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

DynamicSpirit · 20 May 2019

ChiefPlanner said:
(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 - )

Circle line and out to OOC? Sorry but that's just daft.

The way you need to do it is by building the bit of East-West rail between Bletchley and Aylesbury quickly, as electrified track. Turn Moor Park-Watford into a shuttle, and that gives you 4tph Metropolitan line that you can run to Amersham instead. Plus 2tph existing, and you have 6tph of met trains that you can extend out to Aylesbury, then Bletchley, where they become new 'fast' trains on the WCML. You also have 3tph of Chiltern trains to Aylesbury that you can do the same thing with. That's 9tph total, which ought to be more than enough to sort out all capacity on the WCML for decades into the future. Obviously, you'll probably need to build 2 new tracks from Bletchley as far as Rugby to accommodate all these extra trains. But since that's mostly open countryside, that'll be vastly cheaper than the £100bn or £200bn or whatever the latest figure is that the anti-HS2 campaign has plucked out of thin air to quote as the cost of HS2. So you've saved a huge amount of money, which can now be spent on essential re-openings in neglected parts of the country. Starting obviously with Stranraer-Dumfries and Tiverton-Hemyock.

Sorted. Far better solution than the current plans for HS2. What's not to like!

:lol:

RailUK Forums

RLBH · 20 May 2019

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

Not quite infinite. If we have a continuous loop of coaches between Euston and Milton Keynes (or Watford, or Birmingham, or wherever), running through a balloon loop at either end, then we will have reached an absolute maximum capacity. Granted it'll be impossible to get on and off, and passengers may take a dim view of travelling on a conveyor belt, but it's a theoretical upper limit.

Polarbear said:
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.

It was done back in loco-hauled days, when there were fewer trains running and working practices could be accepted that wouldn't be accepted now.

liam456 · 20 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
Circle line and out to OOC? Sorry but that's just daft.

The way you need to do it is by building the bit of East-West rail between Bletchley and Aylesbury quickly, as electrified track. Turn Moor Park-Watford into a shuttle, and that gives you 4tph Metropolitan line that you can run to Amersham instead. Plus 2tph existing, and you have 6tph of met trains that you can extend out to Aylesbury, then Bletchley, where they become new 'fast' trains on the WCML. You also have 3tph of Chiltern trains to Aylesbury that you can do the same thing with. That's 9tph total, which ought to be more than enough to sort out all capacity on the WCML for decades into the future. Obviously, you'll probably need to build 2 new tracks from Bletchley as far as Rugby to accommodate all these extra trains. But since that's mostly open countryside, that'll be vastly cheaper than the £100bn or £200bn or whatever the latest figure is that the anti-HS2 campaign has plucked out of thin air to quote as the cost of HS2. So you've saved a huge amount of money, which can now be spent on essential re-openings in neglected parts of the country. Starting obviously with Stranraer-Dumfries and Tiverton-Hemyock.

Sorted. Far better solution than the current plans for HS2. What's not to like!

Yeah I like this idea, especially the reopening of branch lines bit. Why not reopen the GCML as a diversionary route as well? Make sure the only trains running on them are good-old LHCS and include passive provision for steam days on the new lines too.

EM2 · 20 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
Sorted. Far better solution than the current plans for HS2. What's not to like!

DS, what on Earth is in those crayons you're using? o_O

DynamicSpirit · 20 May 2019

EM2 said:
DS, what on Earth is in those crayons you're using?

Can't say. But I can tell you that those crayons are made according to my own special recipe. And they will be for sale on board the the new Aldgate-Baker Street-Aylesbury-Scotland services, once they are running. Book your seats now!

Polarbear · 20 May 2019

RLBH said:
It was done back in loco-hauled days, when there were fewer trains running and working practices could be accepted that wouldn't be accepted now.

Ah, of course - in an era where coaches were of course, a bit shorter than they are today.

LNW-GW Joint · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
HS2 has both classic compatible and HS2 captive fleets.

No, it will just have classic-compatible sets, so they can all run onto the old network.
Phase 2 (2033) may have some dedicated stock, but the Phase 1 procurement is only for CC sets.

6Gman · 20 May 2019

Polarbear said:
Ah, of course - in an era where coaches were of course, a bit shorter than they are today.

And before you had to worry about ETH indices and such like. I wonder what locos are going to be used on these ever-expanding trains?

ChiefPlanner · 20 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
Can't say. But I can tell you that those crayons are made according to my own special recipe. And they will be for sale on board the the new Aldgate-Baker Street-Aylesbury-Scotland services, once they are running. Book your seats now!

