Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[daodao]

Stoke can justify a semi fast service to Birmingham. But you can't terminate at Stoke easily, so it might as well start at Manchester and call at Macclesfield anyway (and keeping up the fastish Stoke-Manchester service)

Journeys for fast trains north of Stoke, if/when HS2 services reach Manchester, would be dead mileage, with the trains 80-90% empty; this will not be able to be justified in the longer-term, other than possibly a couple of trains at the beginning of the day from Manchester and the end of the day to Manchester, to reach a depot, just like the Leeds extensions of MML trains to Sheffield.

Places that are bypassed by high speed lines, that were sufficiently large to have express trains call when they were on the main line, but not large enough to be a major destination in their own right, will lose those services when the new fast line opens. One example is Selby, but that has now gained London trains (at the expense of Goole). Macclesfield and will be in the same situation post the opening of HS2, and also Wilmslow if/when HS2b to the centre of Manchester opens. The services to Rugby and Coventry will also be downgraded, as will those to Derby and Nottingham if/when the eastern leg of HS2b opens.

 

[Jozhua]

The walking time from Curzon St to New St is not 15-20 minutes, it's more like 5.
In fact, in this video, it takes 4mins45s:
Walking from Curzon St to New St

HS2's benefit is that it is one project that replaced ALL the major mainline routes going North from London, with only one double track south of Birmingham. The potential for failure has been taken very seriously and the project is designed for redundancy and reliability from the get go. Remember, there won't be any 100 year old S&C or a Pacer to break down in front of these trains. The overhead wires will be designed with the most up to date tech, significantly reducing opportunities for failure.

In regards to cost, one of the main drivers of cost on the existing UK network is the commercially competitive ticket pricing system. It works similar to airlines in that the less seats available = higher prices, up until you hit those anytime fares. HS2 will be much less likely to suffer from this issue, simply on merit of 400 metre long trains going every ten minutes.

Whilst the infrastructure the line runs on will be expensive, the actual running costs will probably be quite low. Signalling will be much more centralised and automated, with almost zero conflicting moves, reducing staff requirements on that. The infrastructure in general will be much less labour heavy, as will the trains themselves. The trains are estimated to use 2X less energy than those on existing lines, which would make sense given everything is designed for maximum operational efficiency.

In regards to existing services, the beauty is that those will no longer be beholden to squeezing between the intercity trains. For places like Macclesfield, they may find themselves with more frequent connections to places like Manchester & Crewe, which will much benefit commuters, but also connect them directly with HS2 services southbound. Realistically, most Macclesfield residents aren't going to London every day, and even if they are, because of the sheer speed of HS2, the service will be faster anyway!

I do think there is a place for perhaps a couple more London-Midland services, that run up to 110mph and provide a budget offering, but frankly, their per-seat cost may not end up being lower than HS2 anyway...

 

[daodao]

For places like Macclesfield, they may find themselves with more frequent connections to places like Manchester & Crewe,

Manchester, probably true, but Crewe?! Have you looked at a railway map?

 

[21C101]

But that requirement doesn't justify HS2, you solve that problem with some targeted, cost effective measures, like adding some extra conventional tracks, or if that's not possible, you re-open closed lines to add back capacity, like the Great Central Mainline upto Rugby and move all the long distance WCML traffic from north of Rugby off the south section of the WCML.

One point I notice missing from much of this discussion, do we know what the ticket prices are likely to be on the HS2 ? I see quite a few posts talking about the benefits and the time savings, I don't see many talking about what it will cost to actually buy a ticket and use it and how much more this will be over existing services. Ultimately cost matters because a lot of people will trade speed for price.

They learned their lesson with the west coast upgrade. It would have been cheaper to build new line than four track an operational railway (trent valley).

Having decided on a new line it would be crazy not to build it for highest practicable speed.

They effectively ARE reopening the the Great Central to Rugby but are diverting further west at the northern end to serve Birmingham (Which I suspect Watkin would have given his eye teeth to do but would never have got it through parliament).

Brackley to Quainton IS reopening the GCR and south of Quainton where the GCR ended and it ran onto the Metropolitan Line, probably the GCRs biggest achillies heel, HS2 is effectively the belated construction of the final 50 miles of the GCR London Extension.

 

[HSTEd]

One point I notice missing from much of this discussion, do we know what the ticket prices are likely to be on the HS2 ? I see quite a few posts talking about the benefits and the time savings, I don't see many talking about what it will cost to actually buy a ticket and use it and how much more this will be over existing services. Ultimately cost matters because a lot of people will trade speed for price.

It is unclear, you can make arguments for all three options (more expensive, the same, or cheaper).
I understand the documentation states that the baseline assumption is fares are the same.

Myself I would prefer the fares be lower because taking a passenger from London to Birmingham on HS2 costs the railway less than doing it on the conventional line, so given that HS2 is not going to be full any time soon, we should encourage as many passengers as possible to decamp to it.

If people want to trade speed away for savings, they could very well find themselves trudging between stations in Birmingham et al, because the cheapest option is to take legs on HS2 in leiu of legs on conventional lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the East Leg is canned, I hope that will release funds for MML electrification along with an ECML upgrade to four track Welwyn, close level crossings and install in cab ECTS which would enable a major speed upgrade turning ECML into HS4.

Doing that would not enable anything but the most minor speed increases, and none above 125mph. As 3vidence, the ECML will have ETCS signalling south of Peterborough in the next few years, and the line speed will be.... 125mph max. Why do you think that it would?

But that requirement doesn't justify HS2, you solve that problem with some targeted, cost effective measures, like adding some extra conventional tracks, or if that's not possible, you re-open closed lines to add back capacity, like the Great Central Mainline upto Rugby and move all the long distance WCML traffic from north of Rugby off the south section of the WCML.

So, instead of building a new highspeed line to the Midlands (Phase 1) that is about 25-30% complete in activity terms and will be open in under a decade, the ‘cost effective’ answer is to build a new high speed line to the Midlands that couldn’t be open for 20 years. What am I missing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 is the equivalent of the TGV lines in France. Over the decades since the TGV was introduced, conventional intercity services there, particularly between provincial cities, have gradually been whittled down or withdrawn altogether. Ditto in Spain. The same tendency will prevail in the UK. For example, I expect that XC would withdraw all trains between Manchester and Birmingham once HS2 provides the main direct link, with just stopping/semi-fast services between Birmingham and Stoke and between Manchester and Stoke. Places like Macclesfield will have a worse train service post HS2.

It depends what you mean "a worse train service". If you mean "loss or reduction in train service to London" or "a slower train service", these two may be true. But what is more likely is that an enhanced regional express service will operate, more frequent and more capacious, for those journeys people make on a daily rather than more occasional basis. OK, if you're a stereotypical posh Macclesfielder with two Range Rovers who only ever uses the train to go to London that might be a mild irritant. But if you want to go to Birmingham or Manchester, you're likely onto a winner because the semifast EMU service will likely improve due to released capacity.

I would be surprised if they terminated services end-on at Stoke Ormskirk-style. Most likely will be a Birmingham-Manchester EMU service using something like 6 or 8-car Class 331s, and that would be a huge improvement for the kind of journeys people make frequently, just like it is for Bolton, for example. It would all look rather like what the Dutch would call Sneltrain or Intercity, perhaps.

The trouble is that enthusiasts (understandably) tend to like interesting/obscure services, and so favour a less frequent but more varied service, so this sort of thing gets frowned upon on here.

I think with HS2 there are two big losers - Coventry and Stockport - but both would have a decent connection at their neighbouring big city and more local services, and are stations that only really get the high level of London bound IC service because it's operationally convenient, not because either of them justifies it. In Stockport's case, a lot of people going to London from there are using it as a South Manchester Parkway, they aren't walking there from the adjacent not-very-well-off areas of terraced housing. For those people, the new Manchester Airport parkway will act as a replacement, and for those doing the same from Brum the new Birmingham Airport station will take that role.

