How *should* HS2 have been built?

[camflyer]

Thanks for posting - very interesting. Overhead does lend itself to ending over Euston platforms and going into the side of the Midland Mainline concourse at St Pancras. Only disadvantage I see is noise/visual-intrusion. As with HS2 sub surface it would cost more - about 33% extra.

Trouble with a subsurface option is that there is so much "stuff" underground in that part of London. Apart from the Tube, other rail infrastructure and usual utilities there is the British Library and Crick Institute which have huge basements plus the desire to safeguard space for any eventual Crossrail 2.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't have the percentage to hand but overwhelmingly Manchester to London flights were people connecting at Heathrow.

Help? Bald Rick has already shown that for more than a train or two per day it's going to struggle to be filled, Stratford Intl isn't going to have masses of demand of the ability to hold trains while everyone is detrained, train sweeped to ensure no stowaways, everyone gone through immigration and reboarded.

Meanwhile for Leeds, Doncaster etc. its a walk across the road from King's Cross to St Pancras.

The government would have to admit to the public facts like the UK getting a smaller percentage of asylum seekers compared to other countries like Germany or that the Home Office backlog is due to poor moral in the Civil Service. I'll try not to get too political.

My bold. Indeed - Walking Kings Cross to StPancras is probably a similar (maybe shorter) walk as required to get off at Stratford, go through customs and immigaration and then get back on. So not worth bothering with "through" trains there.

Trouble with a subsurface option is that there is so much "stuff" underground in that part of London. Apart from the Tube, other rail infrastructure and usual utilities there is the British Library and Crick Institute which have huge basements plus the desire to safeguard space for any eventual Crossrail 2.

I notice the subsurface options follow the same route as the above surface options - along roads and using cut and cover. Plenty of utilities to deal with there but of course planting uprights for overhead would find some of those utilities anyway.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Help? Bald Rick has already shown that for more than a train or two per day it's going to struggle to be filled, Stratford Intl isn't going to have masses of demand of the ability to hold trains while everyone is detrained, train sweeped to ensure no stowaways, everyone gone through immigration and reboarded.

That's for a full length Eurostar train, for a 5 carriage train, 4tpd would be fine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

If you're doing immigration at Stratford, presumably you're not doing through trains, so what's the advantage of doing it at Stratford instead of St Pancras which is already set up?

Get immigration to board the train and do the checks onboard, similar to what is done in some European countries.

 

[Energy]

My bold. Indeed - Walking Kings Cross to StPancras is probably a similar (maybe shorter) walk as required to get off at Stratford, go through customs and immigaration and then get back on. So not worth bothering with "through" trains there.

I don't think detraining at Stratford Intl would get past the home office anyway. The setup at St Pancras has the international section completely separated separated, it would be easy for someone to hang on the train at Stratford Intl and not go through immigration.

That's for a full length Eurostar train, for a 5 carriage train, 4tpd would be fine.

5 carriages? Not going to be economic.

Get immigration to board the train and do the checks onboard, similar to what is done in some European countries.

Hardly going to be quick, and it would be easy for someone to slip through the gaps.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Hardly going to be quick, and it would be easy for someone to slip through the gaps.

Seems to be working for most of Europe.

5 carriages? Not going to be economic.

2tpd comprised of 8 carriages then.

 

[The Planner]

Seems to be working for most of Europe.


2tpd comprised of 8 carriages then.

That's a lot of infrastructure for 2tpd. Its also likely 6tpd you cannot run elsewhere once you factor in the junctions and margins.

 

[camflyer]

Seems to be working for most of Europe.

Most of Europe is a member of Schengen so cross border migration checks are less of a concern. You may get some random checks but there is no formal border crossing process.

Of course if the UK (and Ireland) was in Schengen then it would solve a lot of problems but it would be a difficult argument to win in the current political climate.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Most of Europe is a member of Schengen so cross border migration checks are less of a concern. You may get some random checks but there is no formal border crossing process.

Of course if the UK (and Ireland) was in Schengen then it would solve a lot of problems but it would be a difficult argument to win in the current political climate.

Preferably, the UK would be in both the EU and Schengen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

That's a lot of infrastructure for 2tpd. Its also likely 6tpd you cannot run elsewhere once you factor in the junctions and margins.

2tpd to Edinburgh, there could also be 2tpd to Glasgow via the West Coast and Birmingham and 2tpd to Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Preferably, the UK would be in both the EU and Schengen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==


2tpd to Edinburgh, there could also be 2tpd to Glasgow via the West Coast and Birmingham and 2tpd to Manchester.

All to/from France? so losing around 18tpd conventional HS2 services to accommodate that?

 

[YorkRailFan]

All to/from France? so losing around 18tpd conventional HS2 services to accommodate that?

That's just to France, one could run additional services to Amsterdam.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does anyone know what proportion of passengers on UK domestic flights are purely UK vs those connecting to an international flight (long haul vs within Europe if brave).
I bet @Bald Rick knows.

As it happens I don’t. Anecdotally, flight connections are mostly done via Heathrow (for obvious reasons), and to a lesser extent London City and Gatwick. AIUI, something like 80% of Manchester and Newcsstle - London air passengers are connecting, and around 50% of those on Glasgow and Edinburgh - Heathrow flights.

Only disadvantage I see is noise/visual-intrusion.

Thats putting it mildly. Right through a load of social housing and adjacent to a listed building.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

Apart from the Tube, other rail infrastructure and usual utilities there is the British Library and Crick Institute which have huge basements plus the desire to safeguard space for any eventual Crossrail 2.

The Crossrail 2 space is safeguarded. And it is very extensive!

Indeed - Walking Kings Cross to StPancras is probably a similar (maybe shorter) walk as required to get off at Stratford, go through customs and immigaration and then get back on.

And a damn sight quicker!

 

[eldomtom2]

In case anyone missed my post on the Infrastructure board, Andrew Naughton gave evidence last week to the Transport Committee on why he believes HS2's costs are so high - definitely relevant to this thread:

HS2 designer blames frequent cost rises on ‘overengineering’ of project | New Civil Engineer

Andrew McNaughton, now chairman of Network Rail High Speed, made his claims to the Transport Committee yesterday, 8 November, in an evidence gathering

www.newcivilengineer.com

The former technical director of High Speed 2 Ltd (HS2 Ltd) and one of the principal designers of HS2’s original plan believes “overengineering” of the project is a principal reason behind the continually ballooning costs.
Andrew McNaughton, now chairman of Network Rail High Speed, made his claims to the Transport Committee yesterday, 8 November, in an evidence gathering session about whether the decision to cancel HS2 was correct.

McNaughton then went on to outline three principal factors for cost hikes on infrastructure projects in the UK, but specifically HS2.
McNaughton said he sees a fair number of instances of “overengineering” in the HS2 plans.
He said: “Post-Carillion failure, the supply sector is extremely nervous about construction risk, but at the same time the client has been shuffling risk at the supply sector, I call it the sloppy shoulders.
“The supply sector takes the risk of ground condition, they take the risk of a whole number of things. Well, if you’re a contractor you cannot take that risk, you have to assure it.
“If you assure it, you have to produce absolutely bomb-proof designs and that’s called, in my book, overengineering. There is plenty of evidence on HS2 of overengineering as there is in other projects going on in this country at the moment, like electrification projects and things like that.”

Another of McNaughton’s factors for HS2’s continual cost rises over its 14-year lifespan is the DfT's numerous changes to the scope.
“One of the lessons going forward with HS2 is that the client stops mucking about with it,” he said. “Every time you change it, then its Christmas for the supply sector. When you chuck away the design and start again, everyone is standing around.
“The client must not keep changing the scope, stick to the scope whatever it is.”

The final reason McNaughton listed for costs spiralling was the skills shortage the UK is currently experiencing. McNaughton believes within this country there are plenty of “white-collar people on big salaries” but not enough “skilled artisans” and that is due to there not being the training for them here.
He said: “That is why infrastructure across the board has seen an almost super inflation.”

 

[Kingston Dan]

As it happens I don’t. Anecdotally, flight connections are mostly done via Heathrow (for obvious reasons), and to a lesser extent London City and Gatwick. AIUI, something like 80% of Manchester and Newcsstle - London air passengers are connecting, and around 50% of those on Glasgow and Edinburgh - Heathrow flights.

I think it is less than that from Edinburgh and Glasgow. This report suggest more than 70% of business travel between Edinburgh and London is 'domestic': Govt aviation survey. And it makes sense for point to point travel to be considerably higher from Scottish airports. Both Scottish airports have a wide range of international (often low cost carrier) destinations so leisure travel is likely to be direct - lots of people choose their holiday through availability of (cheap) flights locally rather than picking a destination and then finding a way of getting there. And with a 4.5 hour train journey compared with 2 or 3 hours from the other cities air has a competitive time advantage.

We know from European experience that big modal shift happens when rail timings match or beat air timings over exactly the sort of distance between central Scotland and London. HS2 even if fully built would make a big difference, but wouldn't get the full benefits - that would require another 45 mins or so off Scotland-London rail times (c 3hours centre to centre).

