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

Gareth said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yet no one has justified why HS2 can't run more services (i.e. the 17tph) when the WCML could by using new signalling systems, the very same systems which could allow the increase in frequency on HS2 over what other High-speed lines elsewhere currently achieve.

Also, even if there's a problem with running 18tph (200 seconds between trains) or 17tph (211 seconds between trains), how's that mean that we couldn't run 16tph (225 seconds between trains) or 15tph (240 seconds between trains) and it has to be 14tph (257 seconds between trains)?

Even if it results in trains running a bit late you could well run subsequent services a little slower to close up the gap between trains and probable add in an extra path so that in a 30 minute window you squeezed in 10 trains rather than 9. Even if you couldn't, if there's 17 services an hour but with an 18th path available then disruption from a one off event is unlikely to extend beyond 1 hour and almost certainly not beyond 2 hours.

Of course an issue causing delays over several hours will impact for longer the recovery will still be fairly quick once it's over.

However we are taking about events which should be fairly infrequent, however if it's a significant problem (but somehow isn't a problem when it comes to more trains in the existing network) then it would just mean that more High-speed lines are needed. Such as an Eastern High-speed line heading north out of London or an extension to bypass the bottleneck which keeps causing the problems. In the case of the latter, this could be fixed by Northern Powerhouse Rail anyway (for instance if trains to/from Liverpool were causing a significant number of the problems).

It could even be the case that if a train is likely to cause problems from missing it's path that it gets diverted to Curzon Street Station and passengers are transferred to other services to get to London. Whilst that would be a problem if it happened all the time, mostly it's going to be an infrequent event (unless there's a clear need to expand the network).

To me (given the various measures available to mitigate against it, especially as it's something which would only come into play once the Eastern arm is built) it sounds very much like finding a reason not to build HS2 based on something which shouldn't happen much. However if it does happen a lot then it should mean that we try and find a solution which fixes the problem rather than not doing anything. Especially as any alternative to HS2 would be more at risk of these problems than HS2 will be.

One issue about HS2 is that we've not done all we can with the existing network. In the UK, the classic network would need significant upgrades, but not revolutionisation. For instance, the ECML and WCML are relatively high-quality lines, but the MML is lagging behind in terms of standard. HS2 would see a reduction in need should the MML be significantly improved, and services to Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc. would be improved. On the western side, the Chilterns line could reduce a lot of the burden. Thus, the main capacity argument seems to make less sense than it does at face value. Note that with the CML and MML, smaller towns on the way also benefit, whilst HS2 benefits 'parkway' stations and cities only.

Peter Kelford said:

One issue about HS2 is that we've not done all we can with the existing network. In the UK, the classic network would need significant upgrades, but not revolutionisation. For instance, the ECML and WCML are relatively high-quality lines, but the MML is lagging behind in terms of standard. HS2 would see a reduction in need should the MML be significantly improved, and services to Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc. would be improved. On the western side, the Chilterns line could reduce a lot of the burden. Thus, the main capacity argument seems to make less sense than it does at face value. Note that with the CML and MML, smaller towns on the way also benefit, whilst HS2 benefits 'parkway' stations and cities only.

Click to expand...

The actual scope for meaningful capacity improvements on the Chiltern and MML is miniscule. Lengthen the few trains not already running at maximum length is pretty much it. And even then only benefitting Birmingham (via slowed down journeys) and the East Midlands/Sheffield. More trains are out of the question on both routes due to lack of capacity at the London ends. A mere scratch on the surface compared to what HS2.

Peter Kelford said:

One issue about HS2 is that we've not done all we can with the existing network. In the UK, the classic network would need significant upgrades, but not revolutionisation. For instance, the ECML and WCML are relatively high-quality lines, but the MML is lagging behind in terms of standard. HS2 would see a reduction in need should the MML be significantly improved, and services to Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc. would be improved. On the western side, the Chilterns line could reduce a lot of the burden. Thus, the main capacity argument seems to make less sense than it does at face value. Note that with the CML and MML, smaller towns on the way also benefit, whilst HS2 benefits 'parkway' stations and cities only.

Click to expand...

