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

Aictos · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
Freeing up platforms at New Street by having IC and regional services segregated into separate stations is just daft and another example of the poor connectivity afforded by HS2.

But as been explained numerous times it simply wasn't possible to build new platforms under Birmingham New Street itself and Curzon Street to New Street isn't a million miles apart, it's no further then the walking distance from the mainline platforms at Kings Cross to the Thameslink platforms at St Pancras so your view is null and void.

IC services won't stop serving New Street as you still have the WCML Non HS2 IC services, XC services as well as local and regional services so not a disaster as you are making it out to be!

RailUK Forums

EM2 · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
London Overground and Bakerloo line are half length.

Hull and Grand Central ditto.

Virgin Trains fleet is still a large part 9 cars.

East Midlands Meridians have very low capacity.

Chiltern aren't full length either.

3 paths for maritime shipping container trains north on the WCML in the evening peak.

LNER Azumas coming soon...

The thing is, where do you put all these full-length trains?
Take Meridians for example. If they're all ten-car, you can fit one on a platform at St. P, which can only serve one destination. With five-cars, you fit two, with two destinations.
Same on the WCML. Three four-cars on one platform at Euston to three different destinations.
So, do you want longer trains serving fewer destinations less frequently, or shorter trains serving more destinations more frequently?

EM2 · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
Cargo going on ships to Asia does not need to be on the WCML in the peaks.

It does if it has to get to the port before the ship sails.

ChiefPlanner · 18 May 2019

I can imagine any attempt to reduce the (valuable) job of the DC / Bakerloo line services would cause massive protest. It may not be the glory days of the 1930's and 1940's when it carried around 20 tph combined south of Harrow and Weadstone and hosted well used city services via Primrose Hill and Highbury. I am slightly perplexed as to the "new world" of the DC is to be - a series of shuttles from Euston to Watford / - tking maybe 30 - 35 mins compared to the 18 min fast journey down the WC slow lines. Solves no problems and creates more.

Re "throwaway comments on freight being not time critical" - trust me , yes it takes several months to come from Asia , North America etc etc, - this is clearly planned in the logistical supply chain plan. However - once those boxes are in the UK , and customs cleared , they become much more urgent. As a Port Operations Manager for Freightliner at Felixstowe in the early 80's , I have just a little knowledge on this , which explains why road with it's flexibility carries off a strong share of import (and what exports we have) - yes , sounds odd how one particular traffic as "match splints from Canada was deemed urgent , but it was. (this traffic of course no longer exists - but tinned salmon does !) - another critical element is clearing and feeding ports over a 24 hour period.

Polarbear · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
LNWR seat finder suggests the vast majority of Euston peak services are 8 cars not 12.

LNWR are due to receive 10 x 350 in the not too distant future, which will help in the short term, and have ordered new 5 car trains for their routes. I assume, had LNWR thought that 12 car formations were essential, they would have ordered six car trains?

There are, however limits to how many carriages you can have on any route, due to platform lengths, signalling & trackwork constraints. We're not that far from getting to those limits now.

As my earlier post stated, the majority of Pendolinos are 11 car. You responded by stating most LNWR services are 8 car in the peak. Your original assertion was;

jayah said:
As for train length, I would suggest only a minority at Euston are actually 11 car Pendonline

.

VT diagram the 9 car sets so that they are normally used on the quieter services, but it stands as fact that the majority of 390's are 11 car, not 9 car.

jayah · 18 May 2019

Polarbear said:
LNWR are due to receive 10 x 350 in the not too distant future, which will help in the short term, and have ordered new 5 car trains for their routes. I assume, had LNWR thought that 12 car formations were essential, they would have ordered six car trains?

There are, however limits to how many carriages you can have on any route, due to platform lengths, signalling & trackwork constraints. We're not that far from getting to those limits now.

As my earlier post stated, the majority of Pendolinos are 11 car. You responded by stating most LNWR services are 8 car in the peak. Your original assertion was;

.

VT diagram the 9 car sets so that they are normally used on the quieter services, but it stands as fact that the majority of 390's are 11 car, not 9 car.

