• 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.

MarkLong

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2016
Messages
105
no real chance, the long term environmental argument is really in favour of HS2 (electric trains with only real environmental impact is construction but even thats negligible in grand scheme of things) compared to Heathrow (would actively cause a uptick in local CO2 emissions long term)
So this challenge will not force the main construction works, which scheduled in April, to be delayed again?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MarkLong

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2016
Messages
105
Exactly - there is an Act of Parliament authorising HS2, there most certainly isn’t for Heathrow R3.
But even they successfully to delay the April main construction start date, it will cost additional billions of pounds.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
I assume they'd need a court injunction for that, and I can't see a judge granting that given there's an act of parliament behind it.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
That depends whether we have now decided that environmental protections have gained sufficient importantance to require explicit repeal or not.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Environmental law would take precedence over an individual HS2 bill.
Eh not necessarily.

Parliamentary Supremacy is very much still in effect and the HS2 bill is still primary legislation.
Only a very few pieces of legislation are protected against implied repeal.

If the HS2 bill decided to abolish elections or something that would be a different matter.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,844
So will the main construction delayed again?
It probably won't impact it, they have to get notice to proceed first which is the end of the month or first week of April, then the civils contractors have to mobilise. That isn't a quick job.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
Even if implied repeal was a viable strategy, the Paris Agreement was ratified before the Phase 1 Act was given royal assent, so that way is out of the window.

The long hybrid bill process will probably also make judges wary of striking down the law like that.
 

Snapper

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2006
Messages
2,386
Location
All over the place
Don't forget that Packham has legal hurdles to jump. First he has to convince a Court that there's a case to answer. If he can't do that, he's going nowhere.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
This fascinating document from the HS2 combined with NPR thread has a whole section (Section 5) dedicated to criticising various HS2 design principles. It's worth a read. Key issues are:
  • No switches and crossings in tunnels
  • Higher-than-normal platform heights (1115 mm)
  • An "elaborate" tunnel ventilation system, due to a restriction of only one train per ventilation section (on Crossrail, two trains are permitted per section)
(Please don't use this thread to discuss the main topic of the document, Manchester Piccadilly; use the thread linked above)
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,355
This fascinating document from the HS2 combined with NPR thread has a whole section (Section 5) dedicated to criticising various HS2 design principles. It's worth a read. Key issues are:
  • No switches and crossings in tunnels
  • Higher-than-normal platform heights (1115 mm)
  • An "elaborate" tunnel ventilation system, due to a restriction of only one train per ventilation section (on Crossrail, two trains are permitted per section)
(Please don't use this thread to discuss the main topic of the document, Manchester Piccadilly; use the thread linked above)
All existing UK trains (exc. Stadlers) will be fine with 1115mm it is only in the context of International trains from Manchester they raise it as an issue but with no HS2-HS1 link it is completely academic.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
The main reason HS2 chose the 1115mm platform height was to closely match the floor height of many manufacturers' high-speed trains, so level boarding can be achieved at the new stations. This allows the broadest range of suppliers to compete for the rolling stock contract as all can incorporate a floor height of around this value. Alstom with their Avelia and Talgo with their Avril could potentially deliver lower floor vehicles throughout at either 760mm or the UK special case of 915mm, the latter which, if the new stations were adjusted to this height as recommended by the European Railway Agency, would also give the benefit of level access at the much larger numbers of stations to be served on the wider conventional network. The problem with both these products 'out of the box', is they have power cars at the ends sandwiching the passenger vehicles rather than 'distributed power' with traction motors distributed among many axles throughout the train. HS2 specified distributed power, so Alstom and Talgo must have had to re-engineer their standard trains to comply, and accomodating bulky traction motors beneath passenger accommodation may compromise the ability to provide a lower floor. Typical distributed power trains from the Far East and Germany have the higher floors that match the 1115mm platform height chosen, but clearly will require a step up from a classic UK platform. Stadler, in their FLIRT based UK products, incorporate differing floor heights along the length of a unit to achieve level boarding to lower level sections, with matching inter-car gangways situated over small articulated bogies, and with higher sections over larger traction bogies accessed by ramps or steps. Stadler isn't in the running for HS2 but a similar solution might be possible technically from another manufacturer, incorporating a greater distribution of traction motors. However, the spec also calls for a level floor throughout the unit, which would rule that out presumably. It's complicated...
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,355
The main reason HS2 chose the 1115mm platform height was to closely match the floor height of many manufacturers' high-speed trains, so level boarding can be achieved at the new stations. This allows the broadest range of suppliers to compete for the rolling stock contract as all can incorporate a floor height of around this value. Alstom with their Avelia and Talgo with their Avril could potentially deliver lower floor vehicles throughout at either 760mm or the UK special case of 915mm, the latter which, if the new stations were adjusted to this height as recommended by the European Railway Agency, would also give the benefit of level access at the much larger numbers of stations to be served on the wider conventional network. The problem with both these products 'out of the box', is they have power cars at the ends sandwiching the passenger vehicles rather than 'distributed power' with traction motors distributed among many axles throughout the train. HS2 specified distributed power, so Alstom and Talgo must have had to re-engineer their standard trains to comply, and accomodating bulky traction motors beneath passenger accommodation may compromise the ability to provide a lower floor. Typical distributed power trains from the Far East and Germany have the higher floors that match the 1115mm platform height chosen, but clearly will require a step up from a classic UK platform. Stadler, in their FLIRT based UK products, incorporate differing floor heights along the length of a unit to achieve level boarding to lower level sections, with matching inter-car gangways situated over small articulated bogies, and with higher sections over larger traction bogies accessed by ramps or steps. Stadler isn't in the running for HS2 but a similar solution might be possible technically from another manufacturer, incorporating a greater distribution of traction motors. However, the spec also calls for a level floor throughout the unit, which would rule that out presumably. It's complicated...
Japan and China have gone for 1150 and 1200mm recently so the UK choice is quite logical in the global context.

If you want to maximise capacity on the classic compatible HS trains you need distributed traction and level floors. (high capacity isn't an issue on most the the rest of European HS services)

You need level boarding to minimise dwell times at high TPH stations e.g. Old Oak Common.

The Siemens Velaro Turkey and Bombardier / (Ansaldo Breda) now Hitachi Frecciarossa 1000 products that are the basis for their respective bids already have the right floor heights for level boarding.

All doors will be ramped level for HS platforms (gap fill) or down to existing ones, it really isn't a issue.
 

PartyOperator

Member
Joined
26 May 2019
Messages
166
The main reason HS2 chose the 1115mm platform height was to closely match the floor height of many manufacturers' high-speed trains, so level boarding can be achieved at the new stations. This allows the broadest range of suppliers to compete for the rolling stock contract as all can incorporate a floor height of around this value. Alstom with their Avelia and Talgo with their Avril could potentially deliver lower floor vehicles throughout at either 760mm or the UK special case of 915mm, the latter which, if the new stations were adjusted to this height as recommended by the European Railway Agency, would also give the benefit of level access at the much larger numbers of stations to be served on the wider conventional network. The problem with both these products 'out of the box', is they have power cars at the ends sandwiching the passenger vehicles rather than 'distributed power' with traction motors distributed among many axles throughout the train. HS2 specified distributed power, so Alstom and Talgo must have had to re-engineer their standard trains to comply, and accomodating bulky traction motors beneath passenger accommodation may compromise the ability to provide a lower floor. Typical distributed power trains from the Far East and Germany have the higher floors that match the 1115mm platform height chosen, but clearly will require a step up from a classic UK platform. Stadler, in their FLIRT based UK products, incorporate differing floor heights along the length of a unit to achieve level boarding to lower level sections, with matching inter-car gangways situated over small articulated bogies, and with higher sections over larger traction bogies accessed by ramps or steps. Stadler isn't in the running for HS2 but a similar solution might be possible technically from another manufacturer, incorporating a greater distribution of traction motors. However, the spec also calls for a level floor throughout the unit, which would rule that out presumably. It's complicated...

Isn’t the Alstom offering based on the AGV, which already has distributed traction?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,355
Isn’t the Alstom offering based on the AGV, which already has distributed traction?
But it is articulated and HS2 specified no articulation to both keep axle loads down and fit the existing network curvature), the braking requirements for HS2 are higher than TGV (including regen). 25.000m intermediate vehicles with extra for the nose on the driving vehicles not 17m intermediate and 28m end vehicles on AGV.

Alstom had to change much more than Siemens or Bombardier-Hitachi, hence a they missed a few tricks that others who had less major changes to worry about could focus on. Alstom won't be winning the highest technical scores.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
If you want to maximise capacity on the classic compatible HS trains you need distributed traction and level floors. (high capacity isn't an issue on most the the rest of European HS services)

Why do we care about maximising capacity on the classic compatible trains?
After Phase2 is complete classic compatible trains will be a sideshow.

