High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[dggar]

I love people's reactions to HS2 - basically its a white elephant waste of money yet it should be diverted/ extended to my town/ city

Interesting comments though:

So the Anti-s managed to get One protester and his inflatabe out.
BBC Northwest Tonight didn't even include his contribution in the later evening edition

 

[33Hz]

Exactly. If you read the article, it's clear that Liverpool wants a new spur to allow HS2 Captive trains into the city. This is not about jacking the price up.

The antis are so outnumbered it looks pathetic. It's not just one protester - it's the ringleader of the antis. He also tacitly admits that Manchester benefits (I thought their point was HS2 was a waste of money )

 

[MidlandMainlie]

So the Anti-s managed to get One protester and his inflatabe out.
BBC Northwest Tonight didn't even include his contribution in the later evening edition

Exactly. If you read the article, it's clear that Liverpool wants a new spur to allow HS2 Captive trains into the city. This is not about jacking the price up.

The antis are so outnumbered it looks pathetic. It's not just one protester - it's the ringleader of the antis. He also tacitly admits that Manchester benefits (I thought their point was HS2 was a waste of money )

Joe Rukin, the campaign director for stop HS2 always takes the opportunity to comment on any HS2 related story and label the project a white elephant :roll: kinda like Bob Crow and Nationalisation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Entertain this idea for a moment: there is a passenger train travelling from Birmingham to Paris also stopping in both London and Brussels (and another one on the way back to Birmingham). A passenger may travel from any stop to any other stop on the route. How would you design a passport check system?

How about doing the passport checks on board the train after it's left London (or whatever the last stop is before the border). You'd have the passport checking staff systematically walking through the train? Anyone without passport etc. would be removed from the train. You could do this either by holding the train at the station for the passport checks after the doors have locked, or having a separate customs facility along the line at which the train would stop.

(btw I don't think you'd sensibly stop at Brussels between London and Paris - that would make for a very roundabout route! But I don't think that matters for the point you're making).

 

[HSTEd]

Doing a clean sweep of the train is not as trivial as it might first appear.
You can smuggle people quite easily in that scenario.

 

[IKBrunel]

The old Eurostar passport issue is also discussed here:
www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88143&page=7

Lille passengers boarding at Brussels (within Schengen) are only allowed to board onto carriage 18. Staff guard the corridor between 17&18 from Brussels to Lille & ensure all carriage 18 passengers disembark. So perhaps this split train solution is how things will go for mixed domestic international trains.

 

[HowardGWR]

We are only talking about the inward trip to UK. Passports are not checked on exit (except by airline staff, for instance, to check that you are the person who said they were going to travel when you booked). So all it needs is for UKBA staff to wander through between (Ashford say) and London. They only need to check the suspicious looking people (same as stop and search). Mrs and Mrs Fat-Frump from Sutton Coldfield are not of interest. Indeed nobody is, but tell that to paranoid politicos and the jobsworths in the UKBA.

 

[TSR :D]

Does anyone else know if there are plans to link Moor St and HS2 station with New St?

An airport style travelator following above the road that goes under Bullring shopping centre would be nice.

 

[JohnB57]

They only need to check the suspicious looking people (same as stop and search). Mrs and Mrs Fat-Frump from Sutton Coldfield are not of interest.

Define "suspicious looking". Clearly not lesbian couples from the Midlands it would appear...

 

[33Hz]

No we are talking about both directions. Schengen requires checking on the way in.

But the Swiss seem to be able to do this by common sense and pulling in the suspicious looking pax...

Don't Eurostars have an onboard holding cell for this scenario?

 

[HowardGWR]

No we are talking about both directions. Schengen requires checking on the way in.

But the Swiss seem to be able to do this by common sense and pulling in the suspicious looking pax...

Don't Eurostars have an onboard holding cell for this scenario?

Only from outside the EU. I don't know which post you were replying to but good point made which I also tried to make.

The OP who asked what criteria - leave it to them. The MP Lammy (a barrister) and his brother (a magistrate) was pulled up by armed police. As two smartly dressed black men in a BMW, the rozzers concluded that they could only be the drugs dealers they were after. It's the way of the world I am afraid.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Does anyone else know if there are plans to link Moor St and HS2 station with New St?

An airport style travelator following above the road that goes under Bullring shopping centre would be nice.

Think the Tram is being extended.

 

[WatcherZero]

Trams being extended though I think the council did moot a travelator.

 

[HSTEd]

How about doing the passport checks on board the train after it's left London (or whatever the last stop is before the border). You'd have the passport checking staff systematically walking through the train? Anyone without passport etc. would be removed from the train. You could do this either by holding the train at the station for the passport checks after the doors have locked, or having a separate customs facility along the line at which the train would stop.

Although this is going to sound rather absurd, with the very large cases people lug around these days it is not beyond possibility that someone could remain concealed in one throughoutt he journey.

Without any form of baggage check (even cursory like 'is this bag glowing in IR like it has someone in it') they could remain concealed from before boarding to after getting off.

You would have to every station have some sort of heat sensor to defeat such people smuggling (put it near the end of the train and have someone watch it to make sure this doesn't happen).
But even then people could board as domestic pax and then get into the bag although someone might notice this.

Just a thought.

EDIT:

Tram being extended to Curzon Street?
If so that rather solves the problem of Wolverhampton commuters on the ICWC services to Birmingham as even if they change onto the tram they will be in Wolverhampton before the classic train would be.

 

[The Planner]

Tram from Snow Hill to Wolves is 35 minutes, add on another 5 minutes to Curzon St making 40. Fastest New St Wolves trains are 17 minutes, doubt there is a lot in it including a transfer between stations.

 

[HSTEd]

Tram from Snow Hill to Wolves is 35 minutes, add on another 5 minutes to Curzon St making 40. Fastest New St Wolves trains are 17 minutes, doubt there is a lot in it including a transfer between stations.

Well I am constantly told that people will demand a through classic train rather than walking between Curzon Street and New Street.
The fact that a single change will suffice and get you to Wolves faster than the current train will be a big plus.

 

[Oscar]

There are some questions which need answering about HS2:

- is the capacity HS2 would provide required? Lengthening Pendolinos to 12 coach sets and converting one First Class coach to Standard will release capacity for inter-city journeys. I understand that the busiest services are typically the first off-peak services - this artificial congestion could be avoided by amending the pricing system. Could more use be made of the Chiltern Mainline?
- should railways encourage discretionary travel or facilitate additional commuting? The size of rail's share of WCML London commuter or Birmingham/Manchester - London markets means that increasing passenger numbers means a lot more travel. The limited timetable and fare integration with other services or disincentives to use cars make modal shift through increasing capacity less likely. The HS2 business case states that most journeys will switch from conventional rail or will be new journeys. We face the enormous immediate task of hugely reducing greenhouse gas emissions and technology does not seem ready to solve the problem quickly enough.
- the speed of HS2 (as energy consumption increases faster than speed as speed increases) and the building of the line will cause huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions
- are the rail passenger growth predictions for this corridor realistic? The growth rate has been slowing since the VHF was introduced. Fewer younger people owning cars due to the high initial costs of motoring, the growth of service sector jobs in big cities facilitating rail community and being able to use digital technology on trains are likely to have been major factors in the recent growth in rail use. How much more of an impact will these trends have? A large world population and climate change make a continuous increase in economic growth highly unlikely. Fuel and food prices are likely to increase hugely and people are likely to have less (or at least no more) money to spend.
- should we be focusing on modal shift and distinguishing between additional travel and journeys transferred from the private car or air? If so, that would mean focusing on routes where rail's modal share is low and increasing services, lengthening trains and possibly building new sections of conventional line (e.g. across the Pennines) to increase speeds and relieve capacity. Integrating timetables and fares with other modes would be a first priority. Most journeys made are very short journeys and so to increase public transport's share of these it may be wise to invest heavily in public transport in metropolitan areas. In particular the less well off are much more likely to benefit from this than a high speed line.
- are HS2 Ltd's plans for 18 tph are realistic? I seem to remember that evidence given to the Transport Select Committee included the fact that nowhere in the world does a high speed line run more than around 12 tph and the technology for 18 tph has not yet been invented. This means that relieving the ECML and MML significantly and providing services to Heathrow and HS1 destinations seem unrealistic.
- do other lines such as the Thames Valley section of the GWML or commuter routes into Manchester or Leeds which have worse congestion than the WCML need a capacity increase more desperately?
- what potential exists for increasing maximum line speeds on the ECML and WCML to 225 km/h and increasing speeds on the Cross Country routes? Would improving line speeds, building strategic sections of classic line, four tracking key routes and optimising connections (currently seemingly not a major part of timetable planning) bring significant journey time and capacity improvements to almost most users of the network for a lower or similar cost?

 

[IKBrunel]

Well I am constantly told that people will demand a through classic train rather than walking between Curzon Street and New Street.
The fact that a single change will suffice and get you to Wolves faster than the current train will be a big plus.

I think the problem is partly physical & partly psychological. This would be my ideal solution:

Build a dedicated underground travelator between New St and 'New St East' (aka Curzon St). put it under Network Rail/BTP control (so trouble-causers could be challenged if whether they're actually travelling by rail).

That way people who aren't familiar with Birmingham or even the UK have confidence they are just changing trains more or less within the same station complex & aren't going to get lost in some rough part of town.

