HS2 - new Gibb proposal - new new rolling stock

[Trainbike46]

I still think the best solution for Scotland (and Liverpool, Blackpool, and Lancaster) is too extend platforms to 400m at at least Crewe and Carlisle, and then run:

2 tph London - Carlisle (split) - Edinburgh/Glasgow*
2 tph London - Crewe (split) - Liverpool (2tph)/Blackpool(1tph)/Carlisle(1tph)*

*For simplicity, I have not included all stops on these services, but there would be stops not listed here.

If capacity allows, it would be good to run the Scotland train more frequently, e.g. 3/4 tph.

That means the only place that really needs 250/300m trains would be the Manchester services. A better way to resolve the capacity drop there might be to increase the service frequency, e.g. to 4tph instead of the current 3tph.

Gibb's proposal to insist on tilt is wrongheaded in my view, it just adds cost, at a significant disadvantage for passenger comfort. Better to accept the slightly lower top speed on the classic lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to recall it'd be hard to path that on the north WCML. However there are ways it could be made possible, such as minimum power to weight requirements for freight. Single 66s pulling long freight trains slowing to well under linespeed on Shap are just a costly waste of scarce paths compared to using an electric or two 66s.

 

[Snow1964]

There is lot of common sense / logic too.
Although the tilting option seems wrong.

XC is short of rolling stock, so getting Birmingham-Manchester utilising 200m trains frees up stock.

Of course if HS2 services take until 2037 (where did that year come from ?) to be fully operational, there are plenty of other services that could use them in interim, eg Cardiff-London, some Transpennine etc, freeing up bimodes.

Surely a bimode is more suited to services like Bristol-Newcastle than pure diesel train, especially ones than fill Birmingham New Street with exhaust fumes.

My hunch is if start faffing about with variations on the 200m length of HS2 order, costs will rocket, compared to accepting them as specified. So better to use them as is, and then integrate them into a 2030-2040 cascade, than waste money changing the order.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My hunch is if start faffing about with variations on the 200m length of HS2 order, costs will rocket, compared to accepting them as specified.

People keep saying this, but WMT made changes to the 730 order and that was affordable. The changes just slightly reduced the number of vehicles to pay for it and didn't add cost, if I recall. And that was after they'd already started building some of them!

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder if the existing order might be reformed such that a pair of 200m trains is replaced by one of ~260m and another of ~140m. That would use the same number of driving cars and still allow 400m trains to be made up from one of each, also two shorter units might be combined to be the equivalent of one longer version at ~280m. Similar to the 5 and 9 car IET formations.

HS2's "groundbreaking" design prohibits the use of non 200m units as part of a coupled train.

The emergency evacuation will not be possible unless escape doors are directly aligned with the relevant evacuation points, because temperatures in the tunnel during an emergency stop evacuation situation will reach 50 celsius.
This is a result of the very tight tunnel envelope specified by HS2.

It's 2x200m or single units.

 

[Trainbike46]

I seem to recall it'd be hard to path that on the north WCML. However there are ways it could be made possible, such as minimum power to weight requirements for freight. Single 66s pulling long freight trains slowing to well under linespeed on Shap are just a costly waste of scarce paths compared to using an electric or two 66s.

Assuming this is in reply to me, what would be hard to path?

The 2tph Scotland + 2tph Liverpool/Blackpool/Carlisle?

Or the suggestion of going to 3 tph London-Scotland?

Or the suggestion of going to 4 tph London-Manchester?

People keep saying this, but WMT made changes to the 730 order and that was affordable. The changes just slightly reduced the number of vehicles to pay for it and didn't add cost, if I recall. And that was after they'd already started building some of them!

Hasn't the experience with Hitachi been that making changes after the order has been placed is very expensive.

I guess there is no harm in asking Hitachi how much the costs of changing the order would be, if it's unreasonable we can still stick with the order as signed!

 

[HSTEd]

The Avelia Liberty?

Huh yeah.

I guess that is pretty much the only option that actually exists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming this is in reply to me, what would be hard to path?

The 2tph Scotland + 2tph Liverpool/Blackpool/Carlisle?

Or the suggestion of going to 3 tph London-Scotland?

Or the suggestion of going to 4 tph London-Manchester?

An additional Scotland train per hour on the WCML north of Preston. I've suggested the proposed Preston/Lancaster 200m unit should run to Carlisle (so Oxenholme and Penrith don't lose direct London services which are valuable for tourism) but was told (I think by @The Planner?) that that couldn't be pathed due to the freight.

 

[Trainbike46]

An additional Scotland train per hour on the WCML north of Preston. I've suggested the proposed Preston/Lancaster 200m unit should run to Carlisle (so Oxenholme and Penrith don't lose direct London services which are valuable for tourism) but was told (I think by @The Planner?) that that couldn't be pathed due to the freight.