Especially if NPR delivers high speed tracks into Liverpool etc.

We should be aiming for maximum overall achievable capacity.
You need level boarding to minimise dwell times at high TPH stations e.g. Old Oak Common.
Level boarding could be provided at 915mm or 760mm.
915mm would allow level boarding at class stations the classic compatibles will use.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Why do we want to maximise capacity on the classic compatible trains?
After Phase2 is complete classic compatible trains will be a sideshow.

Not really. Work out how many trains are required for the Scotland, Newcastle, Sheffield and Stoke services.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Not really. Work out how many trains are required for the Scotland, Newcastle, Sheffield and Stoke services.

1tph half-set Sheffield
1tph half-set Stoke (assuming it's not being axed)
2tph half-set Newcastle
2tph full-set Scotland.

That's four full sets per hour.

We are looking at about 8-9 full sets per hour for the captive destinations after Phase 2. Depending on what happens to Leeds.
In terms of number of sets ordered perhaps classic compatible would be in the majority.
But thanks to the much higher productivity of captive sets, we would expect many many more passengers to be usign them and more trains per hour through OOC.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,355
Why do we want to maximise capacity on the classic compatible trains?
After Phase2 is complete classic compatible trains will be a sideshow.

Capacity needs to be maximised on all HS2 trains

Level boarding could be provided at 915mm or 760mm.
But not with level floors through the trains (this also allow interior flexibility and capacity maximisation). The traction equipment has to fit somewhere and also maintain a low centre of gravity hence under the floor (as power cars are also a no-no which was the traditional Alstom and Talgo alternative).
Floor level changes inside vehicle also affect dwell times
As I said Siemens and Bombarider-Hitachi already have products available.

Copying recent best relevant practice in Japan and China is better than copying a compromise to historic norms in Europe that bear little resemblance to any current functional requirements.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Capacity needs to be maximised on all HS2 trains
Then selecting a floor height which cripples double deck solutions might be a mistake.
1115mm is not going to permit double deck trains with a continuous level deck on the GC loading gauge.

If we had more height it would be a different story, but we don't.
You will end up with awkward solutions with huge staircases.

915mm might have been achievable but there simply is not enough height above 1115mm.
But not with level floors through the trains (this also allow interior flexibility and capacity maximisation)
Stadler managed to provide this didn't they?
The traction equipment has to fit somewhere and also maintain a low centre of gravity hence under the floor (as power cars are also a no-no which was the traditional Alstom and Talgo alternative).
It should concentrate on it's capacity and performance specifications, not start defining how the trains should be engineered.

The recent improvements in technology have seriously reduced the disadvantage of the power car solution (ie. the power cars are getting much shorter), it is not particularly a good idea to just exclude whole categories before they start.
The Avelia Horizon apparently has power cars now under 16m long.

Especially since I am not entirely sure why articulation is forbidden. Network rail is obviously not opposed.

Also don't a bunch of new french multiple units have traction gear mounted on the roof?

EDIT: (Apparently it's the Regio 2N and a bunch of Double Deck EMUs - so apparently centre of gravity is not a showstopper)

Copying recent best relevant practice in Japan and China is better than copying a compromise to historic norms in Europe that bear little resemblance to any current functional requirements.
And relevant European best practice is low platforms to enable double deck trains to be used on high demand routes like Paris Lyon.
Possibly the only saturated high speed line outside of Japan. Perhaps some CHinese routes.

Also we aren't exactly following Japanese best practice either.
Otherwise all the stations would be rigged for 3.5m train width and the classic compatible trains would have boarding bridges.

EDIT:
It's also worth noting that Brexit has rescued HS2 from having to abandon this design decision, as it appears the argument was very much going against them regarding the derogation from TSIs.

I went looking for supporting documents and found only one that supported HS2s position and several that very much supported the TSI-position.

Indeed an FOI i made to them on the actual platform height used for construction prep was replied to in a very testy manner
The DfT is engaging actively with the European Commission to identify a means to achieve step free access for HS2 within the current and future regulatory framework.
In other words they said no but we aren't willing to admit defeat yet.

EDIT #2:

Just to say my preferred solution would have been 915mm platform heights so that the classic compatible trains would have level boarding or near level boarding throughout their journeys.


