High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

The Ham · 16 Jan 2014

Yet more freight to use HS1 (which was never included in any of the models):

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...view/more-freight-to-run-on-high-speed-1.html

DB Schenker Rail (UK) introduced additional freight services on High Speed 1 from January 13, carrying automotive components and refrigerated containers of perishable foodstuffs from Spain to London via the Channel Tunnel.

DB Schenker Rail (UK) has a track access contract with HS1 for an initial six months, and both parties intend this to continue. DB Schenker Rail (UK) already operates twice-weekly return services to and from Poland.

'This is a big step up for freight on HS1, and is an area in which we continue to grow', said HS1 Ltd Chief Executive Nicola Shaw. The contract 'demonstrates the value of the high speed network in the UK', with the ability to provide a seamless service to the shippers using standard European wagons which are too large for the rest of the UK national network.

This means that although HS1 maybe underused in passenger numbers compared with the model it is now being used fairly heavily (for a passenger only line) for freight. As such, although models of usage are not always overly accurate, there are also some things which are not predicted which results in it being used more than expected.

Therefore, even if (and I doubt it very much based on passenger growth since 2009) passenger growth doesn't reach the levels in the model we could well see freight being carried which would be an unexpected benefit.

RailUK Forums

deltic · 16 Jan 2014

The Ham said:
This means that although HS1 maybe underused in passenger numbers compared with the model it is now being used fairly heavily (for a passenger only line) for freight. .

Am I missing something - does the new contract lead to an average of just 2 freight trains a day using the line - not exactly heavy use

Loki · 16 Jan 2014

That's what happens when you have clearance only up to Barking. Hopefully, freight will run on HS2 at some point. That will solve the issue.

AndyLandy · 16 Jan 2014

Loki said:
That's what happens when you have clearance only up to Barking. Hopefully, freight will run on HS2 at some point. That will solve the issue.

What freight is going to go on HS2? I thought all the paths were used for passenger trains...

Deerfold · 16 Jan 2014

Loki said:
That's what happens when you have clearance only up to Barking. Hopefully, freight will run on HS2 at some point. That will solve the issue.

Running at the same speed as the passenger trains? If not it'll eat up paths fast.

edwin_m · 16 Jan 2014

HS1 was built with freight loops, which have never been used because the freight is so much slower than the passenger trains that it can only run at night. HS2 has bi-directional signalling and crossovers so I would hope that freight would also be able to run at night, with single line working where individual tracks are closed for engineering work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HowardGWR said:
I think we can agree that Toton is a different kettle of fish to Meadowhall. From the latter to the city centre is just a 'people mover' type of exercise, whereas something more like a suburban railway is needed for Derby and Nott.

The other important difference is that there are already frequent services linking Meadowhall with Sheffield as well as with most of the other major towns in the area. Toton has no passenger service at present (diversions excepted) and re-routeing any existing service would probably slow it down unacceptably, so extra services are needed.

joeykins82 · 16 Jan 2014

If HS2 gets used for Euro container freight I assume it'll happen at night, but my understanding is that HS2 will never be used for freight. I think that HS1 is used because there is no W10/W12 cleared route in Kent, because it's the only sensible way to get to Barking from the channel tunnel, and because HS1 has the capacity to take freight services.

The Ham · 16 Jan 2014

deltic said:
Am I missing something - does the new contract lead to an average of just 2 freight trains a day using the line - not exactly heavy use

The point is that it's a lot more freight than zero as the justification for building the line and tunnel was, IIRC, only based on passenger use.

If HS2 were not to see the level of passenger demand then there could be good justification for it to be used to carry freight, in the same way as although HS1 has below expected passenger numbers it's hardly a white elephant.

NotATrainspott · 16 Jan 2014

Is the land south of Curzon Street/Moor Street stations in Birmingham able to be cleared at some point in the next few decades? If so, as a long-term thing they could effectively move some or all of New Street a few hundred metres down the track so that it forms one site with the HS2 station and the Snow Hill lines. It would certainly give them a chance to design the station properly without the Victorian and brutalist anachronisms; maybe even giving it HSR-standard platforms for a CrossCountry HSR to Bristol. It would probably cost less than building 400m long platform tunnels underneath the city for the same goal.

edwin_m · 17 Jan 2014

Interesting thought, indeed rather less impractical than some of the ideas floated on here. I guess you would keep New Street for the terminators and reversers so that all trains would make a brief stop here, which would probably mean two platforms per track or eight in total.

One difficulty might be the historic Gun Barrel Proof House which is very close to the south side of the viaduct.

HowardGWR · 17 Jan 2014

NotATrainspott said:
Is the land south of Curzon Street/Moor Street stations in Birmingham able to be cleared at some point in the next few decades? If so, as a long-term thing they could effectively move some or all of New Street a few hundred metres down the track so that it forms one site with the HS2 station and the Snow Hill lines. It would certainly give them a chance to design the station properly without the Victorian and brutalist anachronisms; maybe even giving it HSR-standard platforms for a CrossCountry HSR to Bristol. It would probably cost less than building 400m long platform tunnels underneath the city for the same goal.

I've been suggesting the HS2 to Bristol / Cardiff link here for ages. However I don't see the need for a new station. Better to perhaps reverse the idea, namely to have just a couple of 'calling' platforms adjacent to Curzon St to enable connections to be made 'platform to platform'. To me this connection via New St is a no-brainer and it is not clear to me why this is not an integral part of HS2.

NotATrainspott · 17 Jan 2014

HowardGWR said:
I've been suggesting the HS2 to Bristol / Cardiff link here for ages. However I don't see the need for a new station. Better to perhaps reverse the idea, namely to have just a couple of 'calling' platforms adjacent to Curzon St to enable connections to be made 'platform to platform'. To me this connection via New St is a no-brainer and it is not clear to me why this is not an integral part of HS2.

I imagine the reason they don't explicitly include the through route to Bristol in the plans is that they don't know yet what is actually likely to happen. HS2 are trying to reduce their mission creep as much as possible to make sure everything is under control and those platforms would likely represent that in their minds as they are not absolutely required for the good functioning of the plans so far. The plans for Curzon Street that I have seen show that none of the land to the south of the station, including the WCML tracks, is going to be touched during construction other than to replace a road bridge over them. As a result there won't be anything of HS2 that they will need to demolish to make the plans happen. The station plans have an undercroft at level with these possible through platforms and as much of the structure is glass as they're ever going to get away with so connecting the two won't involve any expensive structural works. The HS2 route out from Birmingham is parallel to the existing tracks as well so providing a link somewhere along it shouldn't be incredibly difficult.

GingerSte · 17 Jan 2014

I assume we're talking about (at most) 2 or 3 trains per hour between Birmingham and the South West: one from the North West, one from the North East (and possibly 1 from Yorkshire if considered separately).

If so, then I can't see it justifying the costs of what I think Notatrainspotter is suggesting. (Especially after spending the best part of a billion quid doing up the existing station.)

I did wonder if a solution similar to platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly would work, with two tracks swinging off to the South West. But I wasn't sure of where it would go after that.

There may be another solution, however.

Many posts back, I mentioned an idea of connecting Curzon Street to the Lichfield line (whatever it's called) and the Camp Hill Line. The Cross City service would then run through Curzon Street (obviously requiring a reversal).

If this was done, the same connection to the Camp Hill Line could be used to take trains from Curzon St to the South West. It wouldn't be a high speed line (at least in Birmingham - you could build your separate HS line once you've left the built up areas) but it would be a connection.

I also like Edwin_M's idea of using New Street, although this depends on capacity. Again, if Cross City was moved from New Street to Curzon Street (leaving only a New St - Kings Norton serve or similar), this may create the necessary room for "HS" services to operate on this line.

edwin_m · 17 Jan 2014

Another option would be a connection somewhere between Water Orton and the approaches to Curzon Street, that would allow classic compatible trains from NE or NW to transfer onto the classic line, call at New Street and continue as XC does now.

joeykins82 · 17 Jan 2014

My guess is that a connection exactly as you described will be made and rolled in to the XC Birmingham-Plymouth electrification programme costs

HowardGWR · 17 Jan 2014

edwin_m said:
Another option would be a connection somewhere between Water Orton and the approaches to Curzon Street, that would allow classic compatible trains from NE or NW to transfer onto the classic line, call at New Street and continue as XC does now.

Yes, actually, that was my original suggestion but the others above have merit long-term. We should be thinking two or three tiers of pax services, one which is genuinely inter city, one which is 'regional cities and towns', and thirdly commuter and shopping services, as is proposed with HS2 and WCML. Applying that to HS2 at Brum, one needs separate lines for each, but pro tem, running XC into New St from Bristol or Cardiff (perhaps combining there?), thence to Leeds or Manchester will be an immense improvement. Such services should not call at the towns. Initial frequency need not be so high for such a fast service, perhaps targeted at business initially?

tbtc · 17 Jan 2014

joeykins82 said:
My guess is that a connection exactly as you described will be made and rolled in to the XC Birmingham-Plymouth electrification programme costs

This is one of the "problems" with HS2 (along with the daft idea of calling the Birmingham Station "Curzon Street" which suggests its going to be a long way out of town, by the Inner Ring Road, rather than something like "Freeman Street" which suggests it's entrance will be right next to Moor Street Station, a stone's throw from the Bull Ring etc)...

...it seems to have been costed so that a lot of things are missing from the plans, presumably so that they can be paid for out of other budgets. Whilst a lot of these other things aren't "wholly HS2" (and it'd be unfair if you included the cost of electrifying from Birmingham to Plymouth, or included the cost of Crossrail2), it'd be nice to have more certainty about the "missing links".

Same goes also for Toton, where there seems to be an assumption that the infrastructure improvements will come out of a "local" budget. Hmm () :idea:

(), could this by why the Erewash line isn't being wired in CP5 - so that it can be done a lot closer to HS2 opening, by which time we should be able to tailor it better - maybe diverting the Nottingham - Sheffield services through Toton rather than the normal route through Wollaton Park - would be simpler to electrify too.

edwin_m · 17 Jan 2014

It is not possible to run services between HS2 and the south-west unless and until the line is electrified beyond Barnt Green or Bromsgrove. It is therefore not too surprising that the current HS2 plans don't show any connection to the classic network for trains on this route, since it would just be a waste of several tens of millions of £.

No doubt the business case for electrifiying from Birmingham to Bristol or beyond will look at the option of adding a link to HS2 in Birmingham and running classic-compatible sets, alongside other options such as keeping the service on the classic network all the way so that anyone travelling (for example) between Bristol and Leeds might have a quicker journey by changing at Birmingham. If it is justified to do so then hopefully the connection could be added to the HS2 design before it is finalised, or the design might include some provision for a connection to be added later.

NotATrainspott · 17 Jan 2014

What is the main XC route between Bristol and Birmingham like? I very much doubt they would want to run large numbers of classic-compatibles on a route which is likely to cause delay and disruption to the rest of the network.

HowardGWR · 17 Jan 2014

NotATrainspott said:
What is the main XC route between Bristol and Birmingham like? I very much doubt they would want to run large numbers of classic-compatibles on a route which is likely to cause delay and disruption to the rest of the network.

91 miles 50 chains. A voyager takes normally 86 minutes with stops at Parkway and Cheltenham. So nothing special but they seem to run OK, from a performance standpoint (northwards), and would run even more reliably if they started at Bristol. I reckon a non-stop in an hour should be easily attainable if the line received a bit more TLC (it was Broad Gauge to Glos remember

).

NotATrainspott · 17 Jan 2014

HowardGWR said:
91 miles 50 chains. A voyager takes normally 86 minutes with stops at Parkway and Cheltenham. So nothing special but they seem to run OK, from a performance standpoint (northwards), and would run even more reliably if they started at Bristol. I reckon a non-stop in an hour should be easily attainable if the line received a bit more TLC (it was Broad Gauge to Glos remember ).

How far away is the point where new-build HSR is the superior option to further upgrades? Is there much need for more freight or regional trains along the route? If there isn't then it will be a long time until they complete the XC HSR.

edwin_m · 17 Jan 2014

HowardGWR said:
91 miles 50 chains. A voyager takes normally 86 minutes with stops at Parkway and Cheltenham. So nothing special but they seem to run OK, from a performance standpoint (northwards), and would run even more reliably if they started at Bristol. I reckon a non-stop in an hour should be easily attainable if the line received a bit more TLC (it was Broad Gauge to Glos remember ).

As far as I can tell the slow running on this route has a lot to do with the double track section in from Kings Norton which carries Cross City trains every 10min. Difficult to see what can be done about this as sending more via Camp Hill would probably create other problems.

XC sometimes gets stuck behind the stopper between Gloucester and Bristol as well, so it helps if they aren't late in the first place.

YorkshireBear · 17 Jan 2014

I think that part will remain a bottleneck without some pretty major engineering unfortunately. It is just too slow every single time you travel through Birmingham.

HowardGWR · 18 Jan 2014

YorkshireBear said:
I think that part will remain a bottleneck without some pretty major engineering unfortunately. It is just too slow every single time you travel through Birmingham.

Yes agreed with the foregoing, ergo my plea for separate lines for inter city where demand justifies it, which I think is needed for NE/NW to SW/SWales.

I think there is a big problem looming with all these proposed station reopenings on inter-city routes. For instance, they want to reopen Wellington (Som) and Cullompton. Fair enough, but in the old days, these stations were four tracked.

I suppose joining 4 car units at Cheltenham, from Bristol and Cardiff, could be looked at. At present the Cardiff service is through to Nott (all shacks), so pax from Cardiff for the NW or NE have to change at Brum which is not what I call inter-city. The same applies to Bristol pax for Nott who have to change as well. I don't know if these are platform to platform. A ghastly place to change is New St and a wait of 25 minutes is needed.

Could a junction off the Camp Hill line be made to run into Curzon St (reverse or even terminate for a change) instead? It looks possible on the map. At least the change would be in a hopefully pleasant new station?

Geezertronic · 18 Jan 2014

They should have carried on with the Camp Hill Chords which would route into Moor Street but had issues with the purchase or selling of land on the route. That IMO would be better than a Curzon Street solution

alwaystouchout · 18 Jan 2014

What will happen to the existing VT services that run fast from Euston to Stafford, Crewe and beyond? Are HS2 services proposed to run instead of, or in addition to, those existing services?

YorkshireBear · 18 Jan 2014

alwaystouchout said:
What will happen to the existing VT services that run fast from Euston to Stafford, Crewe and beyond? Are HS2 services proposed to run instead of, or in addition to, those existing services?

In all honesty, nobody knows. Indicative plans show that the existing VT services will have more stops added. But who knows!

alwaystouchout · 18 Jan 2014

YorkshireBear said:
In all honesty, nobody knows. Indicative plans show that the existing VT services will have more stops added. But who knows!

It makes sense for those fast VT services to be replaced with the proposed HS2 ones, thus freeing up space for more semi-fast services on the WCML. I imagine the existing Coventry, Birmingham Intl, Birmingham New St and Wolverhampton would remain the same. That also raises questions about who should operate the services, ie. should it be a designated TGV-style network, or should North West services be integrated into the IWC franchise and East Midlands/Yorkshire services should pass to EMT or East Coast..

Johnuk123 · 18 Jan 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...hire-Network-Rail-chief-on-750000-a-year.html

The company running the controversial high-speed rail project have hired a Network Rail executive on a salary of £750,000 a year.

That's unusual the Government using public funds to pay somebody way way over what they should get.

HSTEd · 18 Jan 2014

That tends to be what executives are paid these days.

You want to go along with this idea of the public sector being run like the private sector, this is what you get.

High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member