Thank you!

Your solution of specifying minimum performance for freight may be a good one though.

 

[Sorcerer]

My hunch is if start faffing about with variations on the 200m length of HS2 order, costs will rocket, compared to accepting them as specified.

For Zefiro units a 200m long unit is an eight-coach unit with 25m coaches. Extending that to nine would give us a 225m unit, to ten a 250m unit, and to eleven a 275m unit. So beyond asking for a few extra coaches the specification for longer units doesn't seem like it should be too expensive since the only change is the number of coaches. Indeed Virgin originally accepted the first 34 Pendolino trains in eight-coach formations before having a ninth added in 2004, so I don't see how it should be much harder for trains that haven't even began construction yet.

 

[MarkyT]

HS2's "groundbreaking" design prohibits the use of non 200m units as part of a coupled train.

The emergency evacuation will not be possible unless escape doors are directly aligned with the relevant evacuation points, because temperatures in the tunnel during an emergency stop evacuation situation will reach 50 celsius.
This is a result of the very tight tunnel envelope specified by HS2.

It's 2x200m or single units.

If doors were always spaced the same, whether on a driving or intermediate car then surely it wouldn't matter where the unit join was along a complete train's length.

 

[Zomboid]

Might preclude the use of 140+140 units though. I don't see why a 260+140 would be an insurmountable problem if that were a requirement.

 

[NCT]

It means the longer unit would be aligned with 2 emergency exits while the shorter unit none.

 

[Tobberz]

It is incredibly difficult for me to understand why we have 2037 for a partial opening date. 12 years... how?

Sure, maybe allow up to two years for testing, but that's still 10 years left of construction/civils etc! A mystery.

 

[Austriantrain]

I'd beg to differ, the current non EPS uplift has very little 125.

What would you estimate the Journey time difference to be between Handsacre and Glasgow on tilt/non-tilt (I would suspect it would be very Little on the Manchester and Liverpools route) on a „Fast“ schedule (stops in Preston and Carlisle)?

Thank you!

 

[Trainbike46]

It is incredibly difficult for me to understand why we have 2037 for a partial opening date. 12 years... how?

Sure, maybe allow up to two years for testing, but that's still 10 years left of construction/civils etc! A mystery.

Has anyone figured out where the 2037 date comes from?

You can take infinitely long for a project though, just look at the Netherlands where they are hoping to start engineering works this year on an electrification project due to finish in 2019! Or Germany where a bridge replacement project after a crash was scheduled to take 10 years and they're now behind schedule so likely won't finish on schedule

 

[The Planner]

2037 is based on spreading the cost. Not a lot else.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 17:02 ==

What would you estimate the Journey time difference to be between Handsacre and Glasgow on tilt/non-tilt (I would suspect it would be very Little on the Manchester and Liverpools route) on a „Fast“ schedule (stops in Preston and Carlisle)?

Thank you!

Tilt would be around 3:10 ish. There must be a HS2 time quoted somewhere. I'd expect 10-15 slower.

 

[43096]

Viewpoint: Buy tilting trains and finish Delta Junction to salvage HS2, says Gibb

UK: Procurement of a fleet of tilting trains and a focus on Birmingham - Manchester services are key to making the most the descoped High Speed 2 scheme, former Virgin Trains executive Chris Gibb tells Rail Business UK.

www.railwaygazette.com

Summary:

• OOC to Brum now not expected to open until 2037
• Pendolino will be life expired 2037-2040
• New tilting stock with 286m length should be procured for London to Glasgow and Manchester with 300kmh top speed
• Fit out Handsacre north curve and run Brum - Manchester over that with existing order of 200m stock instead of XC service, in addition to use on the London - Birmingham services

Sounds reasonable to me. Am wondering what the HS2 rolling stock will be doing between say 2030 and 2037.. Long Marston storage, or actually get used...?

Has any country built a 300km/h tilting train, let alone one to GB loading gauge?

 

[Brubulus]

325M trains would be the best option for London-Manchester, given that is the longest length that the platforms at Piccadilly can accommodate.
Not that many trains were ordered in the initial HS2 order and there is still a place for 200M trains.
Ordering a second batch of 325M stock is a good idea, or 300M if that is impossible.

In terms of service pattern, with HS2 phase 1 you are limited severely by Colwich, so the best that could happen is 3tph London-Manchester
2tph London-Liverpool splitting at Crewe for Lancaster and Chester (I know 805s were planned for Chester, but it's a waste of a path) and 1tph London to Glasgow/Edinburgh fast. Then you still have 1path through Colwich left so you can run a Birmingham-Manchester HS2 service.

Remember this would only enable 1 tph conventional through the Trent Valley and no increase in freight through Colwich, showing that at least an extension to Hixon or Baldwin Gate is necessary.

