HS2 delayed again?

[Noddy]

Yes, HS1 operates commuter services, but these are just making use of spare capacity not required for international services (which typically run at 2tph and I can't see them ever growing beyond 4tph). HS2 takes on a far greater intercity frequency from day one.

Let’s not forget HS1 only has commuter trains on precisely because it ran into major financial difficulties. It only preceded because the government was prepared/forced to issue bonds and Railtrack agreed to take it over from Union Railways once constructed. It had to be built in two different phases because of this and then when Railtrack ran into its own financial problems London and Continental Railways had to take over. Now that HS1 is bedded folk seem all to easy to forget that HS1 had its own major difficulties getting built, including construction deaths, cost overruns from the original budget and delays.

 

[FMerrymon]

Now that HS1 is bedded folk seem all to easy to forget that HS1 had its own major difficulties getting built, including construction deaths, cost overruns from the original budget and delays.

Yes, a common misconception repeated in the press was that it was on budget, but that was only after a project reset where these were adjusted. I believe it was originally supposed to open in 2003. Also big protests from locals too.

 

[takno]

Let’s not forget HS1 only has commuter trains on precisely because it ran into major financial difficulties. It only preceded because the government had to issue bonds and Railtrack agreed to take it over from Union Railways once constructed. It had to be built in two different phases because of this and they then Railtrack ran into its own financial problems and London and Continental Railways had to take over. Now that HS1 is bedded folk seem all to easy to forget that HS1 had its own major difficulties getting built, including construction deaths, cost overruns from the original budget and delays.

There does seem to be quite a lot of revisionism going on about HS1. I can remember years of furious protest, angry poems in the Guardian, planning battles, and every company involved going bust at least once. Added to which it arrived years after it was needed, leading to the Waterloo terminus running for what seemed like an eternity.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Let’s not forget HS1 only has commuter trains on precisely because it ran into major financial difficulties. It only preceded because the government had to issue bonds and Railtrack agreed to take it over from Union Railways once constructed. It had to be built in two different phases because of this and they then Railtrack ran into its own financial problems and London and Continental Railways had to take over. Now that HS1 is bedded folk seem all to easy to forget that HS1 had its own major difficulties getting built, including construction deaths, cost overruns from the original budget and delays.

Correct but even as constructed its outturn costs were well below the cost/km now forecasted for HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, let's stop all of the Anglo-Scots at Bugbrook...

I don't think Rugby or Northampton or such is really comparable to a small village without a railway station (assuming you mean Bugbrooke).
The railway already stops Anglo-Scots trains (or other long distance trains) at stations on the basis of operational convenience rather than the "importance" of settlements in any case.

All of those places south of Birmingham have little demand going north, almost all of their traffic is London-bound. This can adequately be serviced by the classic line, particularly once the IC services have been moved elsewhere to reduce congestion. The idea that the IC line should directly duplicate all of the commuter stops is preposterous. Yes, HS1 operates commuter services, but these are just making use of spare capacity not required for international services (which typically run at 2tph and I can't see them ever growing beyond 4tph).

The classic line is extremely expensive to operate however.
It will cost the taxpayer a very large amount of money to maintain anything approaching the current service intensity once the most lucrative flows are removed.

Once you account for the Network Grant the WCML operations already absorbing substantial subsidies, the leaked farebox info we got a while ago shows that HS2 will make it much worse.

If a Shinkansen/HS1 type solution had been built, WCML operations would not have to be so extensive and substantial cost reductions would be achievable.
I suggest that the railway and thus society would be better off overall.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I don't object to the idea of HS2 having more stops in principle but at least put them where a decent amount of people live.

Calvert plus 2tph from there to London Marylebone would provide high quality connecting services from the whole Chilterns line area that is currently negatively affected by the construction of HS2. It also links in with east west rail so provides connecting services to Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford.

Yes, let's stop all of the Anglo-Scots at Bugbrook...

All of those places south of Birmingham have little demand going north, almost all of their traffic is London-bound. This can adequately be serviced by the classic line, particularly once the IC services have been moved elsewhere to reduce congestion. The idea that the IC line should directly duplicate all of the commuter stops is preposterous. Yes, HS1 operates commuter services, but these are just making use of spare capacity not required for international services (which typically run at 2tph and I can't see them ever growing beyond 4tph). HS2 takes on a far greater intercity frequency from day one.