You have cut my reply to try and change its meaning. The majority of trains at Euston are not full length.

jayah · 18 May 2019

ChiefPlanner said:
I can imagine any attempt to reduce the (valuable) job of the DC / Bakerloo line services would cause massive protest. It may not be the glory days of the 1930's and 1940's when it carried around 20 tph combined south of Harrow and Weadstone and hosted well used city services via Primrose Hill and Highbury. I am slightly perplexed as to the "new world" of the DC is to be - a series of shuttles from Euston to Watford / - tking maybe 30 - 35 mins compared to the 18 min fast journey down the WC slow lines. Solves no problems and creates more.

Re "throwaway comments on freight being not time critical" - trust me , yes it takes several months to come from Asia , North America etc etc, - this is clearly planned in the logistical supply chain plan. However - once those boxes are in the UK , and customs cleared , they become much more urgent. As a Port Operations Manager for Freightliner at Felixstowe in the early 80's , I have just a little knowledge on this , which explains why road with it's flexibility carries off a strong share of import (and what exports we have) - yes , sounds odd how one particular traffic as "match splints from Canada was deemed urgent , but it was. (this traffic of course no longer exists - but tinned salmon does !) - another critical element is clearing and feeding ports over a 24 hour period.

If the containers are really time critical let them pay the true economic cost of providing the capacity they think they need.

I suspect the market will soon adjust to the reality that both the roads and railways are congested at 5pm. It certainly isn't a good enough reason to build a very expensive HSL.

jayah · 18 May 2019

EM2 said:
The thing is, where do you put all these full-length trains?
Take Meridians for example. If they're all ten-car, you can fit one on a platform at St. P, which can only serve one destination. With five-cars, you fit two, with two destinations.
Same on the WCML. Three four-cars on one platform at Euston to three different destinations.
So, do you want longer trains serving fewer destinations less frequently, or shorter trains serving more destinations more frequently?

Frequency is not the problem it is paths. You can lengthen platforms and buy new trains but it is much harder to manufacture new paths.

Running 4/5 car trains in the peaks wastes paths and it costs £bn to buy the same capacity building more track.

6Gman · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
Frequency is not the problem it is paths. You can lengthen platforms and buy new trains but it is much harder to manufacture new paths.

Running 4/5 car trains in the peaks wastes paths and it costs £bn to buy the same capacity building more track.

How many 4/5 carriage trains are there in the peak north of Watford Junction?

Bletchleyite · 18 May 2019

Ianno87 said:
The £20 fares are on LNWR, not Virgin (they are £76 upwards). A revenue generatoon tactic by them.

Buy an LNWR ticket and there's a good chance you'll be standing until at least Milton Keynes.

Only if you board late or make a poor choice of train. I have a near 100% record of a seat.

Bletchleyite · 18 May 2019

6Gman said:
How many 4/5 carriage trains are there in the peak north of Watford Junction?

Almost none in the peak direction.

ChiefPlanner · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
If the containers are really time critical let them pay the true economic cost of providing the capacity they think they need.

I suspect the market will soon adjust to the reality that both the roads and railways are congested at 5pm. It certainly isn't a good enough reason to build a very expensive HSL.

Thank you for that insight.

Esker-pades · 18 May 2019

I think I understand the situation now:

We can build a new alignment along the WCML, except for the bits that we can't.

The Watford DC Line can be upgraded and extended, except for the fact that it can't.

Freight trains can be moved from the WCML to somewhere, that somewhere being another time or place as yet unspecified.

There is infinite capacity of one keeps adding coaches, except when the coaches run out, or the trains get too long.

All of this will be money well spent, because the aim of not spending money has been achieved by spending money on other stuff that works (except for the fact that it doesn't).

ChiefPlanner said:
Thank you for that insight.

I think I've lost the will to live from this thread too.

Clip · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
Frequency is not the problem it is paths. You can lengthen platforms and buy new trains but it is much harder to manufacture new paths.

No it isnt. You simply build a new railway which creates new capacity and take off the intercity services from the old railway and bobs your uncle you have just manufactured new paths.

Peter Kelford · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
Building a £60-100bn HSL to Leeds is not needed to relieve the southern WCML.

That's what I'm trying to say.

jayah · 18 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
I think I understand the situation now:

We can build a new alignment along the WCML, except for the bits that we can't.

The Watford DC Line can be upgraded and extended, except for the fact that it can't.

Freight trains can be moved from the WCML to somewhere, that somewhere being another time or place as yet unspecified.