If people want to get to other places like the Bullring there are other routes anyway, if people want to get to the district adjacent to either station they could use the travelator on NR terms & wouldn't have to cross a gateline.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There are some questions which need answering about HS2:

- is the capacity HS2 would provide required? Lengthening Pendolinos to 12 coach sets and converting one First Class coach to Standard will release capacity for inter-city journeys. I understand that the busiest services are typically the first off-peak services - this artificial congestion could be avoided by amending the pricing system. Could more use be made of the Chiltern Mainline?
The Chiltern is not big or fast enough, already been upgraded quite extensively and is required by the services using it now, also the terminus is nowhere near big enough and has even less potential than Euston for expansion. Doing that to the Pendos won't really achieve an awful lot to be honest. We don't particularly need more intercity capacity. Its the rest that has problems.

- should railways encourage discretionary travel or facilitate additional commuting? The size of rail's share of WCML London commuter or Birmingham/Manchester - London markets means that increasing passenger numbers means a lot more travel. The limited timetable and fare integration with other services or disincentives to use cars make modal shift through increasing capacity less likely. The HS2 business case states that most journeys will switch from conventional rail or will be new journeys. We face the enormous immediate task of hugely reducing greenhouse gas emissions and technology does not seem ready to solve the problem quickly enough.
Not necessarily by transferring the intercity services from the big Northern cities you make more room for commuter trains. There is plenty for scope for modal shift in the big Northern cities compared to London. We have to accept people want to travel more as we disperse around the country
- the speed of HS2 (as energy consumption increases faster than speed as speed increases) and the building of the line will cause huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions Really? Huge increases? Nothing suggests they will be huge, certainly no more than Conventional Rail due to each train being able to hold around 1000 people. It certainly isnt going to contribute to huge savings environmentally unless we start producing cleaner electricity then it will
- are the rail passenger growth predictions for this corridor realistic? The growth rate has been slowing since the VHF was introduced. Fewer younger people owning cars due to the high initial costs of motoring, the growth of service sector jobs in big cities facilitating rail community and being able to use digital technology on trains are likely to have been major factors in the recent growth in rail use. How much more of an impact will these trends have? A large world population and climate change make a continuous increase in economic growth highly unlikely. Fuel and food prices are likely to increase hugely and people are likely to have less (or at least no more) money to spend. The predictions of the original report have been exceeded every year. SO yes i would suggest they are. Population will continue to rise so Rail Travel is not expected to decrease.
- should we be focusing on modal shift and distinguishing between additional travel and journeys transferred from the private car or air? If so, that would mean focusing on routes where rail's modal share is low and increasing services, lengthening trains and possibly building new sections of conventional line (e.g. across the Pennines) to increase speeds and relieve capacity. Integrating timetables and fares with other modes would be a first priority. Most journeys made are very short journeys and so to increase public transport's share of these it may be wise to invest heavily in public transport in metropolitan areas. In particular the less well off are much more likely to benefit from this than a high speed line. Removing Intercity services allows more local and regional trains. Example look at Stockport to Piccadilly. There is significant investment across the rest of the Network alongside HS2 infact some pretty big investment in the Pennines just look at Northern Hub
- are HS2 Ltd's plans for 18 tph are realistic? I seem to remember that evidence given to the Transport Select Committee included the fact that nowhere in the world does a high speed line run more than around 12 tph and the technology for 18 tph has not yet been invented. This means that relieving the ECML and MML significantly and providing services to Heathrow and HS1 destinations seem unrealistic.I think the current one is now 16 tph. They expect the technology to be available well before 2026. They do have 12 years till phase one and 29 till phase 2!
- do other lines such as the Thames Valley section of the GWML or commuter routes into Manchester or Leeds which have worse congestion than the WCML need a capacity increase more desperately?GWML modernisation and Crossrail, Northern Hub and electrification so they are being addressed
- what potential exists for increasing maximum line speeds on the ECML and WCML to 225 km/h and increasing speeds on the Cross Country routes? Would improving line speeds, building strategic sections of classic line, four tracking key routes and optimising connections (currently seemingly not a major part of timetable planning) bring significant journey time and capacity improvements to almost most users of the network for a lower or similar cost?That would further reduce the local and regional services and is part of the rationale for HS2 segregate the fast services away not make them even more problematic! It is partly being considered for GWML as they have lots of 4 track.

Answers in Red.

 

[tbtc]

- is the capacity HS2 would provide required? Lengthening Pendolinos to 12 coach sets and converting one First Class coach to Standard will release capacity for inter-city journeys

That would help (though you'd have to spend a lot of money on getting stations like Liverpool Lime Street extended to cope with twelve coach trains (the end coaches of a 390 are almost 26m long, remember).

But it may only give the equivalent of a year or two's growth (whereas HS2 is trying to solve the demand of the 2030s/ 2040s/ 2050s)

Could more use be made of the Chiltern Mainline?

Yes, but at what cost? Speeding up services through the Chilterns may come at the cost of serving stations in the Chilterns (which will make services worse for people in this Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

Plus, this only "solves" the capacity problem from London to Birmingham (whilst HS2 deals with Manchester/ Leeds/ Newcastle/ Glasgow etc too).

- should railways encourage discretionary travel or facilitate additional commuting? The size of rail's share of WCML London commuter or Birmingham/Manchester - London markets means that increasing passenger numbers means a lot more travel

I see the railways as being there to deal with *actual* demand (rather than using them as a political tool to artificially stimulate demand).

But demand will go up - we'll probably have another few million people in the UK in the 2030s/ 2040s/ 2050s.

Most journeys made are very short journeys and so to increase public transport's share of these it may be wise to invest heavily in public transport in metropolitan areas. In particular the less well off are much more likely to benefit from this than a high speed line

We are spending huge sums of money on "local" public transport too - HS2 isn't "instead of", its "as well as".

- do other lines such as the Thames Valley section of the GWML or commuter routes into Manchester or Leeds which have worse congestion than the WCML need a capacity increase more desperately?

Yes, and these lines are getting their solutions a lot sooner (Crossrail on the Thames Valley/ electrification on the GWML meaning longer trains to replace two or three coach Turbostars, Northern Hub and electrification meaning increases in Manchester and Leeds).

HS2 isn't opening properly for fifteen/ twenty years, whilst the Thames Valley/ Manchester/ Leeds etc are going to have large sums spent on them in CP5.

- what potential exists for increasing maximum line speeds on the ECML and WCML to 225 km/h and increasing speeds on the Cross Country routes?

You could probably increase the speed of the ECML to 140mph for long stretches, given how straight/ flat it is. But you still need to deal with freight/ 75mph DMUs/ flat crossings, so you'd not get near 140mph unless you scrapped a lot of conflicting services.

ETA - what YorkshireBear said!

 

[JohnB57]

No we are talking about both directions. Schengen requires checking on the way in.

But the Swiss seem to be able to do this by common sense and pulling in the suspicious looking pax...

Not sure what you're saying here. Switzerland is in the Schengen Area, so why single it out?

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are some questions which need answering about HS2:

- is the capacity HS2 would provide required? Lengthening Pendolinos to 12 coach sets and converting one First Class coach to Standard will release capacity for inter-city journeys. I understand that the busiest services are typically the first off-peak services - this artificial congestion could be avoided by amending the pricing system. Could more use be made of the Chiltern Mainline?

We are trying to build a network which will provide the capacity for a very long time to come. The HS2 network will not dissolve after the financial and economic modelling end date so it is a very long-term investment which will be used for as long as our existing lines have been to date. We know that there is no more efficient way of carrying lots of things for long distances at high speed than some kind of rail. The modelling used for HS2 predicts that when Phase 1 of HS2 is undergoing testing, the existing WCML will be full to capacity. Likewise, when Phase 2 opens, the more nothern WCML, the MML and the ECML will also be at the same stage. If passenger numbers continue to grow faster than they are today, these points will be reached even earlier. If the rate of growth drops, it is unlikely ever to drop below the rate of population growth which will eventually require us to build new lines. It is not the end of the world if it takes until 2055 for Phase 2 to fill up but this possibility is very unlikely economically as the fares can be reduced enough to make it happen.

There are short term measures which can be done on the existing lines, such as converting first to standard class and adding extra coaches. However, these are subject to the law of diminishing returns where more and more money will need to be spent to have the same level of capacity increase. Adding an extra coach to a Pendolino will add another 70 or so seats but when we build HS2, we can run entire extra timetables of trains on top of what we have today so we can have thousands of extra seats. As it is very possible that the passenger numbers will increase even more, it may even be necessary to do some of these enhancements for the short term until HS2 opens.

Rail is the only mode of intercity transport which will not become more difficult or more expensive in the future. Planes are entirely reliant upon liquid fuel and likely will be for many decades in the future. They do not provide a lot of capacity and they create noise and local pollution regardless of whether they are run on entirely bio-fuel or not. They also require people to go through security as they are physically fragile, and they are obscenely complicated machines which require absurd amounts of maintenance. They require large airports built upon otherwise useful land and there aren't many others which can be built if the opposition to Heathrow expansion is anything to go by.

Cars require motorways, currently need liquid fuels and they are always going to be slow. They are extremely inefficient uses of space as they require huge amounts of land for parking, fuelling, resting and travelling due to the need for braking distances between each vehicle which likely only carries a handful of people on board at most. Even if we get autonomous cars powered wirelessly by electricity from the road surface they will still be nowhere near the level of comfort, safety, reliability and capacity as a high speed rail link. The technology for the rail link exists today and is eminently feasible for this country and many others to do; the technology for driverless, electric cars is still in its infancy and cannot be relied upon for the capacity issues which we will face in the next few decades.

As a result, there is no real alternative to high speed rail for the highly used intercity corridors of London to Edinburgh or Manchester to Birmingham or the other pairs or strings of large cities in this country.

- should railways encourage discretionary travel or facilitate additional commuting? The size of rail's share of WCML London commuter or Birmingham/Manchester - London markets means that increasing passenger numbers means a lot more travel. The limited timetable and fare integration with other services or disincentives to use cars make modal shift through increasing capacity less likely. The HS2 business case states that most journeys will switch from conventional rail or will be new journeys. We face the enormous immediate task of hugely reducing greenhouse gas emissions and technology does not seem ready to solve the problem quickly enough.

It is true that additional discretionary travel or commuting will incur more energy usage but what is the alternative? Do we want to reverse the trend towards a more interconnected and interdependent world? People today do commute and do discretionary travel but using more environmentally damaging modes of transport - specifically by car and by plane. If someone believes that our only future can lie in a no-growth economy then obviously HS2 will seem to be a waste of time and resources but the marginal environmental cost of more travel along HS2, once built, is marginal compared to the cost of that same travel inevitably happening on more carbon-intensive modes of transport. HS2 can be powered entirely by renewable energy if we so wish. Planes and cars cannot.

A particular reason why the business case states that most of the journeys will transfer from existing rail links is that HS2 Phase 2 does not go far enough to reach areas where air is currently a sensible travel option. The Phase 2 journey time from Glasgow or Edinburgh is still slow enough to make flying from there to London a possibility. The only way of stopping this is to make the route go even further, which is absolutely what is going to happen once Phase 2 is built because then the greatest benefit from the route will occur. Today, north of Preston the average WCML speed is only around 85-90mph if I remember correctly as the route is sinuous and slow. HS2 will relieve the sections of the WCML which have been engineered to the highest speed and capacity standards just because it is most needed there right now. Once it continues northward the journey time savings will be far greater and so the benefits will be even higher. There is no economicc point building the route only southwards from the Central belt though as then it wouldn't solve the most pressing problems capacity-wise at the south of the routes, between the Midlands and London. Building both ways simultaneously would provide the most benefit overall but would cost more than the three parties have politically agreed on so far. Maybe it might happen as a carrot for Scotland to stay in the Union - the plans for HS2 certainly don't help the Better Together cause by stopping less than halfway up the country and saying they're finished.

The technology for HS2 exists today but we need to build it now if we want to solve the problems which will exist just as it opens. If we try to escape the reality of the need for new North/South high-speed rail links then we will simply delay the inevitable and so lead to more environmental issues in the meantime. HS2 will take a long time to build because we don't want to spend that much of our economic output upon it - today we are spending the same amount on Crossrail and HS2 is timed to begin work just as work on Crossrail ends so we will not be paying any more per year on the infrastructure then as we are today.

- the speed of HS2 (as energy consumption increases faster than speed as speed increases) and the building of the line will cause huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions

HS2 trains are all electric so they can be powered by anything we like. Massive solar panels across the northern Sahara? No problem. You can't do that with planes.

A TGV Duplex running at 320km/h is as efficient per passenger kilometre as a Cl393 Pendolino running at 200km/h. On HS2 there is no need for complicated and heavy tilt arms and the trains can be taller, longer and wider so that more people can fit on each one in more comfort than they can on our current ones. Rolling stock is getting more and more efficient at the same time so I'm confident that the captive stock (i.e. HS2-only, no classic line running at all) will be as efficient at 360km/h per passenger kilometre as the trains we run today.

- are the rail passenger growth predictions for this corridor realistic? The growth rate has been slowing since the VHF was introduced. Fewer younger people owning cars due to the high initial costs of motoring, the growth of service sector jobs in big cities facilitating rail community and being able to use digital technology on trains are likely to have been major factors in the recent growth in rail use. How much more of an impact will these trends have? A large world population and climate change make a continuous increase in economic growth highly unlikely. Fuel and food prices are likely to increase hugely and people are likely to have less (or at least no more) money to spend.

Digital technology hasn't slowed the growth of rail at all. People want to be more mobile now and some of the wonderful predictions about digital working have proved to be complete rubbish. Yahoo! have started to roll back working at home because they don't believe that people are actually as efficient working at home with the internet. Building fast, high capacity and dedicated high speed rail between cities allows for companies to relocate from London to other places without losing access to the talent market and to other companies still in London. There are plenty of companies which already do this but they have to locate very close to London itself - O2 and other tech companies are strewn along the M4 corridor which has level of access to London and to the labour market as Manchester and Leeds will have after Phase 2. HS2 can insulate itself against fuel crises in a way that no other form of transport can. If we decide against HS2, and then someone creates another oil crisis, what is going to happen to the slightly-improved existing rail network as people abandon cars and planes? All HS2 infrastructure is built for 400m long double-decker trains at up to 20tph capacity (and maybe beyond when moving-block ETCS level 3 comes about) which is an obscene amount of capacity, well above what the passenger numbers are predicted to be for a long time. At the same time the existing rail network will continue to exist and will have its own massive capacity increases as the speed differentials between trains are reduced back down to the level of sanity. Platforms extended for 11-car Pendolinos or 12-car IEPs will take 12-car (16 for 12-car IEP) regional or commuter trains just fine and we'll be able to have many more of them going faster and closer together than we have today.

- should we be focusing on modal shift and distinguishing between additional travel and journeys transferred from the private car or air? If so, that would mean focusing on routes where rail's modal share is low and increasing services, lengthening trains and possibly building new sections of conventional line (e.g. across the Pennines) to increase speeds and relieve capacity. Integrating timetables and fares with other modes would be a first priority. Most journeys made are very short journeys and so to increase public transport's share of these it may be wise to invest heavily in public transport in metropolitan areas. In particular the less well off are much more likely to benefit from this than a high speed line.

HS2 is the target of the minority of rail infrastructure investment over the same time period. We only know what is planned until the end of CP5 and the start of CP6, which corresponds to early-mid Phase 1 construction period. By the time Phase 2 shuts I would doubt there wouldn't be wires all the way from Inverness to Penzance and everywhere in between - Pacers and 150s long replaced by 345/380/387/700/801s running at twice the length and twice the frequency at speeds well beyond what is done today. The rail map will be redesigned around the HS2 service hubs - already happening around Manchester with the Northern Hub and the Ordsall Chord but in general anything is possible. GLC-GLQ tunnel? Bradford Crossrail?

- are HS2 Ltd's plans for 18 tph are realistic? I seem to remember that evidence given to the Transport Select Committee included the fact that nowhere in the world does a high speed line run more than around 12 tph and the technology for 18 tph has not yet been invented. This means that relieving the ECML and MML significantly and providing services to Heathrow and HS1 destinations seem unrealistic.

Phase 1 starts at 14tph and that is more than a decade away. By two decades away we might have got ETCS level 3 sorted so 18tph might seem provincial in comparison. HS2 will also have the benefit of operationally being more isolated from the classic network than many other networks as the new terminii platforms and tracks are operationally isolated from the old network. Extending the captive routes further will only be able to help this.

- do other lines such as the Thames Valley section of the GWML or commuter routes into Manchester or Leeds which have worse congestion than the WCML need a capacity increase more desperately?

Oddly enough they actually do and that is why they are currently getting them. The Anti-HS2 crowd whinge that it is Paddington and Waterloo which have the highest overcrowding rates without mentioning that both of them are planned to be relieved by Crossrails. Electrification, Crossrail 1 and IEP will solve Paddington for many decades to come. Waterloo will be getting Crossrail 2 & 3, conversion to 25kV (eventually, but needed in part for CR2) and more immediately are gaining five extra 400m long platforms from the former Eurostar terminus. Manchester, Leeds and so on are the greatest beneficiaries of our new continuous programme of electrification as they have the most un-electrified routes around and through them. HS2 tracks don't ever intrude on the existing network around the cities so there will be no capacity loss when it opens either as it will allow the current intercity platforms, tracks and timetabled paths to be used for more essential local and regional services.

- what potential exists for increasing maximum line speeds on the ECML and WCML to 225 km/h and increasing speeds on the Cross Country routes? Would improving line speeds, building strategic sections of classic line, four tracking key routes and optimising connections (currently seemingly not a major part of timetable planning) bring significant journey time and capacity improvements to almost most users of the network for a lower or similar cost?

The metals might be there for 225km/h but that doesn't mean the timetable would allow it. In cab signalling does not help the fact that a faster train will get stuck behind a slower one if it is unable to overtake. Increasing the number of tracks through a section is much easier said than done as entire bridges, tunnels, stations and junctions need to be fixed for them to make a difference. When a route has been singled or narrowed to two tracks the bridges and tunnels will still be there for a relatively easy re-expansion but when you've got it out to the size it was originally built for it becomes a disaster trying to expand it more. Unlike HS2, which passes on the surface almost entirely through empty farmland and industrial areas, the existing routes have lots of houses and roads and schools and other expensive-to-demolish things on either side. Even if there is a short area where it may be possible to increase the number of tracks, it won't be much good if trains have to slow down to be overtaken in them and it won't help at the stations where the most chaos will be needed to add more tracks beyond what the Victorians intended.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the problem is partly physical & partly psychological. This would be my ideal solution:

Build a dedicated underground travelator between New St and 'New St East' (aka Curzon St). put it under Network Rail/BTP control (so trouble-causers could be challenged if whether they're actually travelling by rail).