Frankly no one has any idea because the current service level is pretty weak and involves lots of changes to unreliable services. Oxford to e.g Windermere involves at least 2 changes, and is slower and less reliable than driving.

It is extremely annoying that the first stop for the Anglo-Scottish services is Warrington Bank Quay. Why can’t they at least stop at Stafford or Milton Keynes?

Perhaps but for me it is still mainly NIMBYism lead by the Tory MP from Buckingham who has previously sat on the Transport Select Committee who's name escapes me currently

Greg Smith. And he gets away with it because the HS2 construction is extremely annoying and provides ~0 benefits to Buckinghamshire.

Correct but even as constructed its outturn costs were well below the cost/km now forecasted for HS2.

And the (expensive) tunnelled London approaches were absolutely definitely necessary for HS1 and were a much larger percentage of the overall project compared to HS2.

 

[Palmerston]

Looking at the actual HS2 route, where would you stop on the way? Aylesbury population 63,000? Brackley population 16,000 is about halfway with decent links to M40 and M1, but not on either. Doesn't seem worthwhile.

 

[HSTEd]

Looking at the actual HS2 route, where would you stop on the way? Aylesbury population 63,000? Brackley population 16,000 is about halfway with decent links to M40 and M1, but not on either. Doesn't seem worthwhile.

Well that cuts to the heart of it.
The HS2 route has nowhere to stop, because it selects a route where there is noone to serve.

If the route had been designed with intermediate statoins from the beginning it would not run through such a rural area.

 

[cle]

The only thing would be to build a four track (two sides, plus passing tracks) - station where it crossed EWR. Build those platforms too.

And then build a big new town around it, or a massive mall, or some type of relocated government function to kick-start it. And you have 25-30 min expresses to both London and Birmingham, and also to Oxford and MKC in similar time. In time, a second MK.

 

[FMerrymon]

Well that cuts to the heart of it.
The HS2 route has nowhere to stop, because it selects a route where there is noone to serve.

If the route had been designed with intermediate statoins from the beginning it would not run through such a rural area.

Running through urban areas would cost a lot more. This is why it's best to leave the intermediate station traffic to the existing lines which already serve the urban centres and can provide a high frequency service with the expresses out of the way.

An intermediate station would have reduced capacity for the original full network and if the locals weren't happy with hs2, they would likely be even less happy with the size of settlement around a station that would be required to make such a stop remotely viable.

 

[HSTEd]

Running through urban areas would cost a lot more.

It probably wouldn't, because once HS2 inevitably lost its political battle it ended up putting a huge portion of the route in tunnels regardless.

Bored tunnels don't care that much what is above them.
The reality is that bad management and unwinnable battles over routing and technical characteristics cost far more than any increases from increased tunneling.

This is why it's best to leave the intermediate station traffic to the existing lines which already serve the urban centres and can provide a high frequency service with the expresses out of the way.

Assuming you are willing to provide the subsidies required to do it for the rest of time, of course.
Accounting for the network grant the WCML operators already consume substantial subsidy.

It will be well over a billion a year, forever, once HS2 guts the long distance traffic.

An intermediate station would have reduced capacity for the original full network and

Only if you attempt mixed stopping patterns.
Intermediate stations only consume capacity if you try to keep "fast" and "slow" trains. HS1's domestic services do not do this, and do not suffer from reduced capacity. Even HS2 does this at Old Oak COmmon.

The UK's geography is such that the majority of north-south rail journeys will be short by european standards. This removes the need to keep average speeds very high to compete with domestic air - which is functionally an irrelevance in the UK.
The opponent is the car, and high frequency services at moderate average speeds (~85-100mph) can still easily beat the car.

 

[Grimsby town]

It probably wouldn't, because once HS2 inevitably lost its political battle it ended up putting a huge portion of the route in tunnels regardless.

Bored tunnels don't care that much what is above them.
The reality is that bad management and unwinnable battles over routing and technical characteristics cost far more than any increases from increased tunneling.

