• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
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 haven't identified a need for any additional platforms at St Pancras yet. I am now hearing the existing pint sized trains aren't full.

Accusing me of plotting the demolition of the British Library was one of the more childish episodes in this thread.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
As the last few pages of posts shows, the truth of the matter is that HS2 is all about London and helping ease congestion in the London commuter belts. That's why people from other parts of the country are opposed to it. It's yet another London-Centric improvement that will just make the concentration of the economy in London even worse and continue the trend of abandoning lots of other towns/regions across the country. People from outside London have the impression that yet again, London is getting billions spent on it, whilst they're getting peanuts. The whole point of the thread is why people are opposed to it, and that's why - whether that impression is right or wrong, it's the impression that people out in the regions have and explains the opposition.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
There's 11 million trips between London & the North West:
View media item 3340
If we assume a £75 off peak return between London and Manchester for 5.5 million return trips over 60 years that's £25bn of income. That's 45% of the costs of building the whole scheme even if there's zero growth and doesn't count travel between other regions, nor does it rely on anytime tickets.
The whole UK rail farebox is something like £8bn?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
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.
And where do the WCML services using that additional capacity fit north of Watford Junction?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
France does 24-car TGVs while many places have trains of 15 long passenger carriages or more (ICE 3 in Germany, 15-car IC3s in Denmark etc.)

So France has longer trains ... on its dedicated high-speed network.

I repeat my question. How many stations could handle 20-coach trains on the WCML?

I would guess a handful, none of which - I suspect - are the big city termini.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
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.

I'm still struggling to understand what you're suggesting for the DC lines.

Which stations would you close? (To remove some of the 17 stops)
How would you eliminate the "weaving around" at Watford and Willesden?
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,705
Location
Birkenhead
You haven't identified a need for any additional platforms at St Pancras yet. I am now hearing the existing pint sized trains aren't full.

Accusing me of plotting the demolition of the British Library was one of the more childish episodes in this thread.

Tongue in cheek, maybe, childish, no.

As EM2 has explained, if you have 10 car trains, you will reduce capacity using just four platforms, therefore you would require additional MML platforms at St Pancras. You yourself have identified this need based on your plans. It is therefore reasonable to ask where you would site the additional platforms.

By the time you have finished we will be aware of every buddleia bush between Ipswich and Ely...

I asked if you were aware of the topography of the WCML between Carpenders Park and Watford Junction. By the way, topography is nothing to do with plants, but more to do with the lie of the land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topography
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
No they don't.
Depends on the type of thing you are trying to do.

Are you trying to massively upgrade a long stretch of line that has already pretty much maxed out its potential? eg get 3 or 4 more fast trains per hour on the WCML south of Rugby.

Are you trying to get modest incremental upgrades at a pinch point? eg grade-separating Norton Bridge Junction to improve reliability, increase sub-par line speeds, and to make it not the problem for capacity.

There's an issue that most of the latter have been done on the busiest lines, and so the anti-HS2 "upgrade existing lines" argument is calling for stuff like the former, where it's clearly better to bypass the troubled section to minimise costly disruption and demolition (incidentally, that's what they did with Norton Bridge - a short bypass) and give such a boost so as to save having to do it all over again in 30 years time because the extra capacity you've wrung out the 200-year-old line is barely enough to comfortably meet the opening date demand...
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
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.

So how much will all this cost then? And more importantly, who's funding it because TfL is broke!
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
I'm still struggling to understand what you're suggesting for the DC lines.

Which stations would you close? (To remove some of the 17 stops)
How would you eliminate the "weaving around" at Watford and Willesden?

A minor point (as one who ran the DC lines for 3 years and put a lot of effort into getting it into delivering 97% right time - a line by the way recognised by Chris Green with it's 9 million a year local journeys as one that needed attention - as coming from Scotland to NSE , he was astonished that it carried more pax than the flagship Edinburgh - Glasgow)

It is very tortuous , as I said it has limited signalling north of Harrow , limited DC power input north of Harrow (only allowed 6 car working in my day if we begged on our knees) , cripplingly tight curvature on the curved platforms at Bushey which restricted 23 metre vehicles to 25 mph , so when the rare I/C or Sleeper diversions were run , it was at a snails place. (as in those days we had only AWS / Tripcock fitted stock allowed , often with a pilotman (person)

In any case , excellent luck with putting 25kV AC down there - just a few tight tunnel and bridge sections , especially at South Hampstead , Kensal Green / Harlesden / Wembley Central etc. Try fitting OLE stanchions over the section north of Wembley Central to Carpenders Park where the Down Fast and Up DC are a bit close. However "smart engineering" will triumph.