Those "special" crayons are going to be a winner - does the ex Aldgate service call at Verney Junction ?. Some influential people live thereabouts.

ChiefPlanner · 20 May 2019

quantinghome said:
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.

There were some even worse ideas , including a tunnel off the Hammersmith and City viaduct , to I think Kensington Olympia - all binned thank heavens. Imagine 28 tph Met / Circle / H=C plus 24 tph Crossrail on that section......? .

Polarbear · 20 May 2019

For what it’s worth, I think what needs to be borne in mind is that were HS2 to be cancelled, there is no “magic” plan B that is waiting in the wings to replace it.

The main purpose of HS2 is to provide a significant uplift in network capacity. Without it, there is no costed or planned alternative. Any alternative would take years to design, plan, and build a business case for, resulting in ever increasing pressure on the existing network. HS2 has been in planning since 2009, and it’s only now, 20 years on, that the first engineering work is being undertaken. It would probably take as long to get to that stage again should the current project be cancelled in full or in part.

Many people who are against HS2 would not necessarily know how big projects work. Much of the protest against HS2 is often based on some rather simplistic presumptions that it’s easy just to run extra trains, tack an extra carriage on at peak times etc., and there are easy alternatives available off the shelf if it was cancelled.

Sorry, but it won’t happen. What would happen is that growth on the rail network would stagnate, fares would most likely be increased to price off excess demand, with more traffic being pushed onto other transport modes.

jayah · 20 May 2019

Polarbear said:
For what it’s worth, I think what needs to be borne in mind is that were HS2 to be cancelled, there is no “magic” plan B that is waiting in the wings to replace it.

The main purpose of HS2 is to provide a significant uplift in network capacity. Without it, there is no costed or planned alternative. Any alternative would take years to design, plan, and build a business case for, resulting in ever increasing pressure on the existing network. HS2 has been in planning since 2009, and it’s only now, 20 years on, that the first engineering work is being undertaken. It would probably take as long to get to that stage again should the current project be cancelled in full or in part.

Many people who are against HS2 would not necessarily know how big projects work. Much of the protest against HS2 is often based on some rather simplistic presumptions that it’s easy just to run extra trains, tack an extra carriage on at peak times etc., and there are easy alternatives available off the shelf if it was cancelled.

Sorry, but it won’t happen. What would happen is that growth on the rail network would stagnate, fares would most likely be increased to price off excess demand, with more traffic being pushed onto other transport modes.

Fares will increase to pay for HS2. The railway only gets money from the taxpayer or farepayer it is said.

jayah · 20 May 2019

EM2 said:
We know. But your argument is that longer trains in those platforms will increase capacity, which when taken along with other measures that you've made up, means HS2 isn't needed.
So how do you do it?

How do you do what exactly.
Run longer trains?

It is not difficult to deliver more capacity on the MML long distance services.

jayah · 20 May 2019

ChiefPlanner said:
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).

Extending the Bakerloo to Watford was not suggested. Getting Bakerloo off NR would easily permit the frequency to Wembley to be doubled, not one path touching NR.

As for taking a cab ride DVD on the DC lines - your thinking is still firmly rooted in a box.

Bald Rick · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Extending the Bakerloo to Watford was not suggested. Getting Bakerloo off NR would easily permit the frequency to Wembley to be doubled, not one path touching NR..

And what is the benefit of spending £5bn for that? You haven’t answered the questions posed to you previously.

si404 · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Fares will increase to pay for HS2.

Or, you know, the additional fare revenue from the extra people who would now be able to travel will pay for it...

Bald Rick · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
As for taking a cab ride DVD on the DC lines - your thinking is still firmly rooted in a box.

Maybe, but a very well informed box.

(Count to 10, Guv’nor!)

Esker-pades · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Fares will increase to pay for HS2. The railway only gets money from the taxpayer or farepayer it is said.

So, you're against the idea of investment?

jayah said:
How do you do what exactly.
Run longer trains?

It is not difficult to deliver more capacity on the MML long distance services.

More capacity on the MML doesn't deliver additional capacity to Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham or the Southern WCML.

Again, lengthening trains only provides a small capacity increase. This is fine in the short term, but not in the long term.

jayah said:
Extending the Bakerloo to Watford was not suggested. Getting Bakerloo off NR would easily permit the frequency to Wembley to be doubled, not one path touching NR.

As for taking a cab ride DVD on the DC lines - your thinking is still firmly rooted in a box.

The box of reality, which is quite important for things which have to actually happen.

si404 · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Getting Bakerloo off NR would easily permit the frequency to Wembley to be doubled

What happens to these trains when they reach Wembley / Watford?