But it's not the tunnels costs that would be the issue, although I'd have thought even that would be more expensive in terms of needs to consult and monitor. It's the building of new underground stations or adapting current stations to accommodate the highspeed rail. Building areas is significantly more logistically complex than building in rural areas where you can build haul roads and connect them into the strategic road network. That's before considering that a route going through urban areas would be longer and include more stations. It'd have been far more expensive.

 

[brad465]

Looking at the actual HS2 route, where would you stop on the way? Aylesbury population 63,000? Brackley population 16,000 is about halfway with decent links to M40 and M1, but not on either. Doesn't seem worthwhile.

Well that cuts to the heart of it.
The HS2 route has nowhere to stop, because it selects a route where there is noone to serve.

If the route had been designed with intermediate statoins from the beginning it would not run through such a rural area.

There was a RAIL article a while back that cited had HS2 followed HS1 and a number of European HS lines, by sharing motorway corridors, the cost would have been far lower and could well have been done by now. It may not have been as fast (300kph max), but following motorways would have saved on a load of land purchases and reduced the level of NIMBY opposition (can't complain when there's already a motorway there). For HS2 this would have been parallel to the M40 on phase 1, then the M6 and M1 for phase 2.

 

[mrmartin]

There was a RAIL article a while back that cited had HS2 followed HS1 and a number of European HS lines, by sharing motorway corridors, the cost would have been far lower and could well have been done by now. It may not have been as fast (300kph max), but following motorways would have saved on a load of land purchases and reduced the level of NIMBY opposition (can't complain when there's already a motorway there). For HS2 this would have been parallel to the M40 on phase 1, then the M6 and M1 for phase 2.

This was my sense that the 400km/h specification (for whatever reason that was done) was the first huge error that set off the rest of the dominos. This caused the route to be constrained and I assume a lot of non standard design/procurement as nowhere else does it. Combine that with the foreseeable huge NIMBY backlash which then required far more mitigation than sane.

Why did they even consider 400km/h running on such a "short" network (by global standards?). Was the idea to run London to Glasgow virtually non stop or something?

Btw, HS2 is eating an astonishing amount of the transport budget up (and these delays will extend this further):

Where does it all go?

A breakdown of UK government spending

wheredoesitallgo.org

More is being spent on HS2 limited right now than the entity of National Highways (which I assume includes opex and capex). I'm extremely pro high speed rail - but even I cannot justify this on any economic basis.

 

[HSTEd]

But it's not the tunnels costs that would be the issue, although I'd have thought even that would be more expensive in terms of needs to consult and monitor. It's the building of new underground stations or adapting current stations to accommodate the highspeed rail.

Compact underground stations seem unlikely to drive costs that high given that the project is now comparable in cost per kilometre to an Alpine Base Tunnel

Building areas is significantly more logistically complex than building in rural areas where you can build haul roads and connect them into the strategic road network.

Yes, but it avoids picking nigh unwinnable battles by tearing through the middle of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The AONB imposed enormous political and ultimately economic costs on the project that could have been avoided.

Yes, in a purely technical world, empty fields are easier to build in, but we don't live in a purely technical world.

That's before considering that a route going through urban areas would be longer and include more stations. It'd have been far more expensive.

It would only be a relatively handful of kilometres longer. If the route via the M1 corridor was much longer the WCML would have been superseded by an analogue to the Portsmouth Direct Line.
It might have been more expensive (depends on the butterfly effect and project management) but would have reduced costs on the classic railway by so much that it would have been a better deal for society.

EDIT:
A straight line from Euston to Birmingham Moor Street is around 160km, a straight line that goes through Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry is around 171km.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Looking at the actual HS2 route, where would you stop on the way? Aylesbury population 63,000? Brackley population 16,000 is about halfway with decent links to M40 and M1, but not on either. Doesn't seem worthwhile.

Aylesbury urban area is 95000 and there are fairly large villages and market towns that are close, wealthy and fairly large including Thame, Haddenham, Princes Risborough, Aston Clinton, Wendover and Tring.

EDIT: The two towns with stations nearish to them on LGV Sud Est have 20k and 34k people respectively. And on LGV Sud Europe Atlantique Poitiers urban area is bigger at 280k. But Angoulême which has direct TGV service and two flying junctions is only 110k which is only slightly larger than Aylesbury. Kakegawa on the Tokaido Shinkansen is only 117k as an Asian example.

