-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
MidlandMainlie
Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 779
Guardian reporting that the first phase of HS2 will be given the go ahead on Tuesday
Interesting to note that Grant Shapps will be staying on at transport in the reshuffle expected next week too.
Interesting to note that Grant Shapps will be staying on at transport in the reshuffle expected next week too.
More likely a typo for 2031...
civ-eng-jim
Member
Probably so, otherwise it would imply that phase 2 could be up and running before phase 1!
In the Grauniad?!
And Phase 2...
It doesn't seem to be talked about much anymore, but is there any word on the eastern leg? Is there any point if the capacity of phase 1 is so much lower than originally planned?
Why would phase 1 be lower than the 18tph (in reality 17tph +1 spare path) envisioned?
As I pointed out up thread 18tph is a train every 200 seconds, whilst 14tph would be a train every 257 seconds. Why would we need an extra (near) minute on top of the already over 3 minutes between trains?
Especially given that HS2 is expected to be using the very signalling system which is often cited as a way of increasing paths on the existing network as a reason as to why we don't need HS2!
I don't know the details of it, but the most up to date official report we have on the matter supports only 14tph, of course there are those who think that is an overestimate. 17tph always sounded ambitious - it leaves almost no room for any delays at all, even the Japanese would struggle to keep time precisely enough, indeed they don't attempt to run such high frequencies on the high speed lines. Maybe it's theoretically possible, but the current service frequency through Castlefield in Manchester is possible on paper, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
If 14tph is what can be run where is going to lose out? Somewhere has to have fewer trains and less capacity, and of course that means another chunk needs to be taken off the BCR.
Though the "14tph" claim appears to be based solely on no other high speed line globally doing more than this.
Remembering of course that all these other high speed lines will be using comparitively old technology compared to what will be available to HS2 in a decade's time.
3 minute headways (enabling on paper up to 20tph) have been bread and butter for railway signalling capability for many, many years. 18tph does not appear to be a wildly unrealistic ambition for HS2 to aim for.
Not Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. They're the only places outside London that matter to the civil servants in Whitehall.
Basically, Liverpool, a city that is already slated to have a notably slower service compared to Manchester, will now have to split/join with services from Preston, adding further time penalties, plus further performance risk in the possibility of one portion being delayed.
PartyOperator
Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2019
- Messages
- 166
17tph is based on a theoretical maximum of 24tph, reduced by a factor of 0.75 then leaving one path free. The trains will normally run at 320kph and will be timetabled for 49 minutes between Euston and Curzon Street while being designed to reach 360kph and to do the journey in 45.5 minutes (including two stops). Seems reasonable enough.
Bit of a massive logical leap there....
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Do you have even the slightest piece of evidence for these absurd claims, and your strange prediction of what the timetable will be?
Actually, Leeds is the most likely target of a reduction in capacity - that route would be easy to link up with other portions (one already is) at Toton and 2 (the Newcastles) of the 3 200m trains via Old Oak - the merging of which creates 14tph - will go through Toton anyway.
Already slated to have join/divide with the Preston service thanks to Sheffield being a city aggressively not caring about it being slower to London on HS2 than its rival (despite, in its case, and unlike the Liverpool case, its rival being further from London) under the 17tph plan.
keithboddey
Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 57
17 x 200 metre Trains leaving Birmingham every hour for Euston. And all you people on here think the demand will be that great in 10 years time......nuts !
I have signed up to "Stop HS2 "
I have signed up to "Stop HS2 "
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,382
That’s probably a good place to go (while it exists) if you honestly think 17 tph from Birmingham has ever been the plan...
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Eh? Whatever makes you think that's the timetable? It won't be anything like that number of trains leaving Birmingham Curzon Street for Euston. The vast majority of the trains to/from Euston will be heading from/to other places like Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Leeds, etc. - although they will tend to call at Birmingham Interchange en route.
I hope your reasons are a lot better informed than the first two sentences of your post seem to indicate.
No need to sign up. The 17 trains per hour serve a combination of Birmingham, Liverpool, Preston, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Leeds, York and Newcastle (and more). Some with 400m trains too.
North West destinations (plus Glasgow) get these from Phase 1.
Currently there's about 14x200 metre trains leaving Rugby for Euston every hour
Esker-pades
Established Member
Although it is very difficult to board a train that's moving at 125mph....
