• 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!

Do we need HS2?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,570
Location
Yorkshire
Tunnelling would be the solution and the through station wouldn't need to be that wide as trains wouldn't be stopped long like a terminus. I'm sure you'll cite extra cost but what is the cost of providing a lavish terminus with all its facilities.

I suspect you'd have to go a long way down at Leeds, making connections with conventional rail less fun.

What lavish facilities do you provide at a terminus that wouldn't be at any other HS2 station?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
No. The Midland route was "retired" because "Roadbuilder" Marples, Beeching**, etc., saw it only as a disposable duplicate route between Manchester & London, totally ignoring its value as a route between Manchester and the East Midlans cities.

And yet trains remain between East Midlands Cities and London.
Just because it routes via Hope Valley instead of Woodhead means the railway ceased to exist.
The trains don't go to London but that doesn't mean they ceased to exist.

Running slower diesel trains to Manchester via Sheffield is pointless when you can run fast electric trains for less money via the North Western. That is why those trains ceased - otherwise they would have continued over the existing route.

Perhaps it would have been better if the Grand Central had been run down into a lightweight unit run railway rather than being closed outright - but that is not what happened and we can't change that now. And all the alternatives to HS2 are hopelessly expensive for what they actually provide.
 
Last edited:

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,673
Location
Leeds
Tunnelling would be the solution and the through station wouldn't need to be that wide as trains wouldn't be stopped long like a terminus.
To take Man Picc as an example, the HS2 station is only proposed to have four platforms. Do you think it could get by with two if it became a through station? It would still be a major station with lots of people getting on and off.

Even the through stations at Birmingham and Manchester Airports are proposed to have two through tracks in addition to the platform tracks. Man Picc would certainly need at least that. So the maximum conceivable saving in width would be to downgrade two platforms to through non-platform tracks, and I doubt even that would be possible. I doubt the saving there would save 5% of the cost of an extra approach and tunnel.

If all trains were forced to continue beyond Man Picc to say Glasgow, they would be very uneconomic and conveying mostly empty space north of Manchester, as the demand there is massively less than between Manchester, London and Birmingham.

but what is the cost of providing a lavish terminus with all its facilities.

Deerfold has asked the first question I want to ask. What luxury? What facilities would a terminal HS station have that a major through station wouldn't?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
When high speed rail is concerned I am not entirely sure that it is possible to have fresh air on a high speed train in the UK at any reasonable (as in physically reasonable) service density.

The marginal costs of running the trains are so low that I think what would happen is that fares between Manchester and (say) Glasgow and places in between would drop through the floor and people will start commuting previously unheard distances because it has suddenly become enormously cheap to do so.
 
Last edited:

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,673
Location
Leeds
When high speed rail is concerned I am not entirely sure that it is possible to have fresh air on a high speed train in the UK at any reasonable (as in physically reasonable) service density.

The marginal costs of running the trains are so low that I think what would happen is that fares between Manchester and (say) Glasgow and places in between would drop through the floor and people will start commuting previously unheard distances because it has suddenly become enormously cheap to do so.

Experts used to predict that nuclear-generated electricity would be too cheap to be worth metering.

Edit: I'll believe that HS2 tickets will be cheap when the tolls on the M6 Toll go down.
 
Last edited:

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
I'm not sure the M6 Toll analogy works, with the M6 Toll pricing people off perversely benefits them as it is not putting wear and tear on the road whereas with a train the extra weight of people is probably marginal compared to the train itself.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Experts used to predict that nuclear-generated electricity would be too cheap to be worth metering.
While that was a popular line rolled out by politicians, I'm yet to find any recognised experts who made such claims when referring to fission reactors. As far as I know that term referred to fusion reactors which were, as they are now, about twenty years in the future.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
The 1990s called... they want their argument back :lol:

Seriously though, I'd have agreed with your argument if you'd made it in 1999. Broadband, video conferencing, remote working... painted a picture of thousands of people "working from home" due to technological advances.

But, we had all of those advances and rail passengers are still going up - call it three percent a year, call it five percent a year, but there comes a time when extra capacity is needed. All of our connectivity has still created a world where we are meeting up more.

A bit of an aside, but it's always been a bit of a mystery to me *why* we are getting more rail passengers now.

As the previous poster said - one would expect internet technology to reduce the need for travel - yet trains are getting busier and busier, so much so that the Bournemouth-Manchester hourly XC is basically best avoided (certainly in the Oxford-Birmingham stretch) if you want a relaxed journey unless you travel before 0800 (Saturday - earlier on a weekday I'm sure) or after 2000. The same with the roads (don't drive, but experience it as a passenger) - again, much busier than they used to be. And this is comparing with the boom years of the late 1990s and early 2000s, whereas the current decade has been economically difficult.

For whatever reason, there seems to be much more intra-UK travel compared to 20 or 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
I don't see the point of terminus stations in Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds (and preferably not London too). Surely it's better use of stock and better connectivity if these were through stations?

I used to think this as well. It was a shame that these were terminal stations and that if only some more money were available then through stations would be better options. I now have a more nuanced view.

If we think about the most efficient overall system what you want is to have all seats occupied by paying customers for all of the journey. This is exactly the way low cost airlines operate differently from traditional airlines. They look for routes with sufficient demand to operate as a dedicated city pair and shuttle passengers between those city pairs at as low a price as possible to ensure that every plane is filled as much as possible whether operating peak or off peak. Easyjet for example have occupancy levels of 85-95%.

Rail journeys it is much harder to achieve this as there are multiple stops with people leaving and joining and different demand for intermediate versus end to end travel. The more you can change rail travel to be like low cost airlines the more efficient it could be.

HS2 effectively identifies a series of city pairs that have sufficient demand for High Speed services with little intermediate traffic.

These are
  • London - Birmingham
  • London - Manchester
  • London - Leeds
  • Birmingham - Manchester
  • Birmingham - Leeds

These 5 routes then get dedicated services on each city pair rather than through running as it enables demand to be calibrated to each route. For example London - Birmingham traffic is thought to justify 3tph while Birmingham to Manchester only needs 2tph. If you had through services you would provide too much capacity on the Birmingham - Manchester leg while also slowing down Manchester services.

There are a second tier of cities that get services on existing lines (Liverpool, Preston, Newcastle, Sheffield) that have more intermediate stops to build up an aggregate demand to London or Birmingham because they don't currently have enough demand for a non stop service.

HS2 should effectively be operating like Easyjet with fast services, quick turnarounds, high seat occupancy and lower (but variable) prices. Not guaranteeing it will happen exactly like that but that is clearly the aim of structuring the network like this.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
However, just one example since it's local to me: Dundee to London is currently 5h 45m on a direct train. Post HS2, with a change at Edinburgh it could be 4h 40m.
Just checked this again (as I'm booking tickets for this weekend) - it's 6h 10m give or take on a direct train vs 4h 40m (ish) post HS2.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
A bit of an aside, but it's always been a bit of a mystery to me *why* we are getting more rail passengers now.

As the previous poster said - one would expect internet technology to reduce the need for travel - yet trains are getting busier and busier, so much so that the Bournemouth-Manchester hourly XC is basically best avoided (certainly in the Oxford-Birmingham stretch) if you want a relaxed journey unless you travel before 0800 (Saturday - earlier on a weekday I'm sure) or after 2000. The same with the roads (don't drive, but experience it as a passenger) - again, much busier than they used to be. And this is comparing with the boom years of the late 1990s and early 2000s, whereas the current decade has been economically difficult.

For whatever reason, there seems to be much more intra-UK travel compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

Because we are (generally) wealthier.

When I was a lad we would have one, maybe two, big city shopping trips. Now similar people have a monthly trip.

When I was in my 20s a "stag" was a pub crawl in your home town. Now it's a weekend jaunt to a big city.

And so on ...
 

Voglitz

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Messages
249
HS2 effectively identifies a series of city pairs that have sufficient demand for High Speed services with little intermediate traffic.

These are
  • London - Birmingham
  • London - Manchester
  • London - Leeds
  • Birmingham - Manchester
  • Birmingham - Leeds

These 5 routes then get dedicated services on each city pair rather than through running as it enables demand to be calibrated to each route.

The demand certainly wouldn't "be calibrated to each route".

Demand between Birmingham and Leeds, or Birmingham and Manchester, is extremely small.

Even Manchester - London is under 0.3 per cent of national trips by rail.
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Demand between Birmingham and Leeds, or Birmingham and Manchester, is extremely small.
I must be imagining the rammed Voyagers that I regularly travel on between Manchester and Birmingham/Oxford. If you don't have a seat reservation you stand for most of the way. It is also a slow and laborious journey of 90-minutes for a distance of less than 90-miles.

Improve the time and capacity and you will easily double passengers
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
Remember though that HS2 isn't only competing with other rail. On Manchester-London the real competition is air.

The number of MAN-LON flights has reduced over the last 5 years. Virgin couldn't keep up the competition with BA.

A large portion of those on the flights are flying on from heathrow. There aren't any MAN-LCY flights for example which would be more useful to most people doing p2p journeys.

Even if all seats from Manchester to London moved to train, that's about 1500 seats (168 seats on the average plane - an A320 - and 9 planes a day).

There are 47 Manchester-London trains a day, say half are 9 car, half 11 car, that's 25,000 seats.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
A bit of an aside, but it's always been a bit of a mystery to me *why* we are getting more rail passengers now.

As the previous poster said - one would expect internet technology to reduce the need for travel - yet trains are getting busier and busier, so much so that the Bournemouth-Manchester hourly XC is basically best avoided (certainly in the Oxford-Birmingham stretch) if you want a relaxed journey unless you travel before 0800 (Saturday - earlier on a weekday I'm sure) or after 2000. The same with the roads (don't drive, but experience it as a passenger) - again, much busier than they used to be. And this is comparing with the boom years of the late 1990s and early 2000s, whereas the current decade has been economically difficult.

For whatever reason, there seems to be much more intra-UK travel compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

Reasons based on my own experience:

1. Young people not driving as much due to expense of car ownership and insurance
2. Roads busier
3. Companies pushing rail travel over car due to safety and ability to work on trains
4. Families and friends live in different places
5. Better demand management on pricing fares
6. Technology makes it easier for teams to be formed from staff in different places. But they need to meet face to face once a week/month

I'm sure there's more.
 

po8crg

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2014
Messages
559
A bit of an aside, but it's always been a bit of a mystery to me *why* we are getting more rail passengers now.

As the previous poster said - one would expect internet technology to reduce the need for travel - yet trains are getting busier and busier...

For whatever reason, there seems to be much more intra-UK travel compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

For leisure travel, I think one part of the reason is the internet. It's far easier to build friendships over the internet, and to keep in touch with friends who live in other parts of the country - this means that people now travel across the country to visit those friends.

When I went to uni, I pretty much lost touch with all the people I'd been to school with - including some very good friends at the time. Phone calls were expensive and writing letters were a hassle (plus you had to keep track of their number/address as they moved around). These days my cousins, nephews and nieces retain all of those relationships over facebook (and probably other social media that I'm too old for) and are always popping around the country to visit each other.

Even in business, we take pitches from suppliers all over the country, because they will deliver 99% of the service over the phone or over the internet, or by having things delivered by courier. But the actual pitch meeting involves the supplier coming here - so that's another train or car journey - and there will usually be a review meeting once or twice a year. If you can do 99% of your job over the internet, then you can do long-distance travel for 5%. But if you could only do 80% remotely in the past, then you had to be physically closer so you can travel in regularly.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
The number of MAN-LON flights has reduced over the last 5 years. Virgin couldn't keep up the competition with BA.

A large portion of those on the flights are flying on from heathrow. There aren't any MAN-LCY flights for example which would be more useful to most people doing p2p journeys.

Even if all seats from Manchester to London moved to train, that's about 1500 seats (168 seats on the average plane - an A320 - and 9 planes a day).

There are 47 Manchester-London trains a day, say half are 9 car, half 11 car, that's 25,000 seats.

I agree for anywere south of Newcastle air is not big competition. 0.3% Manchester to London fails to account for intermediate journeys. I live in Stockport these days and local services there are hugely constrained by finding paths for 3 Virgin Trains and 1 Cross Country per hour. The likihood is there will be something like a class 350 service to Birmingham and a HS2 service going via Stoke but limited to 110mph because it wont be able to tilt. That would reduce traffic between Stockport and Manchester to 100-110mph Sheffield, Birmingham and London services and 75-100mph local stopping and freight services. This would mean more paths would be freed up than just 2 current London paths. Perhaps enough for 4 local or regional train paths. The effect on South Manchester and North East Cheshire will be even greater. With most airport traffic going on HS2 trains and probably HS shuttles to Piccadilly, the Styal Line could be used for services that currently have to go via Stockport and for new services. Its plausible that upto a dozen paths per hour into Piccadilly could be free up for new services.
 
Last edited:

TBirdFrank

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2009
Messages
218
The problem demonstrated by this thread is the mindset that the current UK railway is the only way to do things - it isn't and never was.

No-one looks at the UK as a whole - merely as a set of traffic flows, and that on today's routes. No wonder we cannot and will not change. The failure to establish Piccadilly as Manchester's central rail hub will go down as the biggest mistake of the privatisation years. At least I can say that I wasn't part of it.

Mayfield is where the Piccadilly overflow should go - through platform potential not the dead end of Store St. The flyover argument used to refuse the use of the Blind Lane curve is defeated by raising the horizon as far as Gorton - take the Fallowfield loop and the airport line at Burnage.

We, are, unfortunately, where we are and the consultant's ridiculous and nationally exclusive plans hold sway - so if you want to go from Manchester to Ayr or Leicester, or the ECML gets blocked then you are stuffed long term - because all the funds that could have strengthened and extended the present network, re-established four track formations occupied by stanchions etc aren't going to change.

A national tragedy writ large!
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Oh dear, all this nonsense again.

The problem demonstrated by this thread is the mindset that the current UK railway is the only way to do things - it isn't and never was.

But as usual your answer is to suggest reusing Victorian infrastructure built to Victorian standards and thereby condemning us to Victorian speeds. Not acceptable.

No-one looks at the UK as a whole - merely as a set of traffic flows, and that on today's routes. No wonder we cannot and will not change. The failure to establish Piccadilly as Manchester's central rail hub will go down as the biggest mistake of the privatisation years. At least I can say that I wasn't part of it.

The argument was lost in the 1970s when it was realised the cost of the Picc-Vic tunnel could not be justified for what was still a decaying provincial city with delusions of grandeur. What funding was available was needed just to keep the rest of the railway going. And anyone who actually knows Manchester will tell you that Victoria is much closer to the commercial centre of the city than Piccadilly. Metrolink may appear a poor substitute but works pretty well; what it needs is cross-Manchester through ticketing being available for all National Rail stations, not just those in Greater Manchester.

Mayfield is where the Piccadilly overflow should go - through platform potential not the dead end of Store St. The flyover argument used to refuse the use of the Blind Lane curve is defeated by raising the horizon as far as Gorton - take the Fallowfield loop and the airport line at Burnage.

Mayfield could never be converted into through platforms thanks to the rather substantial presence of the Macdonald Hotel; older members may remember it being referred to as the Concrete Banana when it was an office block occupied by BT. As for the Fallowfield loop, quite apart from adding several minutes journey time for every train to/from the Airport thereby requiring additional rolling stock, there is the considerable hurdle of both the vertical difference between it and the Styal line where they meet and the presence of Kingsway, a very busy radial route for south Manchester, running parallel to the Styal line and having to be crossed by any connection between the two. Quite frankly such a suggestion is utterly ludicrous.

We, are, unfortunately, where we are and the consultant's ridiculous and nationally exclusive plans hold sway - so if you want to go from Manchester to Ayr or Leicester, or the ECML gets blocked then you are stuffed long term - because all the funds that could have strengthened and extended the present network, re-established four track formations occupied by stanchions etc aren't going to change.

A national tragedy writ large!

Reality is that railways work best when dealing with volume. Which doesn't exist for Manchester to Ayr or Leicester (as shown by the failure of passengers to flock to the Project Rio trains). ECML widening is stuffed by the practical impossibility of widening Welwyn Viaduct, the ground wouldn't be able to handle the upheaval of such work taking place without a real risk of the existing viaduct falling down. And a tunnelled bypass would be massively expensive and would simply highlight the inadequacy of Kings Cross: that station is too small and has no room for expansion. HS2 is actually what we should have been building in the 1980s when the French built the LGV Sud-Est. That to me is the real tragedy!
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
As a company we have offered a lot of employees the ability to work from home, I do it from London and talk to customers and do everything via email, phone and webex. I have to say its really horrible. I and pretty much everyone else hates it and most have gone back to the offices. (There are a few who love it and they are going to continue doing it)

I will be moving to Manchester next year and will be returning to the office myself. You get very disconnected from things when you are in the house on your own all day and left out of the stuff that makes work a bit more bearable.

I travel to Manchester for meetings as there is nothing like being in a room with people at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,449
Location
Liverpool
Liverpool will be half an hour further from London than Manchester. Even Preston will be closer to London. More time to enjoy the on board catering.

I can't wait, personally.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
We, are, unfortunately, where we are and the consultant's ridiculous and nationally exclusive plans hold sway - so if you want to go from Manchester to Ayr or Leicester, or the ECML gets blocked then you are stuffed long term - because all the funds that could have strengthened and extended the present network, re-established four track formations occupied by stanchions etc aren't going to change.

A national tragedy writ large!

Except the majority of consultants are ex BR/Railtrack/NR or TOC employees so it doesnt really hold water.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
HS2 is actually what we should have been building in the 1980s when the French built the LGV Sud-Est. That to me is the real tragedy!
Of course, in the 1980's the rail network was in what, to many people, seemed like terminal decline. LGV Sud-Est and the Serpell Report were contemporaneous.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
1. Of course they could - PR1Berske says so! :D

2. I understand "The Planner" has a professional background in train planning (as have I). Has PR1Berske ever shared his qualifications with us?

3. I was anti-HS2, and still don't think it's the ideal option, but it's the only one on offer.

It should be noted to all planners that WCML is not full yet. Just ask Grand Central or whatever they are called this week. Note Blackpool services.

It should also be noted that the Intercity trains are not yet full and in some cases a long way from being so if my experience of the 07:30 from Birmingham New Street was anything to go by.

Neither of the two points above however should be seen as an argument to cancel or delay construction of HS2.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
It should be noted to all planners that WCML is not full yet. Just ask Grand Central or whatever they are called this week. Note Blackpool services.

It should also be noted that the Intercity trains are not yet full and in some cases a long way from being so if my experience of the 07:30 from Birmingham New Street was anything to go by.

Neither of the two points above however should be seen as an argument to cancel or delay construction of HS2.

There are arguably only 2 paths left out of Euston, Alliance take one of those per two hours. How many people are on the trains doesnt matter when it comes to paths.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
It should be noted to all planners that WCML is not full yet. Just ask Grand Central or whatever they are called this week. Note Blackpool services.

It should also be noted that the Intercity trains are not yet full and in some cases a long way from being so if my experience of the 07:30 from Birmingham New Street was anything to go by.

Neither of the two points above however should be seen as an argument to cancel or delay construction of HS2.

Given the number of years which must elapse before HS2 is available to ease the situation it is perhaps just as well that you say that.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
Manchester will be well served by HS2 both directly and through freeing up paths on the existing lines. Ordsall Chord will free up paths in a year or so and if more capacity is needed then the airport western approach tunnel and more Metrolink expansion will be enough until 2033. Reopening Mayfield appears to be a problem looking for a solution, an attempt to turn back the clock because change is bad. There are 12 terminating platforms at Piccadilly and HS2 will add another 4. Nostalgia is not a reason to stop a valuable commercial redevelopment of Mayfield and surrounding area instead of adding 2 more platforms next to platform 14 in what is currently air.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Of course, in the 1980's the rail network was in what, to many people, seemed like terminal decline. LGV Sud-Est and the Serpell Report were contemporaneous.

Very true. Serpell reported in 1982, just about the time when BR reached its absolute low point in passenger numbers, and after some consideration was consigned to a dusty shelf somewhere. Passenger numbers soon started rising and have done so almost continuously ever since. It's unfortunate we, as a nation, didn't have the vision to anticipate this and follow the French example. However I don't think Thatcher was especially interested in visionary policy, perhaps not surprising given her background.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top