 

[Bald Rick]

I think it is less than that from Edinburgh and Glasgow. This report suggest more than 70% of business travel between Edinburgh and London is 'domestic': Govt aviation survey. And it makes sense for point to point travel to be considerably higher from Scottish airports. Both Scottish airports have a wide range of international (often low cost carrier) destinations so leisure travel is likely to be direct - lots of people choose their holiday through availability of (cheap) flights locally rather than picking a destination and then finding a way of getting there. And with a 4.5 hour train journey compared with 2 or 3 hours from the other cities air has a competitive time advantage.

I was careful to say that around 50% of those on Glasgow / Edinburgh to Heathrow flights were connecting. But Heathrow has only around 40% of all London - Edinburgh air passengers, and the rate of connections at the other London airports is much smaller.

Roughly a third of all passengers at Hethrow are connecting, and it is logical to assume that the rate is higher for domestic routes where there are readily available alternatives that don’t exist for almost all non-domestic routes.

We know from European experience that big modal shift happens when rail timings match or beat air timings over exactly the sort of distance between central Scotland and London. HS2 even if fully built would make a big difference, but wouldn't get the full benefits - that would require another 45 mins or so off Scotland-London rail times (c 3hours centre to centre).

My estimate (made nearly 20 years ago!) based on evidence from Europe was that a 3h30 time would capture over half the air traffic, whilst a 2h30 time would capture 90% of it. Both assumed a station call somewhere in west London with good connections to Heathrow. 2h30 obviously required a new 320km/h line the whole way with very few stops.

 

[Kingston Dan]

I was careful to say that around 50% of those on Glasgow / Edinburgh to Heathrow flights were connecting. But Heathrow has only around 40% of all London - Edinburgh air passengers, and the rate of connections at the other London airports is much smaller.

Roughly a third of all passengers at Hethrow are connecting, and it is logical to assume that the rate is higher for domestic routes where there are readily available alternatives that don’t exist for almost all non-domestic routes.




My estimate (made nearly 20 years ago!) based on evidence from Europe was that a 3h30 time would capture over half the air traffic, whilst a 2h30 time would capture 90% of it. Both assumed a station call somewhere in west London with good connections to Heathrow. 2h30 obviously required a new 320km/h line the whole way with very few stops.

Thanks - timings and shift figures make a lot of sense. I's also add I imagine the vast majority of Scotland - London City flights are point to point. City has very few destinations (if any) that can't be flown directly from Edinburgh (in particular). The couple of times I've flown from there to Edinburgh it was clear it was people in financial services going to and from various financial centres north and south. The retail offering was basically champagne, red braces and white socks...

 

[Bald Rick]

City has very few destinations (if any) that can't be flown directly from Edinburgh (in particular).

Edinburgh has a few, but mostly the connections are routed via Heathrow or Schiphol. Only Zurich tends to be routed via LCY.

 

[Arkeeos]

In case anyone missed my post on the Infrastructure board, Andrew Naughton gave evidence last week to the Transport Committee on why he believes HS2's costs are so high - definitely relevant to this thread:

HS2 designer blames frequent cost rises on ‘overengineering’ of project | New Civil Engineer

Andrew McNaughton, now chairman of Network Rail High Speed, made his claims to the Transport Committee yesterday, 8 November, in an evidence gathering

www.newcivilengineer.com

The transport select committee event was very insightful, One of the more interesting things that was said was the the HS2 route would not change whether it was built to be 125mph or 225mph, so that should put all the people saying that it should have been built to be slower, to rest.

Also some minsters are way over confident in their knowledge of the railways, there was Jack Brereton doubting Andrew Naughton on the capacity increase caused by Phase 2a.

 

[SynthD]

The first issue McNaughton raises, is that excessive pricing or structure spec? The interpretation I’ve seen more often is that the contractors have named the price for building a bungalow on quicksand, when we know the route is probably all soil, gravel and stone. If the government had paid costs plus profit, the contractors would only charge for building on quicksand, or other difficult conditions, where they exist. But his wording is a little ambiguous. Bomb proof makes me think of a bungalow roof you could park a fire engine on, a structure far stronger than it needs to be.

 

[HSTEd]

The first issue McNaughton raises, is that excessive pricing or structure spec? The interpretation I’ve seen more often is that the contractors have named the price for building a bungalow on quicksand, when we know the route is probably all soil, gravel and stone. If the government had paid costs plus profit, the contractors would only charge for building on quicksand, or other difficult conditions, where they exist. But his wording is a little ambiguous. Bomb proof makes me think of a bungalow roof you could park a fire engine on, a structure far stronger than it needs to be.