I agree that 17tph between Birmingham and Euston would be crazy. Which is perhaps why is not being proposed.
10 years time (2030) well still be only running Phase 1 services. On HS2 that's likely to be:
- 3tph London Birmingham
- 7tph London to other areas, not even worth a stop at Birmingham Interchange.
That puts it at 3tph (the same as is currently the case), however as those trains would 400m it could be argued that they would count as 6x200m trains.
Now was it unreasonable to be running 3x200m trains in 2009?
If we assume that then they were 40% full on every service (which is typical for intercity services), then with the current growth they would be around 68% full.
If we were to increase the capacity in 2018 that would put the loadings of the HS2 trains at 34% full, so not that much behind the starting point.
Since then the latest data shows that Virgin saw growth of 3.1% from 2018 to 2019, putting the figure at 70% (35% of the HS2 services) full.
However you're talking about in 10 years time, to reach the 40% from 2009 we'd need just 14% growth. That equates to just 1.32% growth year on year.
In short, yes very much so I think (assuming that the level of train service in 2009 was reasonable) that level of service will be more than justified by passenger growth.
Feel free to highlight this post to those at stophs2 to see if they can come back with a reasonable rebuttal.
the general public frequently quote totally inaccurate info regarding HS2 but i would have hoped on here we would be a tad more informed than your total misrepresentation of the timetable.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,930
Post of the year so far. By all means object to HS2, but at least research and have a bit of knowledge on what it is you are objecting against! 17tph to Birmingham
Post of the year so far. By all means object to HS2, but at least research and have a bit of knowledge on what it is you are objecting against! 17tph to Birmingham
And since HS2 is "all about saving 15 minutes to Birmingham" that means an average of less than a minute per train.
Or something.
You are totally correct! HS2's principal plan is to avoid going to places to pick up passengers!
Hilarious, Nimbopoops.
HS2 can’t go everywhere and it won’t. 14tph is less than 17/18tph. The services to the three ‘second cities’ is not up for debate. Even the idea of junking the eastern leg means replacement Leeds services going over the Pennines instead.
When Stoke kicked up a stink (a place HS2 was slated to avoid, funnily enough) it was agreed to send a path that way, terminating in Macclesfield. It was the Liverpool and Preston services that had to cop it with the portion-working, to make the path up. And that was at 17tph. 14tph will mean yet more sacrifices and it’ll be the places on the classic network that will make up the compromise.
HS2 can’t go everywhere and it won’t. 14tph is less than 17/18tph. The services to the three ‘second cities’ is not up for debate. Even the idea of junking the eastern leg means replacement Leeds services going over the Pennines instead.
When Stoke kicked up a stink (a place HS2 was slated to avoid, funnily enough) it was agreed to send a path that way, terminating in Macclesfield. It was the Liverpool and Preston services that had to cop it with the portion-working, to make the path up. And that was at 17tph. 14tph will mean yet more sacrifices and it’ll be the places on the classic network that will make up the compromise.
Can I ask why that matters?
It is expected (according to stopHS2) that HS2 will have around 100,000 new passengers a day. If it's generating that number of passengers by avoiding serving places then why does it need to serve them?
Many places are likely to see a more frequent service following the introduction of HS2, with each services having more available seats as the major passenger flows will divert on to HS2 services.
Whilst direct journey times could increase a little, what is better 1tph taking 90 minutes or 2tph taking 100 minutes (direct) or with a change taking 80 minutes?
I would suggest that whilst the longer journey time might put some people off the increased frequency would attract more. In that if you need to be somewhere for (say) 11 and the current services gets there for 10:15 (departing 8:55) that's quite inconvenient. With the increased journey time, but more frequent, services you could get there at either 10:25 (departuring 8:55) or 10:55 (departing 9:25) which is more attractive.
Anyway, many of those who may be put off from the longer journey time are likely to be those willing to change trains. In doing so wouldn't be lost from the rail network. Especially if they can get a different service to the change point so that if the HS2 service is cancelled they could still get a slower service and only be a little late (for instance leave at 9:30 with an expected arrival time of 10:50, but then have to take a different service and arrive at 11:15). Most people are understanding if someone is late due to train disruption, however if time keeping is critical then you'd be planning on getting earlier services anyway (the train before the train you need, to mitigate against cancellation). However even then you'd be better off.
- Status