Tilting trains is unnecessary and running 2 completely distinct HS2 fleets would be an operational annoyance.

 

[Nottingham59]

Tilt would be around 3:10 ish. There must be a HS2 time quoted somewhere. I'd expect 10-15 slower.

According to the HS2 train specification,

A 200m Train shall achieve a journey time of less than 03:45:30 (hours minutes seconds) between London Euston and Glasgow Central, in either direction, including two-minute stops at Old Oak Common and Preston. ... Rationale: HS2 has a high-level requirement for London-Glasgow journey time of less than four hours.

I believe this applies for Phase One, joining WCML at Handsacre.

Assuming HS2 trains can get to Handsacre is the same time as they get to Curzon St (45min spec, 49 min timetabled), this implies a Handsacre-Glasgow time of 3:11 for the Handsacre-Glasgow leg.

 

[MarkyT]

It means the longer unit would be aligned with 2 emergency exits while the shorter unit none.

The general spacing of evacuation passages appears to be 500m, as per TSI maximum, although designers may have reduced this to 350m around preferred evacuation points. For either distance a 2x200m train could stop with only one unit having an emergency door roughly opposite its own passenger doors, so with a random stop position some people may need to walk past a pair of driving vehicles to reach the nearest passageway. Does it really matter where in the 400m formation those two noses are coupled? It's likely more important to avoid or minimise evacuating passengers having to walk along the narrow side platform beyond the length of the complete train, as there is increased risk of falling onto the track. If a driver is trying to optimally position in a preferred evac zone, the 350m spacing is good for serving both units, whatever their relative lengths.

 

[HSTEd]

The general spacing of evacuation passages appears to be 500m, as per TSI maximum, although designers may have reduced this to 350m around preferred evacuation points. For either distance a 2x200m train could stop with only one unit having an emergency door roughly opposite its own passenger doors, so with a random stop position some people may need to walk past a pair of driving vehicles to reach the nearest passageway. Does it really matter where in the 400m formation those two noses are coupled? It's likely more important to avoid or minimise evacuating passengers having to walk along the narrow side platform beyond the length of the complete train, as there is increased risk of falling onto the track.

The trains will not be designed for random stop positions.

The trains will be designed such that the emergency stop will result in trains having the designated emergency exit doors directly adjacent to the evacuation passages.

As I said, the temperature inside the tunnel is stated, in the specification, to reach 50 celsius in this scenario. The tunnel ventilation has been designed to create bubbles of cool air around the evacuation passages to permit evacuation to occur.

Anyone who attempts to walk a significant distance along the tunnel will rapidly succumb to heat exhaustion.

EDIT:

From the HS2 Train technical specificaiton (Section 7.15.7.2):

The Unit shall have exactly two Evacuation Doors per side, which shall be positioned along the length of the Unit such that when two Units are coupled, in any possible orientation, the centrelines of two Evacuation Doors (one per Unit) are 350±10m apart.

And the given rationale:

Rationale:
HS2 interface - This is to support the tunnel evacuation strategy. The HS2 tunnels have cross passages every 350m±2m. The tunnel ventilation will be able to create a bubble of fresh air 10m in each direction from the cross-passage door. A 400m Train should be able to stop with at least one doorway of each Unit located in an air bubble adjacent to a cross passage.

HS2 is an incredibly "shrinkwrapped" railway. It can do exactly what the designers intended it to do, and precious little else.

 

[Zomboid]

According to the HS2 train specification,

I believe this applies for Phase One, joining WCML at Handsacre.

Assuming HS2 trains can get to Handsacre is the same time as they get to Curzon St (45min spec, 49 min timetabled), this implies a Handsacre-Glasgow time of 3:11 for the Handsacre-Glasgow leg.

1S86 is scheduled to pass Lichfield TV at 1734 and arrive Glasgow Central at 2106, so 3h32 including stops at Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith and Carlisle.

So allowing for the extra stops that the Pendolino makes (12 extra minutes in dwell times), the HS2 train will probably have to pretty much match the 390 to do the trip in 3h11.

And to achieve 3h45 overall it'd need to do Handsacre to Glasgow in 2h56 assuming Euston to the junction is 49 minutes. I don't see that happening.

 

[MarkyT]

The trains will not be designed for random stop positions.

The trains will be designed such that the emergency stop will result in trains having the designated emergency exit doors directly adjacent to the evacuation passages.

As I said, the temperature inside the tunnel is stated, in the specification, to reach 50 celsius in this scenario. The tunnel ventilation has been designed to create bubbles of cool air around the evacuation passages to permit evacuation to occur.

Anyone who attempts to walk a significant distance along the tunnel will rapidly succumb to heat exhaustion.