Polarbear · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Fares will increase to pay for HS2. The railway only gets money from the taxpayer or farepayer it is said.

You say that “fares will increase to pay for HS2” with such certainty, yet without a shred of proof or evidence.

jayah · 20 May 2019

LOL The Irony said:
Well I don't know whether it has been decided yet.

LOL The Irony said:
HS2 will create extra paths in Manchester, at least 4 by my maths. It's not ONLY beneficial to London.

Manchester Picxadilly has 3tph to London.
It needs paths to Liverpool, Leeds, Salford, Bolton and North Wales.

Extra paths from HS2? None.

jayah · 20 May 2019

si404 said:
And where do the WCML services using that additional capacity fit north of Watford Junction?

Where they do already. The growth is in short and middle distance commuting. Those are the new paths that needs to be accommodated but much of the capacity from Milton Keynes etc.. is being used to carry Watford passengers.

jayah · 20 May 2019

si404 said:
What happens to these trains when they reach Wembley / Watford?

The Bakerloo currently ends at Harrow. An upgraded 3rd pair of lines needs to carry the traffic from between Watford and wherever a segregated Bakerloo ends.

Polarbear · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Manchester Picxadilly has 3tph to London.
It needs paths to Liverpool, Leeds, Salford, Bolton and North Wales.

Extra paths from HS2? None.

So what about the paths that would be released between Stockport & Manchester, once the Manchester to London and Manchester to Birmingham fast services are moved to HS2? I make that 10 paths per hour on the plain route between those two points.

Add to that platform capacity released at both stations, and the removal of many conflicting moves at the likes of Slade Lane Junction, you create much more room for additional services into Manchester Piccadilly.

EM2 · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
How do you do what exactly.
Run longer trains?

It is not difficult to deliver more capacity on the MML long distance services.

How do you fit longer trains in the same platforms and increase capacity?
If you cannot do that, how do you extend the platforms?

Esker-pades · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Manchester Piccadilly has 3tph to London.
It needs paths to Liverpool, Leeds, Salford, Bolton and North Wales.

Extra paths from HS2? None.

And also to Congleton, Hope Valley, Chester via Altrincham and other stations that currently have a throttled service due to capacity limits on the Stockport to Manchester corridor. HS2 will remove the InterCity services from that Corridor to facilitate additional commuter services to the south.

jayah said:
Where they do already. The growth is in short and middle distance commuting. Those are the new paths that needs to be accommodated but much of the capacity from Milton Keynes etc.. is being used to carry Watford passengers.

There is also growth in long distance travel.
What about those trains which are full and standing but don't stop at Watford?
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions?

jayah said:
The Bakerloo currently ends at Harrow. An upgraded 3rd pair of lines needs to carry the traffic from between Watford and wherever a segregated Bakerloo ends.

@Bald Rick has already discussed your ideas for this, and you have simply not responded to that in any detail. Just repeating the same thing doesn't make it any better.

Polarbear · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Where they do already. The growth is in short and middle distance commuting. Those are the new paths that needs to be accommodated but much of the capacity from Milton Keynes etc.. is being used to carry Watford passengers.

Well shall we just consider that?

Given the DC lines are on the west side of the formation at Harrow, how do you connect those services to the slow lines beyond there & at Watford Junction?

ChiefPlanner · 20 May 2019

jayah said:
Extending the Bakerloo to Watford was not suggested. Getting Bakerloo off NR would easily permit the frequency to Wembley to be doubled, not one path touching NR.

As for taking a cab ride DVD on the DC lines - your thinking is still firmly rooted in a box.

Not worth a reply

Chester1 · 20 May 2019

I have a genuine question and a crayonista solution:

If the anti HS2 brigade are successful then what do we do with all the land around Euston that has been cleared already?

My crayonista suggestion would be doing a tweaked version of the rebuild of Euston and the approach tunnel but connecting it with the Chiltern line somewhere around South Hampstead. That would create extra terminating platforms for the Chiltern Line and allow Marylebone to be closed, concentrating all London-Birmingham traffic at Euston. Reducing the number of northward London terminals by one would improve connectivity and Euston is much better connected than Marylebone. Would such a tunnel be practical? I guess closing a London terminal is blasphemy to some but extra platforms at Euston and a two track tunnel would be a huge improvement for Chiltern passengers. It would provide a better foundation for a major upgrade for Chiltern Mainline by removing the limitations imposed by Marylebone.

jayah · 20 May 2019

EM2 said:
How do you fit longer trains in the same platforms and increase capacity?
If you cannot do that, how do you extend the platforms?

This has been recycled how many times?
Same paths.
Same platforms.
The trains are twice as long.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation