is that lack of capacity on passenger services between London and Birmingham is in my opinion a bit of a falacy. During a serious disruption at Kings Cross, I went to St Pancras and a Pendalino at 19.30 to Manchester was virtually empty.

All of this is true, and all of it is continually ignored by believers in the One True Way of HS2, who never stop to ask themselves why the project has so few supporters (in particular, outside the handful of places receiving an optimum service as a result of it). This explains their constant need to write off any disagreement as the result of irrationality

 

[B&I]

Yes, anything that increases the relative merits of high speed rail compared to air travel is a good thing. Some people will choose not to travel over flying, but a lot will not. Even if there is not enough demand to run a flight, they might decide to drive. Or take the train, but hate it because it's slow. Whereas a competitive high-speed rail option is an easy switch from flying.

What proportion of HS2's target market currently has the option of flying rather than taking the train, given that many of the places served have few or no air connections with the other places served ?

 

[B&I]

I'm hardly in love with HS2 but if one part is needed, it is the bit between London and Birmingham. The northern sections make little to no sense without it.

Agreed. This looks like an absolutely incoherent response rather than the systematic rethink HS2 requires. And given that the current government don't even seem to know where HS3 will begin or end, I won't cross my fingers waiting for that to be built from the former HS2 budget.

 

[TrafficEng]

Yes, anything that increases the relative merits of high speed rail compared to air travel is a good thing. <Snip>

I disagree with that statement if it is taken as the absolute it appears to be.

In some cases domestic aviation is a good thing. We are at risk of repeating one of the mistakes of the Beeching era by tackling the negative issues of a transport mode in a way which damages positive aspects of it. (by that I mean not fully recognising the contribution some branch lines made to the viability of the rail network as a whole)

In domestic aviation terms there are routes which make little economic sense but are cross-subsidised by other more profitable routes. Also routes that feed passengers into airports for onward connections.

If you adopt a policy of extracting revenue from profitable airline routes (transferring passengers to rail instead) you run the risk of being left with a rump of unsustainable airline routes that can only continue if given substantial public subsidy.

People who rely on those less sustainable airline routes may not welcome HS2 and the long-term impact it might have on them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Higher speed increases capacity

False. The rest of it is irrelevant. Capacity decreases with speed because required separation is greater. It is that straightforward. Run it at 30mph and you can have a continuous procession of units up the line a few seconds apart if you want.

Speed can increase the capacity you can provide with a given number of units and crews, but that's a different thing.

You may be getting mixed up with the issue that if you put out a 110mph unit on the south WCML it takes a path and a half or two paths (I forget). That's not because the lower speed uses more capacity (it doesn't), it's because mixed-speed railways have lower capacity because the slower trains are caught up by the faster ones.

Consider the Northern Line on LU. A constant procession of long, all-stations trains at about 30mph about every minute or two - huge, huge capacity.

(Note I'm not suggesting reducing the speed to 30mph, but I do advocate reducing it to 186mph as a standard LGV, or even 140mph which would allow the use of much cheaper and already-standard rolling stock i.e. Class 80x).

 

[TrafficEng]

If the descope is Old Oak to Euston then you might as well can the whole thing.

Wouldn't that be similar to canning HS1 because it wasn't going to reach a London terminal from day 1? (I accept there was a sensible plan in place to connect the temporary end of HS1 to London's transport network)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't that be similar to canning HS1 because it wasn't going to reach a London terminal from day 1? (I accept there was a sensible plan in place to connect the temporary end of HS1 to London's transport network)

If you had through running from the WCML onto it that would be fine. Without that it would be pointless.

 

[HSTEd]

The scheme will be descoped to cost 90% of the price for 10% of the benefits in typical British government fashion.

But the scheme was deeply flawed to begin with

 

[PartyOperator]

False. The rest of it is irrelevant. Capacity decreases with speed because required separation is greater. It is that straightforward. Run it at 30mph and you can have a continuous procession of units up the line a few seconds apart if you want.

Speed can increase the capacity you can provide with a given number of units and crews, but that's a different thing.

You may be getting mixed up with the issue that if you put out a 110mph unit on the south WCML it takes a path and a half or two paths (I forget). That's not because the lower speed uses more capacity (it doesn't), it's because mixed-speed railways have lower capacity because the slower trains are caught up by the faster ones.

Consider the Northern Line on LU. A constant procession of long, all-stations trains at about 30mph about every minute or two - huge, huge capacity.

(Note I'm not suggesting reducing the speed to 30mph, but I do advocate reducing it to 186mph as a standard LGV, or even 140mph which would allow the use of much cheaper and already-standard rolling stock i.e. Class 80x).

Speed decreases capacity on a single railway, but speed on a new railway increases capacity on all the other railways by allowing one railway to run fast trains to Birmingham, Manchester, Warrington, the East Midlands, York, Edinburgh, Newcastle etc. It's not possible to achieve competitive journey times to all of those places with just one Y-shaped twin-track railway running at conventional speeds. The capacity comes from getting rid of fast trains that take up paths on the conventional railways. If all you do is build an extra pair of tracks for the southern WCML, all you do is speed up the Euston-Rugby part of your existing WCML journeys. If creating capacity for Milton Keynes commuters is the only reason for building the railway, fine. But politicians should be honest about this and design the scheme with this specific goal in mind.

If the goal is to enhance capacity across a larger part of the rail network while building the minimum length of new railway, you need it to be fast.