So Watford Junction, Nuneaton, Stafford, Milton Keynes, Northampton etc won’t benefit from HS2 freeing up paths on the classic network to allow more services to call more often at those stations?

So wrong as has been proven time after time after time!

The MML is also being upgraded with longer platforms and being electrified with one result being Corby services having a uplift in seating capacity from 1tph 5 car DMU to 2tph 12 car EMU as well as services north of Kettering being upgraded by not stopping south of the station and this speeding up services.

As to the Chiltern Mainline, it’s been explained repeatedly why it is NOT a acceptable substitute for HS2 especially as the paths are not available especially at Marylebone unless you cut the number of Chiltern services.

The Ham said:

I agree that 17tph between Birmingham and Euston would be crazy. Which is perhaps why is not being proposed.

Click to expand...

You also have to take into account that a train that is running from Birmingham to Euston is not necessarily intended to carry passengers from Birmingham to Euston. If we didn't have competition and fares set to push people onto trains that overall don't really make sense, there would presently effectively be three trains per hour from Birmingham to Euston, which is a fairly sensible number. The LNR services are intended for connections and for travel between stations the Pendolinos do not stop at. Just as the LNR services from Euston to MKC calling at most/all stations are not intended for people travelling from Euston to MKC but rather, say, Harrow to Bletchley, or whatever.

And with HS2, in such a situation, only the HS2 trains (4tph maybe?) would be intended for that purpose. The others would be intended for other purposes.

Peter Kelford said:

One issue about HS2 is that we've not done all we can with the existing network. In the UK, the classic network would need significant upgrades, but not revolutionisation. For instance, the ECML and WCML are relatively high-quality lines, but the MML is lagging behind in terms of standard. HS2 would see a reduction in need should the MML be significantly improved, and services to Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc. would be improved. On the western side, the Chilterns line could reduce a lot of the burden. Thus, the main capacity argument seems to make less sense than it does at face value. Note that with the CML and MML, smaller towns on the way also benefit, whilst HS2 benefits 'parkway' stations and cities only.

Click to expand...

I live in Nottingham and regularly travel to Bedford. At the moment it's a 1h10m direct journey. Once the new timetable starts, I'll need to change at Kettering. More faff, and a longer journey. Given that the cost of a walk-up fare is £40 return(!), I'd be tempted to drive if the journey ended up being around the 1m30 mark. An MML upgrade is actually forcing me to consider not taking the train. (Not saying the upgrade isn't required or good, just that it's not good for me personally).

But, if HS2 phase 2B existed, the MML fasts could be replaced with stopping services, giving me both a faster option to London (HS2) and a frequent, direct service to Bedford again (MML).

The main problem at Bedford is that there's no platform on the up fast. That really needs to be solved and would just require "building out" of the present platform.

Bletchleyite said:

The main problem at Bedford is that there's no platform on the up fast. That really needs to be solved and would just require "building out" of the present platform.

Click to expand...

(Getting off-topic): Just curious, by "build out", what do you mean exactly? Rebuild P4 where the down line is now and put the down on the other side, which would then be P5?

jfowkes said:

(Getting off-topic): Just curious, by "build out", what do you mean exactly? Rebuild P4 where the down line is now and put the down on the other side, which would then be P5?

Click to expand...

The layout is presently:

P4
fast
fast
slow
P3
P2
slow
slow
P1
(P1A)

I'd extend P3 out to serve the down fast.

Forgive my stupidity, what happens to the slow that's currently served by P3?

Bletchleyite said:

I'd extend P3 out to serve the down fast.

Click to expand...

And lose capacity for terminating trains, especially at times of day when they are going in and out of the sidings

jfowkes said:

Forgive my stupidity, what happens to the slow that's currently served by P3?

Click to expand...

It's a terminal platform. You'd gain some capacity back by P1 not being used for the IC services that presently use it.

jfowkes said:

Forgive my stupidity, what happens to the slow that's currently served by P3?

Click to expand...

Using their proposal, the track for platform 3 would be lifted and platform 3 extended over the former trackbed.