Later on captive double decks could have been built with the highest achievable door height that allowed for a continuous upper deck.
That would have permitted a reasonable compromise.

But we are now where we are and I hope we don't come to regret this decision later.
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,355
Then selecting a floor height which cripples double deck solutions might be a mistake.
1115mm is not going to permit double deck trains with a continuous level deck on the GC loading gauge.

If we had more height it would be a different story, but we don't.
You will end up with awkward solutions with huge staircases.

Stadler managed to provide this didn't they?

It should concentrate on it's capacity and performance specifications, not start defining how the trains should be engineered.

The recent improvements in technology have seriously reduced the disadvantage of the power car solution (ie. the power cars are getting much shorter), it is not particularly a good idea to just exclude whole categories before they start.
The Avelia Horizon apparently has power cars now under 16m long.

Especially since I am not entirely sure why articulation is forbidden. Network rail is obviously not opposed.

And relevant European best practice is low platforms to enable double deck trains to be used on high demand routes like Paris Lyon.
Possibly the only saturated high speed line outside of Japan. Perhaps some CHinese routes.

Also we aren't exactly following Japanese best practice either.
Otherwise all the stations would be rigged for 3.5m train width and the classic compatible trains would have boarding bridges.

EDIT:
It's also worth noting that Brexit has rescued HS2 from having to abandon this design decision, as it appears the argument was very much going against them regarding the derogation from TSIs.

I went looking for supporting documents and found only one that supported HS2s position and several that very much supported the TSI-position.

Indeed an FOI i made to them on the actual platform height used for construction prep was replied to in a very testy manner

In other words they said no but we aren't willing to admit defeat yet.

HS2 is not the same as other European HS operations.

As dwell times matter they aren't looking at double deck. Double deck doesn't add that much extra capacity and causes plenty of other knock on issues (e.g. TGV duplex has power cars ). The french were very focused on maximising capacity in a shortish train length to allow existing platforms to be used (e.g.<200m train length. ) France have now moved away from double deck (a lesson to be noted???). TGV duplex has fewer seats per ~200m unit than HS2 classic sets on 1 level will!


Stadler isn't level floor though - some of the seats are on raised floors adjacent to a walkway similar to the back of many buses. 745s are also very space inefficient and inflexible overall (but are better than 90+mk3+DVT as you don't have the wasted DVT+90 space).
The gangways are wheel chair width unlike much modern and HS2 stock.

HS2 focused on capacity and performance and realised there were some defining features/themes that underlaided what they required so they specified them. Unfortunately it didn't align with French /Alstom (and Talgo) philosophy but the German/Italian/Chinese/Japanese one. Prespecifying prevents time wasting. It isn't possible with an articulated product bid to provide the overall minimum seating requirements laid down by HS2 for example - it was an effective way of stopping silly bids that were going to win then launching legal challenges when they didn't win (see Alstom on newer Eurostar)

What ever the TSI (political compromise) says HS2/china /Japan are ahead on this.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
France have now moved away from double deck (a lesson to be noted???).
Really?
Has anyone told SNCF?

They just placed an order for 100 new double deck Avelia Horizons.
TGV duplex has fewer seats per ~200m unit than HS2 classic sets on 1 level will!
TGV Duplex is functionally 90s tech.
Avelia Horizon is the comparator now and it seats up to 740 in a high density configuration.
And that is high density by SNCF standards.
Which probably means rather lower density than what we have here.

You will struggle to match that on a single deck.

EDIT:

Current Ouigo services manage to pack about 620 people onto an extant TGV Duplex.

I can't find a seating plan for them, but I do have one for a regular TGV DUplex.
If we assume they replaced all first class cars at the end of the train with a mirror image of the second class end of the train that gains us ~70 seats.
If we then assume second class seating on the upper deck of the cafe car, that takes us to ~110.

Which is about right.
So Ouigo currently uses standard TGV Duplex standard pitch, or something very close to it.

If we assume SNCF plan to continue this practice (the Avelia Horizon has extra trian length due to shorter power cars and more compact equipment, allowing both decks of all cars to be used) then the 740 still seems reasonable.

But what sort of seating density is that?

Apparently the seat pitch on a TGV Duplex is about ~920mm (Book Traveling the Eurail Express).
As far as I can tell that is quite high by UK standards.

EDIT 2:
This document suggests that the Pendolino has as eating pitch of about 840mm.
The supervoyager is below 800mm in standard class.