A straight line from Euston to Birmingham Moor Street is around 160km, a straight line that goes through Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry is around 171km.

So at 300km/h that costs you 132 seconds, maybe 150 with padding. Tiny in the scale of things.

 

[The Planner]

So at 300km/h that costs you 132 seconds, maybe 150 with padding. Tiny in the scale of things.

What about station calls?

 

[JamesT]

This was my sense that the 400km/h specification (for whatever reason that was done) was the first huge error that set off the rest of the dominos. This caused the route to be constrained and I assume a lot of non standard design/procurement as nowhere else does it. Combine that with the foreseeable huge NIMBY backlash which then required far more mitigation than sane.

Why did they even consider 400km/h running on such a "short" network (by global standards?). Was the idea to run London to Glasgow virtually non stop or something?

Nowhere does 400km/h running ‘yet’, speeds have gradually increased over time across the world. The first TGV were 270km/h, now they’re doing 320km/h. The Chinese are doing 350km/h. HS2 is planning to start service with trains timetabled for 320km/h with the ability to do 360km/h to make up time. Alstom’s AGV was doing those speeds a decade ago.
But whereas train performance generally increases over time, you only get to choose your alignment once. If you build to 300km/h, that’s probably it. After the amount it’s costing (and a little slower doesn’t save hardly anything), what do you think the response would be if they came back and asked for more to upgrade to what becomes standard?

 

[mike57]

Btw, HS2 is eating an astonishing amount of the transport budget up (and these delays will extend this further):

Seeing it like that really brings home just how much of a drain HS2 is.

If the route via the M1 corridor

'Common sense' HS2. 300kph/190mph, but maybe 220kph/250kph until out of London and other tunnelled sections. Start at Kings X St Pancras (Or Euston if you must...), tunnel to near Cricklewood, then follow MML alignment to the north circular, there looks to be quite a bit of spare railway land anyway, then pretty much follow M1/MML alingment, with tunnels at places like St Albans as far Luton, where you tunnel, with maybe a Luton HS2 under the existing station. Then follow M1 towards Rugby. Birmingham/WCML route splits here keeping north of Coventry and then tunneled into Birmingham via the airport. Connection to Trent valley line near Rugby, with the next section to Crewe running along a similar alignment to existing Trent Valley line as the next phase. At Rugby eastern leg continues towards Leicester possibly using part of the old GC formation. This then gets extended in two stages, to Derby/Nottingham, and then onwards to Sheffield and Leeds.

A lot of industrial stuff has sprung up close to the M1, and this will bring less opposition than going through the Chilterns, if businesses are affected (slightly over?)compensate them properly and plan it to ensure business continuity. A lot easier than dealing with NIMBYs

Brings benefits to a much wider area than the current disaster.

If you could average 125mph/200kph end to end including one or two stops Birmingham would be 50 minutes ish from London, is there any benefit in trying to shave another 5 or 10 minutes off this?

Deploy boots on the ground to keep a rolling build going over the various extensions, start the Rugby - Crewe, then as the early design/build resources get released move them on to the next bit and so on.

I keeping hearing about all the studies done before the current project kicked off that 'picked' the best route, I am going to be polite and say they are rubbish given where we are now, you cant argue with the numbers.

 

[Geogregor]

Compact underground stations seem unlikely to drive costs

They would absolutely drive the costs. Everyone in the industry will tell you. It is what drove the cost of Crossrail and many other projects.

The idea that building HS2 through, or close to, build up areas on the stretch between London and Birmingham would be easier is preposterous. Building in urban areas is always, I mean always, way more expensive.

Let's remember that HS2 originally suppose to be long distance backbone of the country's rail network on the north - south axis. It was good idea before it was chopped up. Some of that might still happen, but probably once most of us on this forum will be on the other side of Hades.

Areas between Birmingham and London can be perfectly adequately served by WCML once the long distance fast trains are removed.

 

[HSTEd]

They would absolutely drive the costs. Everyone in the industry will tell you. It is what drove the cost of Crossrail and many other projects.

The idea that building HS2 through, or close to, build up areas on the stretch between London and Birmingham would be easier is preposterous. Building in urban areas is always, I mean always, way more expensive.

How many stations per kilometre did Crossrail have?

Adding a small handful of additional intermediate stations are not going to break the bank on a project now tipping the scales at £50+bn (2019 prices). Indeed, it wouldn't even break the bank at the original claimed costs.


And once again, "easier" is not the same as "cheaper".
HS2 thought it had a cheap route and that the political aspects could be ignored, they learned the hard way that this was not true and they've killed their own project as a result.

Let's remember that HS2 originally suppose to be long distance backbone of the country's rail network on the north - south axis. It was good idea before it was chopped up. Some of that might still happen, but probably once most of us on this forum will be on the other side of Hades.

There is no serious source of "long distance" traffic in the UK. Anglo-Scottish services might have enormous psychic impact, but they do not represent a large portion of actual traffic. There simply are not enough people in Scotland amd the very north of England for it to be otherwise.

Which is why a substantial portion of all the trains on the HS2 masterplan, and an even larger proportion of passenger traffic had journeys well under 2 hours.

A third of all paths in the plan, and more of the passengers, have total journeys under 70 minutes.

It's insane to build a railway focusing on long distance passengers when that category, as is understood abroad, barely exists at all.

Areas between Birmingham and London can be perfectly adequately served by WCML once the long distance fast trains are removed.

At the cost of far more operational spending until the end of time.
A shinkansen type solution would allow an awful lot to be stripped out of the classic railway's cost base.

 

[mike57]

If you build to 300km/h, that’s probably it.

To be honest we dont need anything faster, in France one of the longer journeys is around 600m/1000km on a TGV in ~4h40m. Thats with a max speed of 300/320km/hr (Lille - Marseille). In China the distances are much greater, with 2000km+ journeys now being possible, hence why they are looking to increase speeds. Realistically in the UK the high speed lines will never extend much beyond the Manchester - Leeds axis, which is ~200m/300km from London. Anything beyond that will probably be on enhanced classic lines, maybe 140mph/225km/hr, so to me the arguements for anything over 300/320kph just dont stack up because the distances are not long enough to make it worth while.

We are stuck with what we have and its going to be soaking up a huge proportion of the transport budget for a good few years yet. What it has done is effectively kill off any hope of further high speed rail in the UK for a long time. No doubt there will be little tweaks probably to extend to Crewe, because not doing so makes no sense, but beyond that, nothing would be my guess. As for certain NW politicians talking up a Liverpool Manchester lines for example, to me they are in a parallel unviverse where HS2 hasnt happened or has happened but isn't the money black hole that the current project has turned into.

Negative, yes, but I think thats pretty much where we are now.

 

[Grimsby town]

Compact underground stations seem unlikely to drive costs that high given that the project is now comparable in cost per kilometre to an Alpine Base Tunnel

But still far below Crossrail. Manchester's underground station is forecast to cost billions. More complex civil engineering and significantly more stringent fire regulations apply to underground stations. If building underground was cheaper, we'd have a lot mote underground infrastructure in the UK.

Yes, but it avoids picking nigh unwinnable battles by tearing through the middle of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The AONB imposed enormous political and ultimately economic costs on the project that could have been avoided.

Yes, in a purely technical world, empty fields are easier to build in, but we don't live in a purely technical world.

Most of it is tunneled through the AONB anyway but you don't seem to be considering that the UKs terrible planning laws also apply to cities. I'll acknowledge that people in these city centres will see far more benefits than those in Buckinghamshire, but there are definitely still Nimbys in cities. There'll be arguments over increased construction traffic and potential traffic while operational for example. Less of the population may raise these concerns than in Buckinghamshire but the number of people impacted by construction is likely to be higher in city centres. See Euston for example where there has been huge local opposition.

There's also potential for more disruption to existing transport infrastructure which will drive opposition. In rural Bucks it's easy enough to build road bridges on a different alignment and keep the existing road open. That's not the case in a city centre. A good example would be the potential loss of through Ashton Metrolink services for the construction of Manchester's HS2.

It also has to be assumed that other issues driving HS2s cost such as poor contracting, high cost inflation due to covid and the war, gold plating, and inadequate ground condition surveys. A lot of the cost issues are nothing to do with the chosen route.

It would only be a relatively handful of kilometres longer. If the route via the M1 corridor was much longer the WCML would have been superseded by an analogue to the Portsmouth Direct Line.
It might have been more expensive (depends on the butterfly effect and project management) but would have reduced costs on the classic railway by so much that it would have been a better deal for society.

EDIT:
A straight line from Euston to Birmingham Moor Street is around 160km, a straight line that goes through Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry is around 171km.

Even with 11km, based on HS2s cost per km, it'd would likely cost an additional £1-2 billion. That's a lot of savings to find.

There was a RAIL article a while back that cited had HS2 followed HS1 and a number of European HS lines, by sharing motorway corridors, the cost would have been far lower and could well have been done by now. It may not have been as fast (300kph max), but following motorways would have saved on a load of land purchases and reduced the level of NIMBY opposition (can't complain when there's already a motorway there). For HS2 this would have been parallel to the M40 on phase 1, then the M6 and M1 for phase 2.

It's likely a load of rubbish. Arup proposed a route that somewhat followed the M40 and they costed it at slightly higher than the chosen HS2 route. It still included significant tunneling to pass through the AONB and under development that exists alongside the motorway.

 

[FMerrymon]

It's likely a load of rubbish. Arup proposed a route that somewhat followed the M40 and they costed it at slightly higher than the chosen HS2 route. It still included significant tunneling to pass through the AONB and under development that exists alongside the motorway.

Yes, it almost certainly is. The article was likely referring to Mark Bostock, who was trying to sell the Heathrow Hub idea.

The M40 is a more recent build to the M2 and M20, and winds around settlements and woodlands. Even at much slower speeds, a rail line would not be able to run close and would leave islands of wasted land. This document goes through the different options and
why they were rejected. M1 and M40 routes feature https://view.officeapps.live.com/op...e-selection-and-speed.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

To be honest we dont need anything faster, in France one of the longer journeys is around 600m/1000km on a TGV in ~4h40m. Thats with a max speed of 300/320km/hr (Lille - Marseille)

French alignments are 350-400kmh and design speed is 330. Italy were building alignments to 400kmh too, with current operations at 300kmh. Hs2 is timetabled for 330kmh, so the differences in speed isn't that great.

The biggest cost difference between hs2 and European builds is reaching the city centres and the large stations all included within the headline costs and built for the high capacity required.

Aylesbury urban area is 95000 and there are fairly large villages and market towns that are close, wealthy and fairly large including Thame, Haddenham, Princes Risborough, Aston Clinton, Wendover and Tring.

Aylesbury *should* benefit from hs2 upgrading some of the line and building provision for ewr to MK (the infamous bat tunnel clears 4 lines for example). Old oak also has provision for a Chiltern terminus which would help capacity and provide connectity to those coming from those places in the Chilterns - an OOC-MK via PR was expected. Tring benefits from the released capacity on wcml.

 

[MatthewHutton]

What about station calls?

The Nozomi isn’t going to stop at the medium sized places. What is important is that something does.

There is an argument for being slightly ruthless about your stops and having 1-2 between London and Birmingham and stopping maybe every other train at each and basically only running Hikari service. London-Manchester is 300km not 515 like Tokyo-Osaka.

There is no serious source of "long distance" traffic in the UK. Anglo-Scottish services might have enormous psychic impact, but they do not represent a large portion of actual traffic. There simply are not enough people in Scotland amd the very north of England for it to be otherwise.

Also it is all London-Edinburgh and London-Glasgow. And if you can get those down to ~3.5 hours which you can with a full build of TGV lines to Leeds/Manchester that will be more than sufficient to compete with air.

Aylesbury *should* benefit from hs2 upgrading some of the line and building provision for ewr to MK (the infamous bat tunnel clears 4 lines for example). Old oak also has provision for a Chiltern terminus which would help capacity and provide connectity to those coming from those places in the Chilterns - an OOC-MK via PR was expected. Tring benefits from the released capacity on wcml.

Old Oak common if it ever gets Chiltern service which I doubt as most people want to go to Marylebone only benefits the chiltern main line not Aylesbury.

Tring already has extremely strong connections to London.

The rest is exceedingly marginal. Barely more than a new roof for the village hall.

The biggest cost difference between hs2 and European builds is reaching the city centres and the large stations all included within the headline costs and built for the high capacity required.

Most of that also applies to HS1 which was a lot cheaper.

An Antwerpen Centraal style station with 4 tracks for Manchester and Birmingham would be £2.5bn for the pair.

 

[SynthD]

The Chiltern tunnel is from West Hyde near Rickmansworth to South Heath near Chesham. That is the widest part of the Chiltern AONB, and the tunnel is 3/4 of that distance. Plus, there are parts of that stretch outside the AONB, where tunnel buildings could be built easier.

110km, three intermediate stations and two connections to classic routes.

HS1 is short (or you're excluding the tunnel and LGV Nord). Ignore the distance for a moment. HS2 as once planned would reach Manchester with three intermediate stations and two connections to classic routes. But why not call for extra HS1 stations, like Hythe and Rochester, as people live there.

The question of why was 400km/h specced has been answered a few times. Does anyone have a response to the response of "overseas high speed operators strongly recommended this speed". If we are supposed to learn from what other countries have done, why shouldn't we learn from what they wished they had done?

 

[HSTEd]

The question of why was 400km/h specced has been answered a few times. Does anyone have a response to the response of "overseas high speed operators strongly recommended this speed". If we are supposed to learn from what other countries have done, why shouldn't we learn from what they wished they had done?

Overseas operators are, for the most part, operating in an entirely different environment to that found in Britain?

The first station on LGV Sud-Est is almost as far from Paris as Manchester is from London.
Running at very high speed might make sense when you are going to keep it up for very long distances.

The length of track that HS2 actually applied this 400km/h future proofing to is rather short, considering that all their tunnels are shrinkwrapped to their specific train cross section and operational regime. To the point of requiring non-standard ventilation control and making the bulk of the running tunnels unliveable during an emergency evacuation.

The only way you are getting significant 400km/h operation on HS2 is by fitting enormous Shinkansen noses!

 

[mike57]

overseas high speed operators strongly recommended this speed

I think this needs to considered in the light of distances. Both France and Italy have potentially double or more the distance between major centres. Germany have a significant amount of 250kph lines. Dedicated high speed lines are unlikely to extend north much beyond the Leeds - Manchester axis. The best we will get is enhanced classic lines. So dedicated high speed routes will top out at ~200m/300km centre to centre in this country. The majority (at a guess 75%) of the UK population lives with a box which is roughly 120miles wide and 250 miles north to south encompassing Leeds and Manchester at the northern end, and the south coast at the southern end, and extending west to Bristol. That doesnt discount those outside it, but demand will be lower from the remoter areas, certainly not enough to justify a dedicated high speed line, with the possible exception of a single Scotland central belt route south, and even that may be more political than needed.

The learning from HS2 is we cannot afford a 'gold plated' solution, and in going down that route we have basically killed any hope of further high speed lines for a generation at least.

What suits other national operators may not fit the UK situation. China are pushing speeds upwards, but their distances are far greater, the longest high speed route is now ~2700km. We don’t need to go as fast, on a 220 mile end to end journey, what difference is 300km/hr v 400km/hr running going to make, you have lower speeds anyway on the last 10 miles into London (225kph I think) and a similar run in to Birmingham. So allowing for acceleration and braking my guess is minutes on London Birmingham and maybe 10 or so minutes if we ever get to Manchester. I have pretty much given up hope on the eastern leg.

So yes you do listen to other operators, but look at their operation, and consider if their criteria and requirements apply in this country or need modification to suit our situation and geography, we are trying to thread a line through a relatively heavily populated area even when away from the main centres of population.

Having travelled in France I am always surprised just how suddenly you go from fairly busy suburban areas to almost empty space (farms and small villages) when leaving Paris or one of the other big cities, this must make route planning easier.

 

[Krokodil]

The learning from HS2 is we cannot afford a 'gold plated' solution

How much did a 400km/h alignment inflate costs by though?

 

[mike57]

How much did a 400km/h alignment inflate costs by though?

I doubt you would get a truthful answer off those in the driving seat when the project kicked off, they were trying to justify 400km/hr

If you had a lower speed alignment would you have followed the same route? Probably not.

I suspect that lower speeds coupled with a route that didn't pass through NimbyShire might have resulted in a project that would still have over run due to external factors (COVID, War) but wouldn't be the huge black hole the current project is.