There is infinite capacity of one keeps adding coaches, except when the coaches run out, or the trains get too long.

All of this will be money well spent, because the aim of not spending money has been achieved by spending money on other stuff that works (except for the fact that it doesn't).

I think I've lost the will to live from this thread too.

HS2 is not a new alignment along the WCML.
There is a gross overuse of the word 'can't' talking about things like realignment of the DC lines around Willesden as if such a thing was a physical impossibility.

I appreciate you have lost the initiative the read what I said about freight or EMT, but most of the problems you are manufacturing have already been addressed.

jayah · 18 May 2019

6Gman said:
How many 4/5 carriage trains are there in the peak north of Watford Junction?

The trains from north of Watford are full with people from Watford who aren't travelling on the DC lines because the trains are too slow and low capacity.

There are plenty of 8 car LNWR and 9 car Virgin Trains north of Watford.

Peter Kelford · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
London Overground and Bakerloo line are half length.

Hull and Grand Central ditto.

Virgin Trains fleet is still a large part 9 cars.

East Midlands Meridians have very low capacity.

Chiltern aren't full length either.

3 paths for maritime shipping container trains north on the WCML in the evening peak.

LNER Azumas coming soon...

So: 12/14 cars on ECML services (possible, it's been done already)
Hull/GC reinforced
VT with 11+ car trains
HSTs onto the MML from GWR and VTEC/LNER.
10 coach Chilterns (HST?)

That should do the trick...

FelixtheCat said:
Just to clear this up:
Your solution to not having to build HS2 is to build another set of double tracks parallel to the southern end WCML? That's literally what phase 1 of HS2 is.

I invite you to google 'HS2 route map' you will find that that's false.

FelixtheCat said:
I think I understand the situation now:

We can build a new alignment along the WCML, except for the bits that we can't.

The Watford DC Line can be upgraded and extended, except for the fact that it can't.

Freight trains can be moved from the WCML to somewhere, that somewhere being another time or place as yet unspecified.

There is infinite capacity of one keeps adding coaches, except when the coaches run out, or the trains get too long.

All of this will be money well spent, because the aim of not spending money has been achieved by spending money on other stuff that works (except for the fact that it doesn't).

I think I've lost the will to live from this thread too.

We can build a new set of tracks along the WCML for most of it.
We can use the Watford DC line for commuter services.
Freights can be sped up or sent onto the Chiltern Line.
Trains can be run at up to 20 coaches like elsewhere. Alstom et al. can rustle up a few coaches if we need them and of course we can use the Mk3 high speed carriage.
All of the money will be value for money as we will be upgrading and giving people a better service but for less money.
We will be allowing a country more worthy of HSR to enjoy it.

Clip · 18 May 2019

This thread really has descended into farce now

Peter Kelford said:
We can build a new set of tracks along the WCML for most of it.

Show us where then - and you do remember the WCML upgrade programme dont you?

Peter Kelford said:
We can use the Watford DC line for commuter services.

They already ARE being used for those services

Peter Kelford said:
Freights can be sped up or sent onto the Chiltern Line.

Really? How you going to do that then because earlier you or someone else said that more passenger trains should be on the Chiltern Mainline.

Peter Kelford said:
Trains can be run at up to 20 coaches like elsewhere. Alstom et al. can rustle up a few coaches if we need them and of course we can use the Mk3 high speed carriage.

Where elsewhere and what about the infrastructure to use 20 coach trains - thats changes to signalling AND stations - how much is that going to cost do you know?

Peter Kelford said:
All of the money will be value for money as we will be upgrading and giving people a better service but for less money.

How much money - outline your spending plans on what YOU think all that you mention will cost - bear in mind we have people on here who have worked in the industry building and improving our railways over many years who know about costs so you need to be sure with what you are saying

Peter Kelford said:
We will be allowing a country more worthy of HSR to enjoy it.

This really doesnt make sense at all

jayah said:
The trains from north of Watford are full with people from Watford who aren't travelling on the DC lines because the trains are too slow and low capacity.

Youll need to back that up because why would they go north and not just get the trains that dont go on the DC lines lines from Watford anyway? And those on the DC lines are very well used you know

The Planner · 18 May 2019

Peter Kelford said:
So: 12/14 cars on ECML services (possible, it's been done already)
Hull/GC reinforced
VT with 11+ car trains
HSTs onto the MML from GWR and VTEC/LNER.
10 coach Chilterns (HST?)