I merely point out these facts , as "one who knows" (and has been there , 24/7)
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
As a regular user of the MML from St Pancras (typically to Sheffield) I am confused by the references to 'pint-sized trains' if this refers to peak times. A typical peak train is a 7-car Class 222 or an 8-car HST and standing south of Leicester is not unusual.
The MML is also going to get a new generation of trains in the near future and I can hardly imagine that they will be operated as 4 or 5 coaches in the peak. I commuted to London from further south for 20 years and the Class 222s on stopping services typically operated in multiple in the peaks. The 'two train' working at St Pancras was generally in the off-peak only. (I know that Sundays are under-resourced but that isn't why HS2, Phase 2 is being proposed.)
In any event, the MML is effectively full because of having to share with semi-fast and weaving Thameslink services rather than platforms capacity at St Pancras, as has been discussed on many previous threads.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
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 you’ve suggested before. But that has implications, notably reducing the service for punters between Wembley Park and Harrow and Wealdstone. It also only reduces journey times to Euston from Watford on the D.C. line by about 8 minutes. Which means it is still at least 20 minutes longer for Watford Junction commuters than the trains on the ‘slow’ lines. Therefore it won’t be used by people from Watford. Finally it doesn’t create any additional capacity north of Watford, at all.

So all in all, spending a lot of money for, generally, a worse service. Not a very good idea. Unless we’ve all missed something, which I have asked you before, but you haven’t answered. Perhaps you could?
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
As you’ve suggested before. But that has implications, notably reducing the service for punters between Wembley Park and Harrow and Wealdstone. It also only reduces journey times to Euston from Watford on the D.C. line by about 8 minutes. Which means it is still at least 20 minutes longer for Watford Junction commuters than the trains on the ‘slow’ lines. Therefore it won’t be used by people from Watford. Finally it doesn’t create any additional capacity north of Watford, at all.

So all in all, spending a lot of money for, generally, a worse service. Not a very good idea. Unless we’ve all missed something, which I have asked you before, but you haven’t answered. Perhaps you could?

If the line was entirely handed to NR with the Bakerloo line being tunnelled from Queens Park to Watford Junction why would the DC alignment be 20 minutes slower? If the track and signalling was replaced then why would it be significantly slower than the slow lines (assuming the same stopping pattern)? To a laymen the alignments look very similar. I am not saying its a good idea, rather trying to understand!
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
If the line was entirely handed to NR with the Bakerloo line being tunnelled from Queens Park to Watford Junction why would the DC alignment be 20 minutes slower? If the track and signalling was replaced then why would it be significantly slower than the slow lines (assuming the same stopping pattern)? To a laymen the alignments look very similar. I am not saying its a good idea, rather trying to understand!


I can only suggest that (a) take a ride on the "new line" (b) treat yourself to a cab ride by DVD on the line. The alignements may look similar on a macro level , but they are far more complex in detail.

In any case , extending a Bakerloo line tunnel to Watford would be a significant cost , maybe not too far off the cost of the HS2 tunnel alignement out of London. (plus the not insignificant cost of totally rebuilding the new line formation, bridges etc. Not good value for money

Look back at history , the expensive Central London tube tunnels were optimised by fairly cheap extensions out to the green fields, or by taking over poorly linked suburban branches - think Northern line to Edgware and High Barnet - the Piccadilly to Hounslow etc. (the Morden extenion , admittedly "had" to tunnel to Morden).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
So what we'd have is something worse than HS2 (because it'd do nothing for the section of the south WCML between WFJ and Hanslope Junction) but at probably a similar cost level.

What would be the point in that?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
I am not calling for 20 coach trains.
The platform building proves that arguments against platform extension for 10 car Azumas on the MML and 12 WCML car suburban stock are bogus.

What happens when we've used up the ~11% of extra capacity?

I didn't say that you had said that it should be 20 coaches, someone else says that:

Trains can be run at up to 20 coaches like elsewhere.

I responded to your post as you were talking about the incapability of the HS2 to run on the existing network.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
The whole UK rail farebox is something like £8bn?

And £25bn when split over 60 years is something like 5% of that £8bn.

Which may appear high but a lot of local trips are less than £20 return (Woking to Waterloo isn't much more than this for an anytime return), leaving that there's got to be more of them than each long long distance ticket.

Once again you are questioning something without fully explaining why you have a problem with what's been said.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
If the line was entirely handed to NR with the Bakerloo line being tunnelled from Queens Park to Watford Junction why would the DC alignment be 20 minutes slower? If the track and signalling was replaced then why would it be significantly slower than the slow lines (assuming the same stopping pattern)? To a laymen the alignments look very similar. I am not saying its a good idea, rather trying to understand!

Ah, well if the Bakerloo was tunnelled to Watford Junction that would be different. But I was responding to a suggestion to tunnel to Wembley Central, and straighten out bits of the D.C. Line. In this case, trains would still need to call all stations Watford Jn to Wembley Central, and all stations Queens Park to Euston. One assumes Willesden Jn might be an attractive stop also. Which means missing out three stops.