Clearly this 740 passenger "high capacity" layout is not particularly high capacity by UK standards!
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,355
Really?
Has anyone told SNCF?

They just placed an order for 100 new double deck Avelia Horizons.

TGV Duplex is functionally 90s tech.
Avelia Horizon is the comparator now and it seats up to 740 in a high density configuration.
And that is high density by SNCF standards.
Which probably means rather lower density than what we have here.

You will struggle to match that on a single deck.

I think you will find that SNCF were told that it is politically toxic (impossible) to close the Alstom Belfort locomotive factory hence the new product would have power cars made in Belfort...
SNCF didn't actually want to buy more double deck. Look back over the timing of orders and Belfort almost having 0 work and Alstom hinting to the Government the inevitable (they want to close it too!)
Brown paper envelopes won't win Alstom the export orders it once didn't as they have got done under the US foreign corrupt practices act, UK Bribery Act 2015 (yes the SFO did manage convictions!) and the Swiss as contracts wins are far better monitored by losers these days. One big reason for selling the power business to GE which has somewhat imploded since.

e.g.
https://www.sfo.gov.uk/2019/11/25/s...des-with-sentencing-of-alstom-network-uk-ltd/
https://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/alstom-network-uk-ltd-alstom-power-ltd/
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
903
(high capacity isn't an issue on most the the rest of European HS services)
This is as 400m trains are used, and double-deckers in France - i.e. 400m train takes 1200 people.

What ever the TSI (political compromise) says HS2/china /Japan are ahead on this.
China uses an HS-only network. Japan, due to gauge reasons, also uses a pure HSR network. French and German trains extend beyond the HSR network.

Which probably means rather lower density than what we have here.
We use cattle class arrangements, with standing capacity, which other countries don't.

I think you will find that SNCF were told that it is politically toxic (impossible) to close the Alstom Belfort locomotive factory hence the new product would have power cars made in Belfort...
SNCF didn't actually want to buy more double deck. Look back over the timing of orders and Belfort almost having 0 work and Alstom hinting to the Government the inevitable (they want to close it too!)
Brown paper envelopes won't win Alstom the export orders it once didn't as they have got done under the US foreign corrupt practices act, UK Bribery Act 2015 (yes the SFO did manage convictions!) and the Swiss as contracts wins are far better monitored by losers these days. One big reason for selling the power business to GE which has somewhat imploded since.
I think you might have mixed up two different orders. One was some TGV Euroduplexes. The one we are talking about is the next generation TGV, the Avelia Horizon. Here is the communiqué: https://www.sncf.com/sites/default/files/press_release/edl_video_gpy_tgv_du_futur_eng_draft_2.pdf.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
With 50 minutes OOC to Manchester/Crewe/Birmingham that makes perfect sense.

Indeed.
Which means that 740 for a double deck train is a substantial underestimate.
A simplistic scaling suggests that something like 800+ is achievable

With the power cars shrinking from 22 to 16 metres, we gain 12m there.

Which is something like 0.6-7 trailer cars on a TGV.
Which combined with the half they gain from not having a half-car for the cafe, it's easy to see how they get such a substantial capacity uplift.
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
903
With 50 minutes OOC to Manchester/Crewe/Birmingham that makes perfect sense.
I never said that it didn't but it does go to show how some countries value customer comfort whilst others money. SNCF makes a loss each year but the seating is generally not too small to sit in, and you can always get a hot meal on a TGV.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Japan, due to gauge reasons, also uses a pure HSR network.
Not entirely true since the 1990s when JR East introduced two 'Mini Shinkansen' branches on former narrow gauge routes that had been converted to standard gauge. Like our UK classic compatibles, the high speed trains that use these are specially constructed with restricted body profiles to fit through structures too small for other 'captive' Shinkansen trains that stay wholly on the high speed network. On the branches concerned, other local stopping services also run using standard gauge variants of typical Japanese low speed emus and there are areas of dual gauge track traversed en route as well. The platform height is very similar on both Shinkansen and metre gauge networks although on high speed lines the edge is set back from the rail a little further so the special trains need extending gap filler steps at doors that deploy at stations on the HS line, as planned in UK. So it is no longer true to say that the Shinkansen network is WHOLLY segregated from other rail traffic in Japan. Hokkaido Shinkansen expresses also share dual gauge track with freight through the undersea Seikan Tunnel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top