The walking time from Curzon St to New St is not 15-20 minutes, it's more like 5.
In fact, in this video, it takes 4mins45s:
Walking from Curzon St to New St

He didn't even take the shortest route. The shortest route, though not massively pleasant, is through the tunnel on the other side of the road. Would easily take a minute off.

I think the "look and feel" of it could and will be improved, though. For instance, while the homeless people there aren't doing anyone any harm (though if only we could manage to house them), they will put some people, particularly lone women, off due to a feeling of lack of personal safety.

With Birmingham having an "anti car" plan going forward, closing some of the roads you need to cross might help further, too.

I do think there is a place for perhaps a couple more London-Midland services, that run up to 110mph and provide a budget offering, but frankly, their per-seat cost may not end up being lower than HS2 anyway...

The trouble with lengthening slower services is that it costs more than lengthening faster ones.

 

[21C101]

Doing that would not enable anything but the most minor speed increases, and none above 125mph. As 3vidence, the ECML will have ETCS signalling south of Peterborough in the next few years, and the line speed will be.... 125mph max. Why do you think that it would?




So, instead of building a new highspeed line to the Midlands (Phase 1) that is about 25-30% complete in activity terms and will be open in under a decade, the ‘cost effective’ answer is to build a new high speed line to the Midlands that couldn’t be open for 20 years. What am I missing?

@Bald_Rick

Don't get your logic here. 140mph was trialled on the ECML decades ago by BR.

125mph is a safety limit. Remove lineside signalling (and level crossings) and that restriction goes, with speeds comparable the the originally intended 155mph on the West Coast Main line becoming feasible.

Obviously not on all of it but on significant chunks of it between Peterborough (or even Hitchin) and Doncaster

 

[Sniffingmoose]

Who produced this "why HS2" video? I am from Birmingham and I can tell you that the walking time from Curzon St to New St is much more than 5 minutes.

Walking from Curzon St to New St

The video actually shows the walk from Moor St to New Street. Have a close look.

So through journeys changing off the Cross City line, Wolverhampton, Walsall, will not really be much quicker to London if you factor in a change of station. But maybe a direct tram between New Street and Curzon street will help.

 

[Bald Rick]

@Bald_Rick

Don't get your logic here. 140mph was trialled on the ECML decades ago by BR.

125mph is a safety limit. Remove lineside signalling (and level crossings) and that restriction goes, with speeds comparable the the originally intended 155mph on the West Coast Main line becoming feasible.

Obviously not on all of it but on significant chunks of it between Peterborough (or even Hitchin) and Doncaster

I’ve posted several times elsewhere on the forum about what it takes to lift line speed. Signalling and Level Crossings are part of the issue. But so is the track, what’s lies underneath the track, the structure gauge, the OLE, the power supply, the safety of staff who work trackside, platforms next to the track, tunnels, and more. All of these things have to be studied, and I can tell you for sure that a lot of the track and OLE is not fit for more than 125mph.

Yes there were tests on the ECML - nearly 30 years ago. And they showed what the problems were. If it was easy or worthwhile to resolve, it would have been done.

But maybe a direct tram between New Street and Curzon street will help.

That would take longer.

 

[21C101]

I’ve posted several times elsewhere on the forum about what it takes to lift line speed. Signalling and Level Crossings are part of the issue. But so is the track, what’s lies underneath the track, the structure gauge, the OLE, the power supply, the safety of staff who work trackside, platforms next to the track, tunnels, and more. All of these things have to be studied, and I can tell you for sure that a lot of the track and OLE is not fit for more than 125mph.

Yes there were tests on the ECML - nearly 30 years ago. And they showed what the problems were. If it was easy or worthwhile to resolve, it would have been done.



That would take longer.

I don't think that anyone is under any illusion that speed upgrades could be done without serious money spent on OHLE/Track etc. The biggest impediment is lineside signalling and level crossings as it is a huge infrastructure spend to be done in one go.

Once that is dealt with then the track/ohle can be dealt with in sequential chunks as funds allow.

A lot of the ECML OHLE is going to need renewal sans string headspans sooner or later in any case.

 

[Bald Rick]

The biggest impediment is lineside signalling and level crossings as it is a huge infrastructure spend to be done in one go.

The ‘biggest impediment’, in cost terms, is the OLE. That would most likely all have to be replaced (and, actually, that’s not due for a while). Then there’s what’s under the track. A lot of that would need strengthening (bridges, culverts, drains, embankments). Any track without 28 sleepers a length would need renewing. All pointwork where the speed is above 125mph would need replacement. Maintenance arrangements would have to be completely revised, with necessary provision of additional infrastructure.

The signalling is the easy bit, really, and is being done.

 

[CBlue]

The ‘biggest impediment’, in cost terms, is the OLE. That would most likely all have to be replaced (and, actually, that’s not due for a while). Then there’s what’s under the track. A lot of that would need strengthening (bridges, culverts, drains, embankments). Any track without 28 sleepers a length would need renewing. All pointwork where the speed is above 125mph would need replacement. Maintenance arrangements would have to be completely revised, with necessary provision of additional infrastructure.

The signalling is the easy bit, really, and is being done.

No wonder the WCML 140mph upgrade never happened with that level of work required.


Upgrading our victorian alignments to work with speeds over 125 mph is a false economy.

 

[The Planner]

Who produced this "why HS2" video? I am from Birmingham and I can tell you that the walking time from Curzon St to New St is much more than 5 minutes.

Walking from Curzon St to New St

The video actually shows the walk from Moor St to New Street. Have a close look.

So through journeys changing off the Cross City line, Wolverhampton, Walsall, will not really be much quicker to London if you factor in a change of station. But maybe a direct tram between New Street and Curzon street will help.

The front of the HS2 station is practically next to Moor St anyway, the platforms don't start until the other side of New Canal St/original Curzon St station.

 

[Bald Rick]

No wonder the WCML 140mph upgrade never happened with that level of work required.

Much of it was done for WCRM. Lots of cash spent on bridges, track, all the fast line OLE done, and even the (in)famous swing nose crossings at Ledburn.

But then someone* worked out that just rebuilding Rugby would save as much time as raising the fast line speed to 140 from Wembley to Rugby (where possible), and much cheaper and more deliverable.

* someone was actually about 3 people, to whom the railway owes a long overdue thank you. At least one of them sometimes contributes here.

 

[21C101]

The ‘biggest impediment’, in cost terms, is the OLE. That would most likely all have to be replaced (and, actually, that’s not due for a while). Then there’s what’s under the track. A lot of that would need strengthening (bridges, culverts, drains, embankments). Any track without 28 sleepers a length would need renewing. All pointwork where the speed is above 125mph would need replacement. Maintenance arrangements would have to be completely revised, with necessary provision of additional infrastructure.

The signalling is the easy bit, really, and is being done.

I get what you are trying to say but I wouldn't call the signalling the easy bit. It is the high tech cutting edge bit (that sunk PUG2- a situation rescued by some good thinking by three railwaymen from what you say).

Track, ohle, bridges etc. are expensive to renew but low tech, proven and low risk.

It can be done bit by bit eg peterborough to grantham, exclusive, grantham to retford exclusive and do the difficult bits like stations, tunnels and lego railway type flat crossings at retford last.

Normally a long term approach is used with in the meanwhile scheduled track, ohle and structure renewals designed for a higher speed.

If that approach had not been taken by BR in past decades the ECML line speed would be <100mph, never mind 125mph.

 

[Ianno87]

I get what you are trying to say but I wouldn't call the signalling the easy bit. It is the high tech cutting edge bit (that sunk PUG2- a situation rescued by some good thinking by three railwaymen from what you say).

But you don't need "high tech cutting edge" signalling for 140mph. That's been available for years as TVM-430 (nowadays ETCS Level 2).

It's the moving block element that sunk PUG2 (effectively what would now be provided - in theory - by ETCS Level 3), which is more related to capacity gain, rather than speed.

 

[Senex]

But you don't need "high tech cutting edge" signalling for 140mph. That's been available for years as TVM-430 (nowadays ETCS Level 2).

It's the moving block element that sunk PUG2 (effectively what would now be provided - in theory - by ETCS Level 3), which is more related to capacity gain, rather than speed.

I think the German LZB has been available and in very successful use for longer than the various manifestations of TVM, and has long been mandatory for any running above 160 km/h. It's not being used for new installations now, with ETCS being adopted in line with EU recommendations. But there's enough of it around for it to remain in service for quite some time. Does anyone know if French policy is also to move over to ETCS, or are ythey planning to stick with the national TVM system for new high-speed lines?

 

[NoRoute]

Myself I would prefer the fares be lower because taking a passenger from London to Birmingham on HS2 costs the railway less than doing it on the conventional line, so given that HS2 is not going to be full any time soon, we should encourage as many passengers as possible to decamp to it.

I don't quite understand how HS2 will have lower costs, firstly there's approximately £30 Billion in capital investment to build Phase 1, which has financing costs, then there's the depreciation as it slowly wears out, plus the new rolling stock, operating costs, higher energy usage because of the higher speed. I can't see how it be lower cost than an existing line, which is pretty much depreciated and receiving periodic maintenance and upgrades.

Existing rail journeys can be very expensive, I can only see HS2 making this worse.

So, instead of building a new highspeed line to the Midlands (Phase 1) that is about 25-30% complete in activity terms and will be open in under a decade, the ‘cost effective’ answer is to build a new high speed line to the Midlands that couldn’t be open for 20 years. What am I missing?

No, the original point made by another poster was that HS 2 was needed to release capacity on the WCML , my point was that at that point the cost effective solution to that problem would have been convention rail, along an existing disused route. Clearly though that ship has sailed and HS2 is in motion, regardless of its cost effectiveness.

 

[daodao]

For those people, the new Manchester Airport parkway will act as a replacement, and for those doing the same from Brum the new Birmingham Airport station will take that role.

There is no parking at Manchester Airport station (and presumably won't be at the new HS2 airport station) and there are high charges for dropping off and picking up passengers. For illustration, the current drop-off charges are £5 for five minutes and £6 for 10 minutes (payable at the exit barrier), with an overstay charge of £25 applied after 10 minutes.

This is very different from arrangements at Macclesfield station, for example.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

There is no parking at Manchester Airport station (and presumably won't be at the new HS2 airport station) and there are high charges for dropping off and picking up passengers. For illustration, the current drop-off charges are £5 for five minutes and £6 for 10 minutes (payable at the exit barrier), with an overstay charge of £25 applied after 10 minutes.

This is very different from arrangements at Macclesfield station, for example.

The latest plans for HS2 Manchester Airport envisage a four-platformed station with two huge car-parks on both sides of the M56. It effectively will be a 'South Manchester Parkway' and attract the vast majority of London passengers who currently use Stockport, Wilmslow or Macclesfield. It is not intended to be exclusively for airport use.

 

[Bald Rick]

I get what you are trying to say but I wouldn't call the signalling the easy bit. It is the high tech cutting edge bit (that sunk PUG2- a situation rescued by some good thinking by three railwaymen from what you say).

Track, ohle, bridges etc. are expensive to renew but low tech, proven and low risk.

It can be done bit by bit eg peterborough to grantham, exclusive, grantham to retford exclusive and do the difficult bits like stations, tunnels and lego railway type flat crossings at retford last.

Normally a long term approach is used with in the meanwhile scheduled track, ohle and structure renewals designed for a higher speed.

If that approach had not been taken by BR in past decades the ECML line speed would be <100mph, never mind 125mph.

I get what you are trying to say too, but it’s much more complicated than you think (sorry). I have worked on both the WCRM and ECML upgrades, and 140 running on the latter is not going to happen*, as the costs of doing it do not justify the 3 seconds a mile it gets for the sections it is possible.

* it might, possibly, happen under NPR north of York. But personally I doubt it.

Does anyone know if French policy is also to move over to ETCS, or are ythey planning to stick with the national TVM system for new high-speed lines?

All new French lines have ETCS L2. TGV Est Européen Phase1 was retrofitted in 2013, and Phase 2 had it from new. All new LGVs since then have had ETCS L2 - Bretagne Pays de Loire, Sud Europe Atlantique, and the Nîmes - Montpellier bypass. The first LGV, Paris Sud Est, is being resignalled with ETCS now; the signalling is about 40 years old, and due for renewal, and there is also a useful increase in capacity (to 16tph).

No, the original point made by another poster was that HS 2 was needed to release capacity on the WCML , my point was that at that point the cost effective solution to that problem would have been convention rail, along an existing disused route. Clearly though that ship has sailed and HS2 is in motion, regardless of its cost effectiveness.

There would be little difference in cost between a conventional line at 125mph and a high speed line, particularly when sending the route into London. You’d still need a big tunnel and more station capacity. Same at Birmingham, Manchester, Etc.

 

[21C101]

But you don't need "high tech cutting edge" signalling for 140mph. That's been available for years as TVM-430 (nowadays ETCS Level 2).

It's the moving block element that sunk PUG2 (effectively what would now be provided - in theory - by ETCS Level 3), which is more related to capacity gain, rather than speed.

It was the complexity of applying it to a mixed use railway with all sorts of junctions and crossovers and trains with different speed and stopping patterns on what was then new and unproven technology that did for it.

High speed lines are more like stretched out metro lines and so much simpler.

The technology has matured in the intervening years but there are still huge difficulties integrating to mixed use legacy main lines - ask Crossrail.

I get what you are trying to say too, but it’s much more complicated than you think (sorry). I have worked on both the WCRM and ECML upgrades, and 140 running on the latter is not going to happen*, as the costs of doing it do not justify the 3 seconds a mile it gets for the sections it is possible.

* it might, possibly, happen under NPR north of York. But personally I doubt it.




All new French lines have ETCS L2. TGV Est Européen Phase1 was retrofitted in 2013, and Phase 2 had it from new. All new LGVs since then have had ETCS L2 - Bretagne Pays de Loire, Sud Europe Atlantique, and the Nîmes - Montpellier bypass. The first LGV, Paris Sud Est, is being resignalled with ETCS now; the signalling is about 40 years old, and due for renewal, and there is also a useful increase in capacity (to 16tph).



There would be little difference in cost between a conventional line at 125mph and a high speed line, particularly when sending the route into London. You’d still need a big tunnel and more station capacity. Same at Birmingham, Manchester, Etc.

I agree it is not worth it for 140.You would need to go for the original APT planned speeds of 155-160 mph to make it worthwhile (some deviations would likely be needed e.g. Retford avoiding line)

BRs increase of maximum speeds from 110 to 125mph came at a time of increasing loss of traffic from road competition, which made the speed increase an imperative business requirement. At the time, once you were on the M1, M4, M5 or M6 you just hit top speed and stayed there with the police rarely intervening at speeds under 85-90mph.

By the time the intercity 225s turned up, increasing road congestion, by then even slowing motorway journeys, undermined the case for 140mph.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't quite understand how HS2 will have lower costs, firstly there's approximately £30 Billion in capital investment to build Phase 1, which has financing costs, then there's the depreciation as it slowly wears out, plus the new rolling stock, operating costs, higher energy usage because of the higher speed. I can't see how it be lower cost than an existing line, which is pretty much depreciated and receiving periodic maintenance and upgrades.

But you need fewer trains, staff etc to run the same level of service, as round trip times are much shorter. Plus maintainence access is easier, and "maintainability" designed into the infrastructure (e.g. no Victorian earthworks, etc).

The other argument is that the "cost" of HS2 is covered by the wider economic benefits it generates beyond fares receipts - hence why HM Government can justify underwriting the borrowing needed to pay for it. Although it will need renewal over time, it is a long-term asset designed to last 100+ years - and the cost of renewals and maintenance is factored into the economic case.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't quite understand how HS2 will have lower costs, firstly there's approximately £30 Billion in capital investment to build Phase 1, which has financing costs,

The financing costs incurred by the state are so low as to be almost negligible.
Especially as real interest rates on government debt are negative.

Even if you amortise it down, the number of passengers that will use it render this a negligible ticket component.

then there's the depreciation as it slowly wears out,

The majority of the costs involved in building HS2 have very very long lifetimes.
The tunnel bores etc, or the political costs of getting the thing built in compulsory purchased, planning etc.

Tunnels have a very long lifetime when properly engineered.

These costs will amortise to nothing.

plus the new rolling stock

The current rolling stock does not have an infinite operational life, and the costs of high speed units are not actually that much greater than that of conventional units, especially when comparing to things like Pendolinos with all the equipment they have that a high speed unit does not have.

Indeed the costs of rolling stock may even be lower for HS2 because the trains can make many more round trips in a given period thanks to their higher average speed

operating costs,

What operating costs are higher?

Instead of two train crew making round trips, I can have one driver making nearly twice as many round trips (on Manchester certainly).
Because of the much shorter journeys most of the expensive catering stuff can be dispensed with, along with the very expensive galley facilities which take up a load of room.

HS2 will need a handful of signallers in an office control room somewhere, it has far less equipment to go wrong than the average railway due to its simple track layout and uniform operating parameter sof the fleet that operates on it.
It will also be built to modern standards, optimised for life cycle costs, rather than built to the standards of Victorian engineers where labour was cheap and material was expensive.

higher energy usage because of the higher speed

Energy cost of a passenger on a TGV duplex at 320km/h is comparable to a Pendo at 200km/h.

Modern high speed stock is much lighter than the monstrosities tilt forces us to use now.
Even then, energy costs are not significant portions of the price of a ticket.

. I can't see how it be lower cost than an existing line, which is pretty much depreciated and receiving periodic maintenance and upgrades.

Because upgrades are horrifyingly expensive, as the experience of the GWRM, WCRM and any other upgrade project in railway history will tell you.

No, the original point made by another poster was that HS 2 was needed to release capacity on the WCML , my point was that at that point the cost effective solution to that problem would have been convention rail, along an existing disused route. Clearly though that ship has sailed and HS2 is in motion, regardless of its cost effectiveness.

What advantage does a line thats been closed for half a century have over a new one?
I can't think of any.

It has many disadvantages however

 

[Bald Rick]

It was the complexity of applying it to a mixed use railway with all sorts of junctions and crossovers and trains with different speed and stopping patterns on what was then new and unproven technology that did for it.

No, it was abandoned for WCRM because at the point of the decision, the implementation of ETCS onto U.K. principles was still almost a decade away.

The technology has matured in the intervening years but there are still huge difficulties integrating to mixed use legacy main lines - ask Crossrail.

Crossrail’s issue is the train. No issues at all integrating ETCS onto main line, as Thameslink proves.

BRs increase of maximum speeds from 110 to 125mph came at a time of increasing loss of traffic from road competition, which made the speed increase an imperative business requirement. At the time, once you were on the M1, M4, M5 or M6 you just hit top speed and stayed there with the police rarely intervening at speeds under 85-90mph.