However if you tunnelled all the way to Watford, you could then drop all calls north of Queens Park, except Harrow, Bushey, and presumably Willesden Jn. Given the alignment constraints and the stops, this would still take about 10 minutes longer than on the slow lines, even if they were AC electrified, resignalled and the track sorted out for, say, 90mph.

But you’d be looking at a £10bn price tag for the tube, and something close to a billion for upgrading the D.C. lines. And all it would buy you is more capacity for the D.C. line stations, and a not particularly frequent, and slow, service from Watford to London.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
As the last few pages of posts shows, the truth of the matter is that HS2 is all about London and helping ease congestion in the London commuter belts. That's why people from other parts of the country are opposed to it. It's yet another London-Centric improvement that will just make the concentration of the economy in London even worse and continue the trend of abandoning lots of other towns/regions across the country. People from outside London have the impression that yet again, London is getting billions spent on it, whilst they're getting peanuts. The whole point of the thread is why people are opposed to it, and that's why - whether that impression is right or wrong, it's the impression that people out in the regions have and explains the opposition.

The discussion here doesn't match where there's going to be improvements.

The fact that the discussion is about London is down to that's what's being highlighted by someone who is opposed HS2.

What's likely to happen in the North, were not entirely sure. However we can made since informed guesses. Manchester Piccadilly will loose 5 long distance trains in themorning peak.

Each of those are likely to be replaced with local services, with NPR doing so again.

However it's unlikely that each of those 5 services will be more than 6 coaches in length.

Let's say that 4 are, that allows 4 services on existing platforms to share platform space with with those new services and be 6 coaches in length.

However that then frees up platform capacity where the trains previously were for other local services to be lengthed.

Further coach can be realised by the local services needing less of a turn around time

If we were to repeat this for all HS2 stations (more are North of Birmingham than are South of Birmingham) then there's lots of extra capacity up for grabs.
 

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
587
Location
Bushey
I can only suggest that (a) take a ride on the "new line" (b) treat yourself to a cab ride by DVD on the line. The alignements may look similar on a macro level , but they are far more complex in detail.

In any case , extending a Bakerloo line tunnel to Watford would be a significant cost , maybe not too far off the cost of the HS2 tunnel alignement out of London. (plus the not insignificant cost of totally rebuilding the new line formation, bridges etc. Not good value for money

Look back at history , the expensive Central London tube tunnels were optimised by fairly cheap extensions out to the green fields, or by taking over poorly linked suburban branches - think Northern line to Edgware and High Barnet - the Piccadilly to Hounslow etc. (the Morden extenion , admittedly "had" to tunnel to Morden).
Thank gawd a bit of reality here. TfL/Network Rail/DfT/Local transport authority could not work out how to fund the link between the Met Line and Watford Junction. Not sure what happens when the converted lines 5 and 6 (the old DC) get to milepost 16. Are they going to build a new viaduct between Bushey and Watford Junction or swing round the DC alignment to Watford High Street? If you are going to build a tunnel for the DC. Wouldn't it be better to build a tunnel for two lines from Euston say via the Elizabeth line at Old Oak and then swing up to Robert Stephenson preferred alignment to Birmingham. The one before the landed gentry got their way!
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
Thank gawd a bit of reality here. TfL/Network Rail/DfT/Local transport authority could not work out how to fund the link between the Met Line and Watford Junction. Not sure what happens when the converted lines 5 and 6 (the old DC) get to milepost 16. Are they going to build a new viaduct between Bushey and Watford Junction or swing round the DC alignment to Watford High Street? If you are going to build a tunnel for the DC. Wouldn't it be better to build a tunnel for two lines from Euston say via the Elizabeth line at Old Oak and then swing up to Robert Stephenson preferred alignment to Birmingham. The one before the landed gentry got their way!

Actually been a decent debate here (though I have had to count to 10 a few times !) , as the "my idea" for saving the cost of HS2 in the London area through using the DC ( a line I have a lot of respect for , and which I worked hard on improving between 1996 and 1999) has been effectively discounted , as options are either untenable , unworkable , expensive and probably add less capacity with considerable passenger disbenefit.

Any genius who need a source of learned discussion on HS2 needs only to consult this epic thread.

(I am now awaiting for a suggestion that the Circle line be used for "HS2" relief to Paddington and out to OOC. Some genius suggested sending Crossrail 1 that way in the early 1990's - )
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
I am now awaiting for a suggestion that the Circle line be used for "HS2" relief to Paddington and out to OOC. Some genius suggested sending Crossrail 1 that way in the early 1990's

In 1999 I worked briefly on Railtrack's plan to take over the LU sub-surface lines. One of the ideas was to link Heathrow to the city by running trains in from Paddington and along the northern bit of the circle line as 'a cost-effective alternative to Crossrail'. 6-tracking from Paddington to Airport Junction was also considered. Reality dawned eventually and the project got canned. Fortunately the plan for the East London Line extension continued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top