No one said it was futile but it will be disruptive and it will be expensive and in the time it takes to build said lines and all that disruption to current rail services you may aswell build a brand new railway .... oh wait a minute
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
No one said it was futile but it will be disruptive and it will be expensive and in the time it takes to build said lines and all that disruption to current rail services you may aswell build a brand new railway .... oh wait a minute
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
yoyothehobo
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 553
Jayah provide some evidence or reason to what you are saying as those in favour of HS2 are. At the moment this discussion is going round in circles because you refuse to listen to what people are saying and you are just spouting anecdotal nonsense.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, I won't, I'll be using the improved services on the WCML slow and fast lines, taking 20 minutes, while HS2 whizzes the Brum passengers past as it should do.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Well I don't know whether it has been decided yet.
Another WCML upgrade in situ could not deliver a similar capacity uplift to the previous one without being immensely costly and disruptive, and quite likely highly controversial due to the amount of property required for widening in built up areas alongside the existing alignment, and there's no potential for further significant speed uplift if you're closely following the existing route. That's not a general ruling on the matter of upgrades, but IS relevant to this, Britain's busiest long distance main line. Looked at another way, HS2 IS in fact a WCML upgrade (and a partial one for MML and ECML), just placing the new tracks on a different alignment and providing new terminal capacity at primary city hubs served.
Procurement of the Phase 1 fleet is proceeding on the basis of all being 'classic compatible', or more correctly 'conventional network compatible'.
Did I? Which parts? The costs? The benefits? The implications for existing users?
Perhaps you could enlighten me so I can correct it. Because I am more than happy to correct things I state, if they are shown to be wrong by evidence. I won’t, however amend it just because someone says “you’re wrong”.
I don’t understand why you’ve said that. When I travel from Watford to London (whether Euston or another location), I always use the LNWR services. And will continue to do so.
As it patently was on the WCML when years of widescale disruption was caused just to clean up a few pinch points. Traffic on the route has grown another 30-40% since then which is why the better (and cheaper) solution to accommodate the continuing trend of growth is to create two additional tracks between the stations that the fastest services stop at. Because of the much higher cost of working on a live railway (this particular one is the busiest main line in the UK), and the considerable disruption to those using the line and those living near the upgrading work, the overall cheaper option is a new alignment between the stations needed.
As far as Thameslink is concerned, there isn't a viable virgin route anywhere between West Hampstead and East Croydon, that allowed connections to central London locations, - there isn't a path even underground. A Thameslink service that couldn't stop between those two stations would be entirely wasted.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
As do most people, because they are much, much quicker than all the other options. If that wasn't important they'd already be using the Met or DC line, as if they did they could be guaranteed a seat from that far out - but they don't, because they are too slow.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Yet you haven't bothered to show the costings in your proposals or timescales and instead continue to offer fantasy schemes that do nothing other then waste money.
Last edited by a moderator:
EM2
Established Member
Let's take St Pancras as just one example. Where is the available space to lengthen the MML platforms so that all the trains in the current timetable can be run as 10-car Azumas?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Is there any need? With 4 and 5-car sets running around on relatively low frequencies and not always full, I think demand on the MML is not really much of an issue, and is thus relatively irrelevant to HS2 (unlike the WCML).
EM2
Established Member
No, there isn't a need really. But jayah is telling us it can be done. I'd just like to see how.
Polarbear
Established Member
I asked that question further up thread. I was told it was happening at Euston so therefore wasn’t impossible at St Pancras.
I await the plans for demolition of the British Library & see how well that goes down with the many vested interests...
Polarbear
Established Member
I presume you are aware of the topography of the WCML between Carpenders Park and Watford Junction?
The MML platforms at St Pancras are 260m and Azuma coaches are 26m. 10 coach Azumas would be possible with very short extensions to provide room for error. I am being pedantic as your underlying point is accurate, there is clearly very limited capacity left on the MML. The new intercity bi modes and Corby EMUs should use up all remaining capacity including platform lengths.