Cost plus contracts have their own downsides however.
They provide various perverse incentives that can cause project costs to runaway.

In reality I think the Government had to hire themselves some actual in house engineers rather than relying on contractors, but that would have been a real pain if it wasn't going to be a large scale programme.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Your map is very persuasive on showing how a main Trunk line would be an obvious start. That means a main line from London-(Birmingham Airport)-Birmingham-Stoke-(Manchester Airport)-Manchester-Leeds-(Thirsk)-Middlesbrough-Newcastle-(Newcastle Airport)-(Newtown St. Boswells)-Edinburgh-(Edinburgh Airport)-Glasgow-(Glasgow Airport). In my mind, this main trunk would have to connect each city MainStation in an underground downtown through station in order to be efficient. I'm against pherifery junction stations. People usually want to go to city centers, where already a good transit net/hub exists. I can see trains making this journey every 10 minutes on peak hours and every 15 minutes on off peak hours. If well planned, the whole route from London to Glasgow could be done in less then 3 hours.

.

 

[Arkeeos]

Your map is very persuasive on showing how a main Trunk line would be an obvious start. That means a main line from London-Stoke-Manchester-Leeds-York-Middlesbrough-Tyneside-Edinburgh-Glasgow. In my mind, this main trunk would have to connect each city center in an underground downtown through station in order to be efficient. I'm against pherifery junction stations. People usually want to go to city centers, where already a good transit net/hub exists. I can see trains making this journey every 10 minutes on peak hours and every 15 minutes on off peak hours. I went ahead and sketched a second line reaching Dublin under the Irish see. So that a line London-Birmingham-(Telford-Oswestry-Bangor-Holyhead)-Dublin-(Drogheda-Dundalk-Newry-Bandbridge)-Belfast would be possible. Liverpool would also be graced with a high speed line connecting Glasgow-Edinburgh-Tyneside-Middlesbrough-York-Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool-(Ryhl-Bangor-Holyhead)-Dublin-(Drogheda-Dundalk-Newry-Bandbridge)-Belfast. Stations in Parenthesis would be strategical Stations, either for Overtaking Trains, Emergency stops, Regional Off-peak Trains, Night Trains or as important Geographic Locations (Holyhead/Bangor as Channel Crossing Station/Junction Station).View attachment 146611

The reverse S design was already considered and the Y network was still chosen, Underground through stations in every city would be copiously expensive as well. And hub/out of town stations are fine, the countries with the best HSR networks, Japan, France and China use them extensively, Shin Osaka isn't even a central train station, and China uses Stations at Airports a lot.

HS2 as designed was a perfectly fine scheme, not perfect, nothing ever is, but good enough. It was cancelled because the ruling party is in disarray, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Underground through stations in every city would be copiously expensive as well

At least on the biggest 5 cities (London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool) It would make sense IMHO a direct downtown underground station. At Glasgow or Belfast the existing station could be used as trains would terminate there and timing would play a smaller roll. But sure, on smaller cities or estrategic Stations a pheripery station would be just fine. If the Irish See Tunnel was also on the table, it would make a Liverpool Station more sense.

 

[HSTEd]

The reverse S design was already considered and the Y network was still chosen, Underground through stations in every city would be copiously expensive as well.

Everything associated iwth HS2 is copiously expensive, and given that all of the cost estimates for HS2 (and thus scheme optimisations) were based on valuations of property etc that were entirely worthless, every output from the process must be considered poisoned.
I don't think the scheme, as envisaged, fits into the wider UK railway network well at all. Thanks to demand for fast services to continue to avoid "punishing" intermediate communities, it seems that there will be negligible reduction in operating costs on the classic lines that are "relieved", as well as few if any paths actually released for other uses.

And hub/out of town stations are fine, the countries with the best HSR networks, Japan, France and China use them extensively, Shin Osaka isn't even a central train station, and China uses Stations at Airports a lot.

Japan don't really use out of town stations in the way HS2 proposes though.
Given Japan's comparatively lax planning laws the out of town stations become in town stations rather rapidly.
That can't happen in this case because planning law will never allow that kind of massive development.

And in France the out of town stations are transparently a political sop with, in most cases, negligible actual transport value.

Neither option is particularly applicable in the UK context.

HS2 as designed was a perfectly fine scheme, not perfect, nothing ever is, but good enough. It was cancelled because the ruling party is in disarray, nothing more, nothing less.