BR increased line speeds from 90 or 100 to 125 (or lower). They did little if any from 110 to 125.

100 to 125 saves 7 seconds a mile; 90 to 125 saves 11. It soon racks up journey time savings then, especially when you have motive power that can actually reach the top speed, which on the GW was rarely the case, and on the ECML was limited to the Deltics.

 

[21C101]

No, it was abandoned for WCRM because at the point of the decision, the implementation of ETCS onto U.K. principles was still almost a decade away.




Crossrail’s issue is the train. No issues at all integrating ETCS onto main line, as Thameslink proves.

Thameslink core is more akin to a metro. It's a good start though and I don't think it will fail on ECML.

As I understand it the crossrail issue is not the train it is integrating the train and several different signalling systems, so it can flow seamlessly between several different types of complex signalling systems that all need to work together when the train passes between their boundaries.

There are obviously other less high tech non signalling issues too which would take us off topic.

 

[SuperNova]

But that requirement doesn't justify HS2, you solve that problem with some targeted, cost effective measures, like adding some extra conventional tracks, or if that's not possible, you re-open closed lines to add back capacity, like the Great Central Mainline upto Rugby and move all the long distance WCML traffic from north of Rugby off the south section of the WCML.

The Great Central that was built to a 60mph alignment - the cost to upgrade it to the 21st century requirements would increase and you need a railway that integrates with other lines - HS2 does this properly at Old Oak Common.

my point was that at that point the cost effective solution to that problem would have been convention rail, along an existing disused route. Clearly though that ship has sailed and HS2 is in motion, regardless of its cost effectiveness.

No it isn't the most cost efficient route or effective route to upgrade rail and connectivity within the UK. Also, does the repurposing of any new lines have the same capacity benefits as HS2? No it doesn't. HS2, in its entirety, benefits all three main lines with phase 1 mainly benefitting the WCML.

 

[Llandudno]

Pretty much. Once Sheffield got put on a classic-compatible spur, the notion of HS2 Phase 2b being able to be a captive line disappeared a bit. That's especially true if the Birmingham-Leeds services would start running via Sheffield too, leaving only the London-Leeds services able to be run with captive trains. If the plan is for the northern Crewe connection to also be classic-compatible only (I hope not deliberately, so that future works could change it) then I think the idea of HS2 using captive trains at all is dead.

If you now tolerate Leeds services being classic-compatible then you can look a bit more broadly at what sort of infrastructure investments are needed. Captive routes might be nice but they would mean not making use of classic stretches of track which might actually be alright (e.g. the Selby bypass between Doncaster and York).

By cutting out some unnecessary sections of new route you can spend the same money instead on the classic line areas where you can benefit a wider range of services. And, like with the Chesterfield stop, you have an opportunity to more cheaply make use of existing railheads and add demand, where capacity allows. A stop like Chesterfield would never be justifiable on the main line, and probably not on a captive branch either, but it makes perfect sense if the trains will be running through there anyway.

Chesterfield is an important railhead for north Derbyshire, western Nottinghamshire and southern Sheffield with the best part of 2million journeys per year.

If HS2 extends beyond Toton, (which I very much doubt) then a Chesterfield stop for HS2 will prove popular.

 

[Senex]

All new French lines have ETCS L2. TGV Est Européen Phase1 was retrofitted in 2013, and Phase 2 had it from new. All new LGVs since then have had ETCS L2 - Bretagne Pays de Loire, Sud Europe Atlantique, and the Nîmes - Montpellier bypass. The first LGV, Paris Sud Est, is being resignalled with ETCS now; the signalling is about 40 years old, and due for renewal, and there is also a useful increase in capacity (to 16tph).

Thanks for that — I'm basically up-to-date with what is happening in the German-speaking world but very much more patchy on France! Hard to take in that Paris-Lyon is that old, given memories of early travel on it. The argument for that too was essentially a capacity one (though not a case of creating more capacity for commuters into the capital).