EM2
Established Member
Which means you can fit one Azuma on a platform at a time. But currently, as I mentioned upthread, there are often two five-car Meridians on a platform at a time. So, as I asked jayah, how do you maintain the current timetable with 10-car Azumas?
Last edited:
Polarbear
Established Member
Cheers! I’m not up to speed on carriage lengths etc.
"Very short" can still be complex. Either go back into the relatively limited concouse space (assuming the structure underneath can support tracks), or remodelling the throat (possibly jeopardising its functionality in the process)
Length needs to permit buffer stop stand back and cab signal sighting too.
I would bet on either 9 x 26m for Hitachi or 10 x 24m for Bombardier. Other platforms would need extending for longer units. The Corby EMUs will be 12 x 20m therefore its a good length for the bi modes.
Much earlier in the chain passenger journeys and growth were quoted including the East Midlands which was in fact one of the very largest markets for travel to London.
But with Virgin Trains load factors it could easily be argued that on train capacity for long distance high speed services isn't much of an issue at all.
Probably isn't really - hence why the HS2 service is planned to be pretty much a replication of the current Pendolino frequency (plus a little bit). It's about right for demand and some future growth.
However, the consequence of this is that the likes of MK and Northampton are very underseved by LNWR type services and have heavily loaded trains in the peaks. The real benefit of HS2 is permitting these services to increase in frequency to satisfy demand.
They are too slow because they are playing snakes and ladders weaving around at Watford and Willesden, making something like 17 stops en route including all the LUL stations.
Just because it is like that today doesn't mean it must be forever.
By the time you have finished we will be aware of every buddleia bush between Ipswich and Ely...
EM2
Established Member
No, they have short trains operating separate services and using different parts of the same platform (A end and B end). Look at Real Time Trains (this is for last Friday):
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea.../05/17/1649?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=EM
Look at the services that arrive into a platform within a few minutes of each other (e.g. 1B56 and 1C57) and the same on departure (e.g. 1F47 and 1M36).
So with four platforms, you can hold eight services. If they are all ten-car, you can hold four. How does that increase capacity?
Creating additional capacity by evicting the 10tph on the Bakerloo line from lines 5 and 6 and putting them in a dedicated LUL tunnel capable of 30tph is far cheaper than HS2 Phase 1.As it patently was on the WCML when years of widescale disruption was caused just to clean up a few pinch points. Traffic on the route has grown another 30-40% since then which is why the better (and cheaper) solution to accommodate the continuing trend of growth is to create two additional tracks between the stations that the fastest services stop at. Because of the much higher cost of working on a live railway (this particular one is the busiest main line in the UK), and the considerable disruption to those using the line and those living near the upgrading work, the overall cheaper option is a new alignment between the stations needed.
As far as Thameslink is concerned, there isn't a viable virgin route anywhere between West Hampstead and East Croydon, that allowed connections to central London locations, - there isn't a path even underground. A Thameslink service that couldn't stop between those two stations would be entirely wasted.
With a peak EMT service today of 5tph and 4 platforms, talk of demolishing the British Library is a tad overdone?
Polarbear
Established Member
Possibly, but as I and others have asked on more than one occasion, where would you situate additional platforms for MML services at St Pancras?
I ask a reasonable, serious question & you continue to evade giving straight answers. I’m happy to hold a reasoned debate with anyone, but to be given a childish & petulant response as that tells me all I need to know.
You have just shot away half of this thread saying that!
I happen to agree which is why using the existing and upgraded 2 tracks for inner commuting (Watford) two for outer suburban (Northampton etc..) and two for long distance always felt like better value for money than another two lines to Leeds and Manchester.
The London long distance market (EMT, VT, LNER) is of the order 30m journeys p.a which is roughly the same as Watford, Harrow and Wembley combined.
- Status