That way people who aren't familiar with Birmingham or even the UK have confidence they are just changing trains more or less within the same station complex & aren't going to get lost in some rough part of town..

In order for that to work you would probably have to number the platforms at Curzon Street and possibly even Moor Street into the 'New Street' numbering sequence so it actually looks like it is the same station.

My preferred solution involves developing Midland Metro into a Manchester Metrolink esque regional solution and then pumping all the trams possible into Curzon Street.

 

[Oscar]

Apart from the Welwyn viaduct, all of the ECML as far as Peterborough can be increased to four tracks. North of Peterborough, the only section where ECML passenger trains and other DMUs share four tracks is the Stoke Tunnel area. If in the long-term these services are provided by newer EMUs, then this bottleneck can be relieved significantly. Headways can also be reduced between Doncaster and Leeds by faster stopping services. Freight can be diverted via Lincoln and much long-distance intermodal freight could run at night. If the railway loses unsustainable freight traffic such as coal traffic but gains other traffic, there may not be an overall growth in freight traffic. Between York and Northallerton there is a straight section of four tracks, where faster running would presumably be possible. North of Northallerton, all stations (except around Newcastle) are served by long-distance services and away from the Newcastle-Gateshead conurbation, population is sparse, so there are no local services (except for immediately around Newcastle) to make room for. In any case HS2 would not serve this area. What then is to stop 225 km/h running on the ECML which would benefit Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland sooner than HS2?

Perhaps an alternative or additional scheme to regenerate the North and increase capacity could be targeted sections of new line, for example between Manchester or Rochdale and Huddersfield and between Wakefield and Meadowhall, reusing part of the Wakefield - Cudworth line, aiming to provide a sub-30 minute journey time between Leeds and Manchester/Sheffield. Is the current programme of investment in northern railways enough? More routes could be electrified or 4-tracked where feasible sooner, new light rail schemes could be implemented in major cities.

What would ETCS Level 3 mean? Can we based investment on developments which might or might not happen?

If the price of kerosene increases hugely, will relatively small journey time savings be necessary to encourage modal shift?

I didn't suggest that digital technology might have slowed the growth of rail, rather than it has boost the growth of rail and now that it is established, this growth may slow down.

If the cost of living goes up hugely and incomes are squeezed, will people be able to afford extra rail travel whether it is cheaper than the alternatives or not or will they simply travel less? Has a range of socio-economic scenarios for HS2 been tested?

Pendolino seat occupancy is currently low (figures suggest around a third to a half), there will be capacity improvements on the existing line and growth is slowing.

 

[HowardGWR]

There are some questions which need answering about HS2:

Excellent post and sounds like the Green Party or FOE policy document. The reason the questions will not be answered is because the other parties aren't interested in environmental issues. Even the shadow chancellor has only expressed doubts over the BCR compared to other ways of spending the money. As you point out, this BCR is not based on modal shift, just growth and transfer from existing rail.

As one of your questions relates to reducing the need to travel, the last government supposedly had this as policy but did absolutely nothing to achieve it. It really is a lost cause, I fear, for those of your persuasion (I am assuming your persuasion of course).

@NAT
Those are all excellent business arguments but they do not (and neither do you claim they do) address the environmental issues.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Excellent post and sounds like the Green Party or FOE policy document. The reason the questions will not be answered is because the other parties aren't interested in environmental issues. Even the shadow chancellor has only expressed doubts over the BCR compared to other ways of spending the money. As you point out, this BCR is not based on modal shift, just growth and transfer from existing rail.

As one of your questions relates to reducing the need to travel, the last government supposedly had this as policy but did absolutely nothing to achieve it. It really is a lost cause, I fear, for those of your persuasion (I am assuming your persuasion of course).

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the rather extensive reply to that post yet...

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the rather extensive reply to that post yet...

I have now. See my additional para in my recent post. One can erect solar panels in the Sahara now without building HS2. The environmental case is against high speed and probably against an extra line, given that is needed for growth, whereas the environmentalists want to see a reduction in travel (by any means).

When you go on your easyjet flight to Majorca or take HST or use car, you are costing a Bangladeshi his livelihood and possibly in the future his existence through climate change. We don't care about that (even if it may come back to bite us too, down the line) and it's better to admit that than be hypocritical about it. HS lines are not being built for environmental reasons.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have now. See my additional para in my recent post. One can erect solar panels in the Sahara now without building HS2. The environmental case is against high speed and probably against an extra line, given that is needed for growth, whereas the environmentalists want to see a reduction in travel (by any means).

When you go on your easyjet flight to Majorca or take HST or use car, you are costing a Bangladeshi his livelihood and possibly in the future his existence through climate change. We don't care about that (even if it may come back to bite us too, down the line) and it's better to admit that than be hypocritical about it. HS lines are not being built for environmental reasons.

Is that not a quite black-and-white way to look at it? I mean, I don't think we, or anyone else for that matter (including the government) are in much of a position to stop the growth in travel that we're seeing at the moment. The best way to mitigate the effects is clearly to build the most environmentally friendly method of transport.

Claiming that any and all expansions to the rail network are not environmentally friendly in absolute terms is all well and good, but it's perhaps a little naïve as it ignores the fact that there's little we can do to stop expansion in the first place.

 

[IKBrunel]

Not all environmentalists oppose HS2...I see HS2 as a better alternative to building more runways or motorways.
It was said in parliament recently that HS2 would create passenger & freight capacity equivalent to building 2 motorways. I think many environmentalists haven't taken that on board. Also many environmentalists seem convinced it would be cheaper/better to upgrade classic network to accept double decker or 18 car trains..... ( which we don't need to go into since those options are well and truly killed off on this thread already)

Environmental benefits of electric rail will improve over the years as we decarbonise electricity supply, that is a dead certainty since coal plants are reaching end of life & wont be replaced with coal.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Apart from the Welwyn viaduct, all of the ECML as far as Peterborough can be increased to four tracks. North of Peterborough, the only section where ECML passenger trains and other DMUs share four tracks is the Stoke Tunnel area. If in the long-term these services are provided by newer EMUs, then this bottleneck can be relieved significantly. Headways can also be reduced between Doncaster and Leeds by faster stopping services. Freight can be diverted via Lincoln and much long-distance intermodal freight could run at night. If the railway loses unsustainable freight traffic such as coal traffic but gains other traffic, there may not be an overall growth in freight traffic. Between York and Northallerton there is a straight section of four tracks, where faster running would presumably be possible. North of Northallerton, all stations (except around Newcastle) are served by long-distance services and away from the Newcastle-Gateshead conurbation, population is sparse, so there are no local services (except for immediately around Newcastle) to make room for. In any case HS2 would not serve this area. What then is to stop 225 km/h running on the ECML which would benefit Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland sooner than HS2?Newark Flat Crossing, Doncaster Station and Darlington to Newcastle are all major capacity constraints and so is Welyn!!!

You mention Doncaster Leeds, exactly how could we improve from 100mph EMUs on stopping services??? Significant freight from Newcastle via Durham and that shows no sign of decreasing, actually it looks like it is going to increase. Long term aspiration is HS2 to Newcastle. It looks cheap so i would suggest it will be happen before 2040. Although the Leamside line may be used in the medium term. And you answer your own question here as HS2 is not serving it!

THe problem is demand wants Leed-London and York-London non stop services but we also need to stop at Retford, Newark, Grantham etc so they cause a problem. Not all services stop there remember. Also HS2 will allow paths for Lincoln? and other areas.

In my eyes the ECML is even more vital as it has a far higher seat occupancy than WCML.

Perhaps an alternative or additional scheme to regenerate the North and increase capacity could be targeted sections of new line, for example between Manchester or Rochdale and Huddersfield and between Wakefield and Meadowhall, reusing part of the Wakefield - Cudworth line, aiming to provide a sub-30 minute journey time between Leeds and Manchester/Sheffield. Is the current programme of investment in northern railways enough? More routes could be electrified or 4-tracked where feasible sooner, new light rail schemes could be implemented in major cities.
Light Rail is unfortunately on a down.... Edinburgh has made people wary of new schemes so only extensions seem to be getting the go ahead.

Is it enough for me? No. But that is how government works they are spending over 2 billion around the North so i am happy with that. Improvements will come with HS2 too. Ie early plans for Sheffield.

I think sub 30 minute journeys are ambitious without spending a lot of money on new HS lines tunneling.

What would ETCS Level 3 mean? Can we based investment on developments which might or might not happen? Will happen, it is already in development.

If the price of kerosene increases hugely, will relatively small journey time savings be necessary to encourage modal shift? What do you mean? If petrol goes up then Rail Journeys also go up, there is direct correlation. Petrol is 33-50% of the lifetime running of a car. Only 4% for a train so effects it a lot less.

I didn't suggest that digital technology might have slowed the growth of rail, rather than it has boost the growth of rail and now that it is established, this growth may slow down. It will slow but i dont see it stopping as population goes up and congestion becomes a bigger problem.

If the cost of living goes up hugely and incomes are squeezed, will people be able to afford extra rail travel whether it is cheaper than the alternatives or not or will they simply travel less? Has a range of socio-economic scenarios for HS2 been tested? If we took this for everything we would never build anything ever. Yes there is a chance it will go up, but equally might it also go down? If we spend our lives being cautious we get nowhere.

Pendolino seat occupancy is currently low (figures suggest around a third to a half), there will be capacity improvements on the existing line and growth is slowing. Not just the pendos is it? Look at the LM 350s? XC trains also ECML and MML are much higher.

Replies in Red again.

Your points are valid i am just responding to them.