This is unworkable because:

1. You are now restricted to 2 terminating platforms for the TL services which is a massive cut in capacity.

2. To allow for TL services to still use Plat 3 would require remodelling of both track, signalling and OHL.

3. There is no need to make Platforms 2/3 any more wider as there isn’t a issue with overcrowding.

4. For the very little gain, it has a poor business case as it doesn’t give value for money.

The best thing for Bedford is to relocate the station with a layout suitable for the 21st Century but that costs money so for now people just have to put up with the time penalty that EMR trains take to call southbound which isn’t the end of the world.

jfowkes said:

An MML upgrade is actually forcing me to consider not taking the train. (Not saying the upgrade isn't required or good, just that it's not good for me personally).

Click to expand...

That's a problem with how the trains are timetabled. A proper upgrade would allow you to take your direct train.

A two-level arrangement with trains on the lower level and parking/station facilities on the upper level could work at Bedford. At least two new lines could get built that way.

Bletchleyite said:

The main problem at Bedford is that there's no platform on the up fast. That really needs to be solved and would just require "building out" of the present platform.

Click to expand...

These last few messages made me curious enough to go and look at Bedford station on Google maps - not a station I'm familiar with. And wow, that really is a terrible track/platform layout, isn't it! I now understand why so few MML trains stop at Bedford - which from a passenger perspective seems daft. Definitely needs fixing, especially if the idea is that, after HS2 Phase 2 is built, MML trains can serve intermediate stations better.

Luckily, since we now know that East-West Rail will be going via the existing Bedford station, it seems likely that the layout will have to be fixed anyway to accomodate EWRail trains, and allow EWRail-MML interchange. I'm guessing that will happen long before HS2 Phase 2 is built (assuming Phase 2 does get built in anything like the current proposals).

In today’s paywalled article in the Times, the author seems to betray a fairly poor understanding of the actual route. He refers to the line to Birmingham and a “spur to Crewe” as being the western arm of a Y shaped route, and about to be announced, and then the second phase as being a line from Manchester to Leeds. I reckon he’s completely confused? No mention of an eastern arm at all.

Although it’s a generally positive article, it really does seem to add to the general confusion about what’s actually being proposed...

Peter Kelford said:

One issue about HS2 is that we've not done all we can with the existing network. In the UK, the classic network would need significant upgrades, but not revolutionisation. For instance, the ECML and WCML are relatively high-quality lines, but the MML is lagging behind in terms of standard. HS2 would see a reduction in need should the MML be significantly improved, and services to Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc. would be improved. On the western side, the Chilterns line could reduce a lot of the burden. Thus, the main capacity argument seems to make less sense than it does at face value. Note that with the CML and MML, smaller towns on the way also benefit, whilst HS2 benefits 'parkway' stations and cities only.

Click to expand...

On the western side the Chilterns line could provide some additional capacity for ... er, Birmingham.

What does it do for Manchester, Liverpool, Crewe, Warrington, Preston ... ?

swt_passenger said:

Although it’s a generally positive article, it really does seem to add to the general confusion about what’s actually being proposed...

Click to expand...

Talking about general confusion, do we have any idea when a final decision will be made about whether to go ahead? What exactly are the government waiting for?!!

cavie78 said:

Talking about general confusion, do we have any idea when a final decision will be made about whether to go ahead? What exactly are the government waiting for?!!

Click to expand...

The media have recently been running articles about an imminent decision, some of which have been mentioned over the last few days in this very thread...

But I think such stories get drowned out by people still trying to redesign the route, despite most of the ideas having been analysed at length, and rejected, many years ago...

cavie78 said:

Talking about general confusion, do we have any idea when a final decision will be made about whether to go ahead? What exactly are the government waiting for?!!

Click to expand...

Number 10 briefing that the Cabinet will sign off on it in their meeting tomorrow (as opposed to Thursday).

They only did so an hour ago, at the lobby briefing so the news isn't widespread yet - especially as there's a load of other stuff briefed.

I guess more details about phase 2 legislative timeframe and that will be available later this week.

Thanks both. This thread can be a bit unwieldy when you're looking for facts!

If the goahead is given tomorrow, what does that actually mean? Do TBMs start their engines?

miami said:

If the goahead is given tomorrow, what does that actually mean? Do TBMs start their engines?

Click to expand...

There's always scope for change, but the funding for the main construction of Phase 1 should be released.
That should allow the tunnelling and viaducts of Phase 1 to start "this year", once they have let and confirmed the contracts.
I should think it also takes us past the "point of no return" (although some would say we have already done that by demolishing the sites at Euston and Curzon St).

Supposedly the costs of Phase 2a and 2b will be reviewed before parliamentary approval and government go-ahead.
I can understand that for 2b, but a rethink on 2a (Crewe) could be a problem, as there's no real plan if HS2 ends at Lichfield.
The current plan is to accelerate Phase 2a to open to Crewe at the same time as Phase 1.

Some more proposals on what's happening in the north is also expected, but I'm not optimistic for much detail.

miami said:

If the goahead is given tomorrow, what does that actually mean? Do TBMs start their engines?

Click to expand...

No, they get "notice to proceed", they don't even have any TBMs yet.

LNW-GW Joint said:

I can understand that for 2b, but a rethink on 2a (Crewe) could be a problem, as there's no real plan if HS2 ends at Lichfield.
The current plan is to accelerate Phase 2a to open to Crewe at the same time as Phase 1.

Click to expand...

Local politicians tell me there's grumbles about the depot going into Winsford (train washing all night)

My understanding of that part of Winsford is it's an industrial park, so there's really nothing Winsford should complain about (more jobs I guess). Middlewich may be annoyed, especially if they still don't get their tram-train station

Where will the depot for phase 1/2a be?

Peter Kelford said:

That's a problem with how the trains are timetabled. A proper upgrade would allow you to take your direct train.

Click to expand...

What sort of proper upgrade would that be? The MML is at capacity as of this December in terms of train paths, and when the new fleet arrives, it will be just about at capacity in terms of train lengths also.

It would be possible to stop more services at Bedford (just), but that imposes a 5 minute journey time on everyone on the train, and there would be a lot more losers than winners. (Before you ask, 5 mins really does matter).

To run more services south of Bedford needs more tracks. Specifically a new pair of tracks all the way from at least Harpenden, and more likely north of Luton, into London, plus new platform capacity in London. Similar to the WCML where the only way to run more services is to build a new pair of tracks from at least MK, and more likely Rugby, into London, plus more platform capacity in London. While we’re at it, the only way to run more services on the ECML is to run a new pair of tracks from Hitchin into London, plus more platform capacity in London.

Rather than build three new railways into London, it would seem more efficient to build just one, that can do the job for all three.

The Evening Standard this evening was suggesting that phases 1 and 2a would be approved initially. Also it mentioned that for first 3 years services would start/terminate at Old Oak Common with running into Euston 3 years later (2031) to allow a review of the Euston overall station plan. HS2 Ltd would lose responsibility for the Euston rebuild.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/euston-project-hs2-new-managers-a4358186.html

New managers to deliver the much-delayed upgrading of Euston station are set to be announced tomorrow when ministers finally give a go-ahead to the high-speed rail line to Birmingham.

HS2, the company formed to deliver the 225mph north-south railway, will lose responsibility for the highly-complex London terminus project, which has slipped up to three years behind the original schedule.


In a major change to plans, the high-speed line will terminate at Old Oak Common in west London for the first three years after its opening, scheduled in 2028, with the final link to Euston due to begin in around 2031.

Click to expand...

The online version seems to be shorter than the article I saw in the print version on the train this evening?

philjo said:

Also it mentioned that for first 3years services would start/terminate at Old Oak Common with running into Euston 3 years later to allow a review of the Euston overall station plan.

Click to expand...

"for the first 3 years nobody will use it". Stupid, stupid idea.

Bletchleyite said:

"for the first 3 years nobody will use it". Stupid, stupid idea.

Click to expand...

I can see the benefit of starting passenger operations on a self contained stretch, say to Curzon St. Enables a full shakedown of all the systems in full contact with the passenger, before then extending on to the NR Network. It’s exactly what was done for the East London Line when rebuilt, and also for Crossrail.

And if OOC is ready a couple of years before Euston (as it surely will be), surely it be sensible to get some benefit out of the (very significant) investment?