That should do the trick...

I invite you to google 'HS2 route map' you will find that that's false.

We can build a new set of tracks along the WCML for most of it.
We can use the Watford DC line for commuter services.
Freights can be sped up or sent onto the Chiltern Line.
Trains can be run at up to 20 coaches like elsewhere. Alstom et al. can rustle up a few coaches if we need them and of course we can use the Mk3 high speed carriage.
All of the money will be value for money as we will be upgrading and giving people a better service but for less money.
We will be allowing a country more worthy of HSR to enjoy it.

I suppose that is a good variant to not building HS2 as you will completely stifle any growth as people won't travel due to the disruption caused by delivering those interventions.

ABB125 · 18 May 2019

One thing to bear in mind with freight from Felixstowe is that, if you run it later to avoid peak times on the WCML, it will hit peak times on the Great Eastern line instead.

jayah · 18 May 2019

Peter Kelford said:
So: 12/14 cars on ECML services (possible, it's been done already)
Hull/GC reinforced
VT with 11+ car trains
HSTs onto the MML from GWR and VTEC/LNER.
10 coach Chilterns (HST?)

That should do the trick...

I invite you to google 'HS2 route map' you will find that that's false.

We can build a new set of tracks along the WCML for most of it.
We can use the Watford DC line for commuter services.
Freights can be sped up or sent onto the Chiltern Line.
Trains can be run at up to 20 coaches like elsewhere. Alstom et al. can rustle up a few coaches if we need them and of course we can use the Mk3 high speed carriage.
All of the money will be value for money as we will be upgrading and giving people a better service but for less money.
We will be allowing a country more worthy of HSR to enjoy it.

Why HSTs?
A 10 car Azuma would be a 60% uplift vs an EMT HST.

West Ruislip is not on the WCML.

yoyothehobo · 18 May 2019

Of course he is not being entirely accurate saying that the tracks run exactly parallel to the WCML at the southern end and suggesting that he is saying that is being deliberately obtuse.

They are parallel in the sense they carry the same long distance passenger flows.

To suggest there is space to add a pair of railway lines alongside the existing WCML is just ignorant in engineering terms at the very least and actually delivering route improvements along an active railway is incredibly difficult, not to mention that you still have to deal with existing junctions, stations cross overs etc...

The ground engineering to put a new railway line next to any victorian embankment at the same elevation would require so much disruption to the existing line that you would drive most people away from the existing railway.

Not to mention all the other issues working next to active lines gains.

Building a new alignment avoids these issues as you can generally have a better method of ground engineering and control when going across virgin (not the TOC) land making it easier to design and build and generally cheaper.

Not to mention that if you are widening it you have to have all the land acquisition on one side for significant mileages otherwise you slew all the lines to fit increasing cost.

There is no space for lines to be added. Accept it.

EM2 · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
Frequency is not the problem it is paths. You can lengthen platforms and buy new trains but it is much harder to manufacture new paths.

Frequency and paths go hand in hand. If you want increased frequency, you need more paths. There are plenty of places where lengthening of platforms will be an issue, St P and KX being just two.

Running 4/5 car trains in the peaks wastes paths and it costs £bn to buy the same capacity building more track.

So you keep saying. But longer trains need more than just new carriages. And you still haven't said where you'll put these longer trains.

jayah · 18 May 2019

ABB125 said:
One thing to bear in mind with freight from Felixstowe is that, if you run it later to avoid peak times on the WCML, it will hit peak times on the Great Eastern line instead.

Most WCML to Felixstowe trains already recess at Wembley for some time. Many also avoid using either GEML or WCML by going cross country.

jayah · 18 May 2019

EM2 said:
Frequency and paths go hand in hand. If you want increased frequency, you need more paths. There are plenty of places where lengthening of platforms will be an issue, St P and KX being just two.

So you keep saying. But longer trains need more than just new carriages. And you still haven't said where you'll put these longer trains.

HS2 are building 11 400m long platforms at Euston. Eurostar did similar at St Pancras.

Please stop pretending these are issues that cannot be overcome.

Polarbear · 18 May 2019

Peter Kelford said:
So: 12/14 cars on ECML services (possible, it's been done already)
Hull/GC reinforced
VT with 11+ car trains
HSTs onto the MML from GWR and VTEC/LNER.
10 coach Chilterns (HST?)

That should do the trick...

I invite you to google 'HS2 route map' you will find that that's false.

We can build a new set of tracks along the WCML for most of it.

We can use the Watford DC line for commuter services.

Freights can be sped up or sent onto the Chiltern Line.

Trains can be run at up to 20 coaches like elsewhere. Alstom et al. can rustle up a few coaches if we need them and of course we can use the Mk3 high speed carriage.

All of the money will be value for money as we will be upgrading and giving people a better service but for less money.

We will be allowing a country more worthy of HSR to enjoy it.

Oh where to start...

Ok-12 to 14 car trains on the ECML? Where & when has this happened? Platform lengths at Kings Cross (and probably several other locations) won’t allow for such long trains.

HST’s are up to 43 years old & as tough as they are, won’t last forever. They can only ever be a short term solution. They would also need a lot of work doing to make them compliant with Equality regulations.

Again, there will be few, if any stations on the Chiltern route that can handle 10 car trains.

What is the obsession for building two extra lines on the same alignment as the current WCML? If you consider that HS2 is building two new fast lines, then the existing route fast lines become semi-fast & the current slow lines stay as they are. There’s no need for the new fast lines to adjoin the existing route, because the services on the fast lines won’t be calling anywhere on that route.

Part of the rationale for HS2 is to provide more regional services. That can’t be done at present.

As has been explained about the DC lines, they were shoehorned around the existing alignment (a darn good argument for NOT building an extra 2 lines alongside the WCML). No one has yet explained how you deal with Watford Junction.

When referencing “southern WCML”, it is London to Rugby that is congested, not just the bit to Watford.

Freight trains are HEAVY and cannot just be “sped up”. Extra capacity is needed on the existing WCML-hence HS2. You certainly can’t send freight trains on the Chiltern line f you’re proposing running frequent 10 car passenger services along it either. Also, getting to the Chiltern line from the North London Line May be a challenge.

Aside from France, there are few locations in the world that operate “20 car trains”. The UK rail network was a pioneer, but because it was the first, it lacks capacity for very long trains etc.

Polarbear · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
HS2 are building 11 400m long platforms at Euston. Eurostar did similar at St Pancras.

Please stop pretending these are issues that cannot be overcome.

The long platforms at St Pancras were for Eurostar services. The MML only has access to 4 platforms at St Pancras, with very little scope to be extended.

jayah · 18 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
So now you're in the realm of rebuilding an existing commuter line in a built up area, which is clearly going to be a lot more expensive mile-per-mile than building a brand new line through open countryside (as well as all the disruption to existing rail services that would cause). And you'll still need to rebuild Euston - presumably with very expensive new underground platforms - otherwise there won't be any capacity there to absorb the extra trains that your scheme would presumably provide. And how would the Bakerloo line get is own infrastructure? Since it sounds like you want to turn the DC lines into fast tracks, the only possibly way would be to build brand new tunnels and lots of new underground stations for the Bakerloo line, to replace the perfectly good existing surface stations. How expensive do you think that would be? (Hint: Compared to the benefits you'd get for it, probably a lot more expensive than HS2).

That's misrepresenting HS2. Aside from that the current figure is £55bn, HS2 does a lot more than relieve the Southern WCML. It also relieves the similarly overcrowded Southern MML and ECML. And in the Midlands and North, provides much needed extra capacity into Manchester and Leeds, as well as speeding up some of the currently ridiculously slow journey times between many Northern cities. Can you explain how your proposal to put the Bakerloo line on its own infrastructure would achieve any of those things?

The MML could greatly increase capacity on long distance services by not running half size trains. Relieving the MML with HS2 would be squandering any benefit from HS2.
Poor connectivity in the north needs to be tackled by tearing down and engineering those lines to 21st century standards. It is not solved by a grossly over engineered HS2 that only connects a few city pairs at phenomenal cost while detaching itself from the existing stations and public transport networks.

jayah · 18 May 2019

Polarbear said:
at St Pancras, with very little scope to be extended.

Meanwhile, down the road at Euston they are managing the impossible by building 11 400m platforms.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation