High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

The "£33 billion to save 20 mins" argument really grinds my gears. There's a reason we're building a high-speed line compared to a conventional one.

The primary reason to build a high speed line compared to a conventional one is the political one, it looks good in the press.
The secondary reason is the engineering reason that you don't really loose very much by going fast, so you might as well since it can reduce your capital costs by allowing more intensive use of equipment.

HS2 could be built as a conventional railway at a cheaper price, however this would not give the same capacity increase. By having a higher line speed and no intermediate stations, the number of trains per hour is increased dramatically. This in turn means the current WCML passenger trains can stop more often, so the intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston can get a better service as well.

Through clever flighting of trains multiple additional intermediate stations could be built without significantly reducing the traffic capable of using the line.
The journey time would be increased by the extra distances required (and since we can traverse a kilometre in something like 11 seconds at 320kph, it is not significant) and by a further 30 seconds or so per station due to the need to deploy a 250kph PSR in the vicinity of the station to allow for the insanely conservative UIC standard to be met with regards to points interlocking. (11.6km to stop a train from 360kph? The Japanese can do it in less than half that in an emergeancy, which points failing to interlock is).

Additionally the argument that the seats on these trains will all be needed for the journeys between the stations forseen in this document is ridiculous, since 18tph at 1350+ seats per set translates to a capacity equivalent to something on order of 41 11-car Class 390s every hour using TGV seating densities.


Then there is the absurd argument that we have to "future-proof" the line by demanding a 400kph suitable alignment.
This is despite the fact that it now appears that running in operational service significantly above 320kph will never be competitive.
(Every single nation that has attempted it in commercial service has abandoned it, even the Chinese who always attempted it more as a national pride thing)

A 320kph alignment would also allow this absurd idea of setting the capacity by the requirement for 360kph running to be abandoned, increasing capacity still further, it would also make it far more affordable to serve the intermediate destinations that we should.

Even though this capacity isn't needed right now, we'll be kicking ourselves in 20 years if we don't build it! The southern WCML is steadily getting busier and busier. In short, HS2 is future-proofing the busiest section of mainline in the country.

A future proofed line would deploy dynamic block signalling with ATO from day 1 instead of a conventional ERTMS Level 2 installation with ATO being "considered" and would stop at multiple locations, probably at all the feasible ICWC stations on the lower sections of the WCML. (Between Birmingham Manchester this would likely be Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester Airport, perhaps Crewe if the bends required are feasible).

That would allow virtually the entire 125mph West Coast fleet to be removed from operation giving drastically increased capacity over the remainder of the line.

It is not a 400kph laid out 360kph-operation pipedream that seems to have been concieved to support extremely fast "point-to-point" premium service.
What Britain needs... for want of a better term... is a high speed "tube line" to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

The easiest way to tap London's dynamism is for all us to be Londoners.

 

[woodhead]

As I see it, the primary reason for HS2 is capacity; the journey time reductions are just a bonus. Unfortunately capacity isn't sexy so the politicians and journalists just talk about the speed of the line which gives the anti brigade plenty of "meeeeeeh do we really need this?" ammunition.

Connecting the WCML at Rugby with a re-opened old Great Central south to Grendon would 1)connect with the new East West electrified line at Claydon 2) link London with two passenger options to London via either Aylesbury or via Wycombe to either Paddington or Marylebone. This would provide considerable extra capacity both for freight and passenger to relieve pressure on the least crowded mainline out of London (WCML). It would also give a Sunday engineering diversionary route for the WCML instead of using buses. I would be surprised if this was insufficient extra capacity but if more were required then we have Chiltern via Banbury and if that is still not enough (2100?) it can be electrified and in places, quadrupled. And if all that has not freed up enough capacity for the north then reopen the old Midland line through the Derbyshire dales which would also give much needed links between Nottingham/the East Midlands and Manchester and the north west as a bonus. Still more? Well there's the former joint Great Northern/Great Eastern via Sleaford to develop. Capacity - wood for the trees?

 

[Ironside]

The attempt to "introduce dynamic block signaling" was the the reason the wcml upgrade was such a failure, do you have any reason to believe it works now?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Connecting the WCML at Rugby with a re-opened old Great Central south to Grendon would 1)connect with the new East West electrified line at Claydon 2) link London with two passenger options to London via either Aylesbury or via Wycombe to either Paddington or Marylebone. This would provide considerable extra capacity both for freight and passenger to relieve pressure on the least crowded mainline out of London (WCML). It would also give a Sunday engineering diversionary route for the WCML instead of using buses. I would be surprised if this was insufficient extra capacity but if more were required then we have Chiltern via Banbury and if that is still not enough (2100?) it can be electrified and in places, quadrupled. And if all that has not freed up enough capacity for the north then reopen the old Midland line through the Derbyshire dales which would also give much needed links between Nottingham/the East Midlands and Manchester and the north west as a bonus. Still more? Well there's the former joint Great Northern/Great Eastern via Sleaford to develop. Capacity - wood for the trees?

And how much would all that cost, with how much disruption, and how much capacity. I think HS2 would compare favourably.

 

[Robert Taggart]

NO2 HS2 - and this from a northern anorak !

 

[swt_passenger]

Connecting the WCML at Rugby with a re-opened old Great Central south to Grendon would 1)connect with the new East West electrified line at Claydon 2) link London with two passenger options to London via either Aylesbury or via Wycombe to either Paddington or Marylebone. This would provide considerable extra capacity both for freight and passenger to relieve pressure on the least crowded mainline out of London (WCML). It would also give a Sunday engineering diversionary route for the WCML instead of using buses. I would be surprised if this was insufficient extra capacity but if more were required then we have Chiltern via Banbury and if that is still not enough (2100?) it can be electrified and in places, quadrupled.

All your suggestions about the GC and Chiltern were explained away in the original 'alternate route' report as NOT providing long term capacity. Going via the original GC (which is not UIC GC gauge, even if it was comparable with the 1900s European gauge as built) and then Rugby and joining the WCML if aiming for Birmingham doesn't work - how much of Rugby do you knock down to provide the high speed turn from North to West? It's just too far out of the way compared to the logical route, and then increasing capacity between Rugby and Birmingham through the Coventry corridor would be needed.

Re-using the main part of the GC isn't going to happen for loads of reasons, but if it was so obvious wouldn't they have done it?

 

[HSTEd]

The attempt to "introduce dynamic block signaling" was the the reason the wcml upgrade was such a failure, do you have any reason to believe it works now?

Well for a start it was one of many reasons why the project collapsed.

But either way, if you look at a map of the WCML and the projected dynamic block signalling system deployment area you can see it is rather more complex than a High Speed line of similar length.

Even the one I propose has no quad track, no flat junctions, no messy station approaches with multiple lines merging from multiple directions, no trains with enormously different performance characteristics.

Operationally it shares far more with a mass transit system than a conventional railway, and plenty of mass transit systems have had dynamic block signalling deployed.

Also the operational problem of ensuring trains remain in one piece is far easier to solve on a high speed railway than on a conventional one with freight wagons and the like running around.

 

[Ironside]

HSTEd I concede that HS2 is a considerably more simple lay out than the the WCML and therefore easier to implement dynamic signaling especially as you say it's more widely used technology. I do however recal reading on this site that one of the challenges of this type of signalling is some mathematical difficulty in precisely locating a trains exact position and it becomes harder the faster the train is moving, making it more challenging again or has this been solved too? I am not an expert in this field.

 

[GNER 91128]

Not anti high speed, but anti high speed 2.

I still think we should use 33 billion to upgrade what we already have.

 

[AndyLandy]

Not anti high speed, but anti high speed 2.

I still think we should use 33 billion to upgrade what we already have.

I thought the whole point was that a new railway was actually more cost-effective, since upgrading existing lines is incredibly complicated and expensive.

I saw something similar happen at work. We put up a new building, but an oversight meant the ceilings didn't get painted. The quote to get it done after the building went into service was an order of magnitude more than it would have cost to get done at the time.

 

[jon0844]

Not anti high speed, but anti high speed 2.

I still think we should use 33 billion to upgrade what we already have.

But who will provide that money? Isn't a lot of the money for HS2 coming from private investors (I'd like to invest if I could, as I think it's a pretty safe bet) who won't just give a few quid here and there for other projects, especially high risk ones like upgrading existing lines - with likely cost overspends and delays leading to financial penalties etc.

HS1 was delivered on time and on budget. The WCML wasn't. That says to me that a new line is a safer investment (and bet for those stumping up the cash).

 

[tbtc]

I would never have thought that a new line would starve the rest of the network of investment, but it's £33bn to spend on more viable solutions that will be easier to plan and complete. Such as widening of existing bottlenecks where possible.

I would much prefer to endure a bus for months on end than have massive construction works for 10+yrs and a new line ploughing needlessly through the country to save 20 minutes for rich businessmen and their companies. And surely a huge problem is that the plan is to hand over a chunk of Euston for HS2 (unless the plan is to extend Euston?), which is where the problem is. Why disrupt and put more pressure on the line that it is intended to replace for the longer journeys for years on end?

Which bottlenecks do you want to widen? Say you find a pot of cash to tackle the two track viaduct at Welwyn. That's great, but then trains get stuck slightly further north as the line to Peterborough isn't four track. Tackling most bottlenecks just pushes the problem marginally further up the line.

Trying to tackle the WCML again would mean a long period of "bustitution" for long distance passengers. Building a separate line would mean virtually no disruption to current passengers.

Your points about "rich businessmen and their companies" doesn't help your argument either.

What did they do when the A roads got to busy or were likely to? They built new roads (ploughing them through the country) and as they were building new roads they built them to the newest and fastest standards (no sharp bends, no flat junctions and three lanes plus hard shoulder). This meant they didn't have to have months of roadworks on the existing roads

The capacity problem on the railways (well the future problems but given the time it takes it needs to be started before we run out completely out of capacity) will be solved the same way by building brand new lines. As we are building brand new we will future proof them by building them to the newest fastest standards.

DDB

Excellent point. If only there were forums like this fifty years ago, I wonder whether we'd see people saying that they didn't want Motorways for similar reasons?

As I see it, the primary reason for HS2 is capacity; the journey time reductions are just a bonus. Unfortunately capacity isn't sexy so the politicians and journalists just talk about the speed of the line which gives the anti brigade plenty of "meeeeeeh do we really need this?" ammunition.

Agreed. For those suggesting that we build a brand new "conventional" line, imagine the complaints about "spending billions of pounds and it won't even be faster than the fastest service today".

The "£33 billion to save 20 mins" argument really grinds my gears. There's a reason we're building a high-speed line compared to a conventional one.

HS2 could be built as a conventional railway at a cheaper price, however this would not give the same capacity increase. By having a higher line speed and no intermediate stations, the number of trains per hour is increased dramatically. This in turn means the current WCML passenger trains can stop more often, so the intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston can get a better service as well.

Even though this capacity isn't needed right now, we'll be kicking ourselves in 20 years if we don't build it! The southern WCML is steadily getting busier and busier. In short, HS2 is future-proofing the busiest section of mainline in the country.

My gears are similarly grinded. Grounded? Dunno - it really bugs me to hear the argument too though!

Quite.

HS2 is not being built to improve journey times. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's necessary to deal with the capacity demands for the huge volumes of people who travel on the London-Birmingham corridor and the expected increase in demand as time goes on.

But if you're going to build a new railway, why would you do anything other than future-proof it? Anything else is false economy. So yes, we're building it as a high speed line. You can put more trains down it and it'll be good for a very long time. Otherwise we'd end up re-engineering it every decade or so and it'd be perpetually disrupted and cost orders of magnitude more in the long run than the current proposal.

Personally, I think it's fantastic that this country is currently investing in some decent, proper infrastructure projects like HS2.

Great point Andy

 

[Dave1987]

Every anti argument says upgrade what we already have. Where exactly? Where can you feasibly upgrade the line to give you the same capacity HS2 would give you for the same cost as HS2. And please remember £32bn is the entire cost all the way to the north! The answer is you can't HS2 is the best solution to capacity problems and the high speed aspect is a great bonus and should make the uk a more attractive place for businesses!

 

[cle]

Rich businessmen and their companies create jobs for people. So do competitive and modern transport networks.

Jobs, wealth and both literal and social mobility are what we need more of in this country - no-brainer really.

 

[Johnuk123]

Quite surprised that so many people think it will actually be built.

I don't think it will ever see the light of day with so many elections due to take place before.

The worst thing will be that billions are spent on planing and preparatory work then it's binned as all political parties have long histories in this area.

 

[saracen43]

Does anyone know how close the line will come to Cubbington village.

 

[hawaii2468]

Waterloo is either 11mins via CX with a maximum off peak wait time of 6mins or via the Victoria Line to Oxford Circus and change to the Bakerloo by cross platform interchange. Off peak with luggage isnt a significant challenge. Alternatively there are two direct bus routes, each every ten minutes and step free from the starion forecourt, taking between 20 and 40 mins.

Before I go through how easy each terminal interchange already is at Euston, need I remind you that HS2 will make Euston fully intergrated, ready for Crossrail 2, likely include rapid transit to kgx, have significantly improved flow managment and be fully step free from platform to street (all platforms and lines are already level boarding.) and that you should try interchanging at EUS before slating it so very quickly...

I know that the absolute time spent on the tube trains could be as little as 10 mintutes but the main challenge is from dragging a big airline suitcase down the tube, it's even not pleasant to go through the ticket barriers. In many mass rapid transit systems in the world, big baggages are not allowed on escalators. Take Waterloo as an example, the first level down is the ticket hall and there are 3 lines there that passengers have to clear. Then after ticket barriers there is another long escalator journey and before research the tube platform, there's some steps to go. I have seen many passengers with big suitcase struggling moving in the tube stations. Buses don't make it any easier especially when one has to catch a connection. Will you risk the bus from Waterloo to Euston when your next train (especially when you have an advance ticket) is within 30 minutes?

 

[jon0844]

I don't think it will ever see the light of day with so many elections due to take place before.

But every major party supports it! I'd expect many minority parties would too, like the Green party that can surely see the benefits of cutting down air travel.

This argument about motorway/road widening doesn't apply to the railway and imaging the costs of moving things about to keep the railway running while extra tracks, tunnels, bridges etc are built.

On a road, you can make people drive the wrong way with nothing more than cones, get people to use the hard shoulder, or just close lanes and have diversions on to other roads.. how exactly do you do this easily on a railway line like the WCML? Wrong-way running, swapping tracks and occasionally just going off the line completely? Absolutely impossible to compare with.

And, for the record, when roads are widened it DOES cause disruption. And in the case of the railway, I doubt people would be happy to be on buses on and off for 10-15 years, they'd just not travel wherever possible.

When the ECML was getting regular weekend engineering work, my local station was near deserted - and the buses not full at all. Quite obviously for leisure travel, being shunted around on buses isn't fun. And people trying to travel early morning/late night in the week wouldn't like it either, nor get any reduction on their ticket prices either.

 

[hawaii2468]

One of the problem for highspeed railway in London is , unlike a lot of other high speed railway hubs in the world, London railway terminal is composed of more than 15 rail stations and each rail station is connected with London Underground which is another mean of transport that is not fully intergrated with the national rail. If the purpose of building HS2 is not to cut journey time and standard railway can solve capacity problem, what's the need? In fact some researches have been done on automobiles that actually driving faster doesn't necessarily save much time because it involves harsh breaks as well. Anyway, it seems the distance between two HS2 stations can be quite short as well, i.e. Euston and Old Oak i should think it's only about 15 miles? How about Manchester airport and Manchester ?

 

[Johnuk123]

But every major party supports it! I'd expect many minority parties would too, like the Green party that can surely see the benefits of cutting down air travel.

This argument about motorway/road widening doesn't apply to the railway and imaging the costs of moving things about to keep the railway running while extra tracks, tunnels, bridges etc are built.

On a road, you can make people drive the wrong way with nothing more than cones, get people to use the hard shoulder, or just close lanes and have diversions on to other roads.. how exactly do you do this easily on a railway line like the WCML? Wrong-way running, swapping tracks and occasionally just going off the line completely? Absolutely impossible to compare with.

And, for the record, when roads are widened it DOES cause disruption. And in the case of the railway, I doubt people would be happy to be on buses on and off for 10-15 years, they'd just not travel wherever possible.

When the ECML was getting regular weekend engineering work, my local station was near deserted - and the buses not full at all. Quite obviously for leisure travel, being shunted around on buses isn't fun. And people trying to travel early morning/late night in the week wouldn't like it either, nor get any reduction on their ticket prices either.

Hey don't get me wrong I never said I didn't want it I think it's fantastic and what you say about roads is right.

But political parties supporting it now doesn't mean they will always think that way.

Remember we probably have several wars to fight in the next few years.

 

[Metrailway]

But every major party supports it! I'd expect many minority parties would too, like the Green party that can surely see the benefits of cutting down air travel.

The Green Party is against HS2.

 

[tbtc]

If the purpose of building HS2 is not to cut journey time and standard railway can solve capacity problem, what's the need?

How can the standard railway solve the capacity problem?

Based on how busy some lines currently are, and the physical limits to train lengths, how do you increase capacity otherwise?

If anyone can give me a good alternative to HS2 then I'm happy to listen, but so far nobody has.

 

[Dave1987]

The Green Party is against HS2.

Now there is a surprise....not. For a party that is supposed to be there for environmentally friendly policies I don't think they have supported one single thing that would be more green.

 

[JamesRowden]

Does anyone here know how significant the extra cost of running 250 mph trains is (in figures not adjectives)?

Because aerodynamic drag force squares with speed, the tractive energy energy cost of running at 250 mph is four times per unit distance of that for running at 125 mph. Subsequently the required power output will be eight times greater because power is equal to force times velocity.

However, the trains running faster means that there will not need to be so many in order to run at a certain frequency.

Another issue is that braking distance squares with speed (asuming constant deccaleration and subsequently constant g-forces) and unless the signalling system takes into account the speed that the train ahead is travelling at, a train needs to leave enough braking distance (to stop completely) between it and the train ahead. This means that if the braking distance is dominant in deciding the distance between trains and it was the lines between stations rather than the stations and station approaches that limit capacity, the capacity would be inversly proportional to the speed of the trains, so increase the top speed by a factor of 1.5 and a third of the capacity will be lost (under the pre-stated conditions).

I am wondering if the speed that the trains will run at has been decided so that the electorate will think that the plan is really good rather than being decided by what would be best pratically.

The Green Party is against HS2.

Probably because of the energy cost (and wanting to keep their 'None of the British Countryside should be built upon' voters on board).

 

[hawaii2468]

How about upgrade or introduce a new rail line from Birmingham to Clapham Junction, upgradge Clapham Junction station so that the trains from Birmingham can continue to London Victora, Gatwick airport and the whole southern suburbs. Construct a through tunnel between Waterloo and Waterloo East and by doing that the whole Southwest and Southeast network is connected and trains from Birmingham can go as far as to Kent and whole Southeast counties.

2 tph from Bringham to Victoria via Clapham Junction
2 tph to Waterloo ,one extended to Canterbury
2 tph to Gatwick airport, one extended to Brighton.

This might sound a big more attractive than Birmingham to Euston - tube - Victoria - Gatwick airport.

For west direction, can build a new line leading into London Paddington. 2 tph can go to London Paddington, change for Heathrow airport.

For East direction, might upgrade Straford international and lead the lines from the east into London St Pancras, Kingsross via Straford .

 

[Dave1987]

Does anyone here know how significant the extra cost of running 250 mph trains is (in figures not adjectives)?

Because aerodynamic drag force squares with speed, the tractive energy energy cost of running at 250 mph is four times per unit distance of that for running at 125 mph. Subsequently the required power output will be eight times greater because power is equal to force times velocity.

However, the trains running faster means that there will not need to be so many in order to run at a certain frequency.

Another issue is that braking distance squares with speed (asuming constant deccaleration and subsequently constant g-forces) and unless the signalling system takes into account the speed that the train ahead is travelling at, a train needs to leave enough braking distance (to stop completely) between it and the train ahead. This means that if the braking distance is dominant in deciding the distance between trains and it was the lines between stations rather than the stations and station approaches that limit capacity, the capacity would be inversly proportional to the speed of the trains, so increase the top speed by a factor of 1.5 and a third of the capacity will be lost (under the pre-stated conditions).

I am wondering if the speed that the trains will run at has been decided so that the electorate will think that the plan is really good rather than being decided by what would be best pratically.



Probably because of the energy cost (and wanting to keep their 'None of the British Countryside should be built upon' voters on board).

ERTMS signalling can keep trains at a specified distance apart that is why it is suitable for high speed lines. Regenerative braking takes makes braking distances much much shorter. The trains would be designed to be aerodynamically efficient so the energy required to do 250mph wouldn't be as huge as it would be for a train that had a "slab" front to do 250mph.

 

[Harbon 1]

Your post is so wrong on so many counts.

1. it's not £33bn to spend on more viable solutions as HS2 will generate significant additional economic activity and income, and the alternatives have been looked at and are not as viable

2. After the experience of improving the West Coast Main Line, it's clear the alternatives of upgrading existing railway infrastrucure is not easier to plan and complete as you suggest - the sort of upgrades needed would be hugely disruptive that it's easier to start from scratch with a brand new route.

3. Your view is you would much prefer to endure a bus for months on end than have massive construction works for 10+yrs - that may be your view, but bus substitutions for hours on end, days on end, weeks on end, months on end are hugely unpopular and damaging to the ecomony. I suggest, with respect, that most regular passengers would not agree with you.

4. HS2 is not just to save 20 minutes for rich businessmen and their companies. It makes possible new journeys such as Birmingham to Leeds that are simply not possible at the moment - with time savings of over an hour on many routes. If HS2 simply relies on rich businessmen, it will not make any money. It will need to attract from a much wider base to fill the trains and make money. HS2 significantly adds to the network in terms of new routes, new journeys and therefore adds to the ecomomy.

5. handing over a chunk of Euston for HS2 again misses the point. Euston is not fit for purpose and in need of totally rebuilding anyway. The additional income from HS2 will make this more viable. Additional tube or cross London capacity is needed too, so this could be planned for by enabling cross-London trains to travel through or underneath Euston

1. The only significant income it will make is from the extortionate fares that will be charged. In effect the only economic benefit will be the people that will have the cheaper fares in the areas that HS2 bypasses on the southern WCML.

2. I never said it would be easy to upgrade a route with extra lines or high speed running, but it would be quicker to upgrade an existing route as there wouldn't be 10 years of planning plus a further 10 of building, and there would be nearly no opposition, and nowhere would be noticeably affected in the ways the NIMBYs are saying. A line visible on the level won't seem any closer than the existing alignment did. And the most that people would lose, is a bit of their garden, which is better then their home.