EDIT:

From the HS2 Train technical specificaiton (Section 7.15.7.2):

And the given rationale:

350m spacing should very adequately serve a train of two units whether they are both 200m or a combination of 140m + 260m, as passengers should always be able to get to an emergency door within the unit. There'd still be a problem with 2x140m coupled, unless you could slip the rear portion at one passageway and carry on to the next.

Here's my adaptation of the HS2 diagram

 

[HSTEd]

350m spacing should very adequately serve a train of two units whether they are both 200m or a combination of 140m + 260m, as passengers should always be able to get to an emergency door within the unit. There'd still be a problem with 2x140m coupled, unless you could slip the rear portion at one passageway and carry on to the next.

You'd need a lot more exit doors to satisfy the 350m pair criterion in all eight (I think, two orders of unit and each unit can be in two orientations) possible combinations and orientations of units. This could easily provoke issues with confusion during an evacuation.

HS2 has made a rod for our backs with their decision to go with such small tunnels, it seems.

EDIT:

Turns out, I think, if you constrain the mode of operation to only ever 260+140m in multiple, or a unit alone you can still do it with two evacuation doors per side per unit. Each unit would have its doors 25m from each end.

If you want any other combinations things get way more complex.

 

[Zomboid]

They're not digging a channel tunnel style service tunnel (are they?) so where exactly are these emergency exits going to go? Through to the other running tunnel which may also be at 50*C?

 

[Bletchleyite]

350m spacing should very adequately serve a train of two units whether they are both 200m or a combination of 140m + 260m, as passengers should always be able to get to an emergency door within the unit. There'd still be a problem with 2x140m coupled, unless you could slip the rear portion at one passageway and carry on to the next.

There would also be a problem with a 200m unit, wouldn't there? But the plan is to allow single 200m units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 18:32 ==

HS2 has made a rod for our backs with their decision to go with such small tunnels, it seems.

HS2 has made a rod for our backs with more or less everything, to be honest. It's a complex and expensive solution to a problem that could have been solved much more cheaply with a less complex, more standard 140-186mph railway built to French LGV standards. Like HS1.

 

[HSTEd]

They're not digging a channel tunnel style service tunnel (are they?) so where exactly are these emergency exits going to go? Through to the other running tunnel which may also be at 50*C?

Yes, I believe the theory is that the tunnel will only be that hot in the vicinity of the train that has initiated an emergency stop..

So if they don't stop the trains opposite one another, the passenger should be able to evacuate into the other tunnel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 18:35 ==

There would also be a problem with a 200m unit, wouldn't there? But the plan is to allow single 200m units.

I believe the plan is that the 200m unit would have its stop controlled to place its evacuation door in the correction position.

 

[Trainbike46]

They're not digging a channel tunnel style service tunnel (are they?) so where exactly are these emergency exits going to go? Through to the other running tunnel which may also be at 50*C?

The tunnel going the opposite direction, presumably. It's unlikely there would be a fire in both tunnels at the same time!

There would also be a problem with a 200m unit, wouldn't there? But the plan is to allow single 200m units.

No there wouldn't. If there's only one unit, there is only one door to line up, instead of 2 across a 2x200m set

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 18:32 ==



HS2 has made a rod for our backs with more or less everything, to be honest. It's a complex and expensive solution to a problem that could have been solved much more cheaply with a less complex, more standard 140-186mph railway built to French LGV standards. Like HS1.

There are some things about HS2 that are overly complex, that is for sure!

 

[Nottingham59]

So even allowing for the extra stops that the Pendolino makes, the HS2 train will have it's work cut out doing the trip from Handsacre in 3h11 even if it does run at EPS speeds.

I found some more specifications, in the HS2 Technical Appendix 2010: Ch 5 Train Service Specification

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HS2_HS2Technical%20Appendix2010.pdf

b) London – Manchester (High Speed)
Service frequency: 3 tph

Calling Pattern(s) and Journey Times
Euston
5 mins
Old Oak Common (2 mins)
40 mins
Rugeley North Junction (non-stop)

So Euston to Rugeley North is 47 minutes.

In 2017, the Euston-Glasgow journey time was predicted at 236 minutes, i.e. 3h 56m via Handsacre.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82b56740f0b6230269c497/journey_times.pdf

So according to HS2's own figures, Rugeley to Glasgow was coming in at 3h09m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 19:17 ==

The tunnel going the opposite direction, presumably. It's unlikely there would be a fire in both tunnels at the same time!

The 50C is not from a fire. It's the maximum expected external temperature after an emergency stop from 360kph where all the kinetic energy of a full-sized captive trainset is dumped into friction brakes because they cannot absorb any energy via regenerative braking. And it would only persist until they could get the tunnel ventilation fans working to clear the air from around the train.