I know it would be preferable if this was true, but the reality is the scheme was collapsing long before the political cuts started.
Even before they started axing things the NAO concluded the scheme was very much not going well.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

But as I mentioned in post #22, that poses potential issues with trains already full to capacity upon reaching Birmingham.

If a good and well planned price structure were to be stablished, that should not happen often. Speccially if a route to Dublin underneath the Irish Sea were to be built, the train supply passing through Birmingham would essentially double.

Reverse 'S' being my personally preference

It would also be my preference. I just don't see why the route must split in the very north between Glasgow and Edinburg. In my mind a single line, with passthrough stations would be much better. Also allowing a quicker connection between those two cities.

 

[HSTEd]

I very much doubt you could fill 18 400m (possibly double deck a la RER A) trains per hour through Birmingham to the point that noone can board them.

If you could, the railway industry will have entered a new golden age that would make the old one look dreary by comparison!

Ofcourse, with ATO they don't necessarily have to be true through stations! The solution for Manchester Piccadilly could be scaled to 18tph I imagine.

 

[The Planner]

Everything associated iwth HS2 is copiously expensive, and given that all of the cost estimates for HS2 (and thus scheme optimisations) were based on valuations of property etc that were entirely worthless, every output from the process must be considered poisoned.
I don't think the scheme, as envisaged, fits into the wider UK railway network well at all. Thanks to demand for fast services to continue to avoid "punishing" intermediate communities, it seems that there will be negligible reduction in operating costs on the classic lines that are "relieved", as well as few if any paths actually released for other uses.

Was there any intention to reduce the operating costs? if you are back filling the released capacity, how do you reduce them?

 

[HSTEd]

Was there any intention to reduce the operating costs? if you are back filling the released capacity, how do you reduce them?

In that scenario the reduction in operating costs would apply to the original services that were operating.

The business case for backfilled services is made separately now that there is capacity available. Justified by, presumably, other income or social benefits that could be gained.

As it stands there will be no released capacity, no reduction of operating costs for legacy services and no income from new services. All that will happen is the legacy classic line services will continue operating whilst haemmorhaging money.

 

[Arkeeos]

Everything associated iwth HS2 is copiously expensive, and given that all of the cost estimates for HS2 (and thus scheme optimisations) were based on valuations of property etc that were entirely worthless, every output from the process must be considered poisoned.
I don't think the scheme, as envisaged, fits into the wider UK railway network well at all. Thanks to demand for fast services to continue to avoid "punishing" intermediate communities, it seems that there will be negligible reduction in operating costs on the classic lines that are "relieved", as well as few if any paths actually released for other uses.

Everything associated with UK infrastructure is copiously expensive* This is not a HS2 unique thing.

And it seems ridiculous to me to think that the paths freed up wouldn't be used, not least by freight. Somewhere like Birmingham absolutely has latent demand for a higher frequency commuter railway. Its also not the goal of the scheme to reduce operating costs.

Japan don't really use out of town stations in the way HS2 proposes though.

Given Japan's comparatively lax planning laws the out of town stations become in town stations rather rapidly.
That can't happen in this case because planning law will never allow that kind of massive development.l.

Not really, stations like Maibara or Shin-kobe exist on the route. Also, of the out of town stations on the HS2, route (the only "true" one being Toton hub) there was massive development proposed around the station.

And that's not getting into China, even in Shanghai the 30 platform railway station is at the airport, far away from the city centre

I know it would be preferable if this was true, but the reality is the scheme was collapsing long before the political cuts started.
Even before they started axing things the NAO concluded the scheme was very much not going well.

The NAO also concluded Crossrail wasn't going very well, it's not a death blow.

And the government isn't even trying to blame it on those issues, the supposed "reason" they gave was post covid travel patterns (which somehow don't affect NPR, or any of the other proposals they laid out).

 

[The Planner]

In that scenario the reduction in operating costs would apply to the original services that were operating.

The business case for backfilled services is made separately now that there is capacity available. Justified by, presumably, other income or social benefits that could be gained.

As it stands there will be no released capacity, no reduction of operating costs for legacy services and no income from new services. All that will happen is the legacy classic line services will continue operating whilst haemmorhaging money.

That assumes Colwich isn't solved. Plenty of work is going on in the background for that. Then there is released capacity on the Trent Valley and south to Euston. Even releasing one train on the Coventry corridor has significant benefits in terms of how you can timetable it.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

It really saddens to see basic proportions and scale, such as Manchester being pictured much closer to Liverpool when it is actually (almost) dead center between Liverpool and Leeds. It's as if planners had a bias since the beginning.