3. The majority of people travel in the week, there is nowhere near as many people travelling on a Saturday than there is on any given weekday. Having a bus replacing services for half a year at will still happen if HS2 is built. The line has to pass over the WCML, and bridges will have to be built. This takes several possessions as a bridge reconstruction near me has demonstrated. Not to mention the disruption at Euston because of the complete reconstruction of the station. It doesn't take a few months to re construct a station, as St P. demonstrated and New St. will demonstrate. What's wrong with a blockade? Stopping trains over a period of reduced travel has happened and is still happening (Nottingham this summer). And for the most part, again from my own experience, the updating of a lesser used track, or the addition of an extra track on the outside on ex railway land isn't as disruptive as it is made out to be. PW have been replacing a freight line outside my house and it has taken them a week to re-lay the line (still waiting for tamping, that's being used where they're lowering the line for W10).

4. Birmingham to Leeds is very possible at the present time... Every route (London - Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds etc) are already possible. And they're not exactly long journeys either.

5. Again, closing and rebuilding will cost enough money and delays, possessions and blockades that will disrupt the WCML. The WCML will then be further disrupted with the construction works for HS2 and will be left with fewer platforms.

 

[jon0844]

One of the problem for highspeed railway in London is , unlike a lot of other high speed railway hubs in the world, London railway terminal is composed of more than 15 rail stations and each rail station is connected with London Underground which is another mean of transport that is not fully intergrated with the national rail.

It's fairly well integrated in that it's very easy to get a ticket that includes a cross-London tube trip or a full Travelcard.

Many businesses (not that HS2 is only for business users!) will send employees by taxi to a railway station, instead of getting them to negotiate the tube and have multiple changes. It's not that expensive to take a black cab in London for relatively short trips, which can be longer by underground taking into account walking time, going down to the platform etc.

London isn't totally unique in having multiple terminal stations. Paris certainly does and they have quite a few high-speed lines. Surely the time saving on the high-speed line at least reduces the overall time, which is all that matters?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Green Party is against HS2.

Wow. That beggars belief!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2. I never said it would be easy to upgrade a route with extra lines or high speed running, but it would be quicker to upgrade an existing route as there wouldn't be 10 years of planning plus a further 10 of building, and there would be nearly no opposition

There would probably be a lot of opposition as I'm doubtful you could work on the WCML to widen it without causing people to give up their land and buildings - as well as disruption to residents of towns as bridges are replaced, stations are rebuilt and expanded etc. It would simply be different people moaning, possibly those who are less influential than the well off ones living in the countryside...

I suspect that if the same work was done to existing lines, probably still ending up with a lesser service, it would take longer and cost more. Sure, an overspend is a problem for tomorrow and something for the Government of the day to deal with - but I'd rather know now what it will cost and then get on with it.

The only reason for any delays will be down to opposition as HS1 proves that we have the manpower/expertise to build on time and on budget. £32bn split over 20 odd years isn't that much anyway. It sounds a lot to you and me, but in the grand scheme of things it really isn't.

 

[LexyBoy]

4. HS2 is not just to save 20 minutes for rich businessmen and their companies. It makes possible new journeys such as Birmingham to Leeds that are simply not possible at the moment - with time savings of over an hour on many routes.

Erm, not possible? Much faster certainly, but the train is already competitive with driving for Leeds-Birmingham.

Quite surprised that so many people think it will actually be built.

I'm coming round to the possibility of it happening. I was skeptical at first that Crossrail wouldn't be killed off at the last minute, and I'm even fairly confident that we'll see the GWML electrified

Does anyone here know how significant the extra cost of running 250 mph trains is (in figures not adjectives)?

Because aerodynamic drag force squares with speed, the tractive energy energy cost of running at 250 mph is four times per unit distance of that for running at 125 mph. Subsequently the required power output will be eight times greater because power is equal to force times velocity.

This is true for a given train design, but if the captive HS stock is 400 metre, double deck trains then the power consumption per seat will be less than 8x that for 125 mph running of classic-compatible stock.

No figures, but I would expect the cost contribution would be fairly minimal, I seem to remember reading that fuel costs comprise ~3% of a typical TOC's expenditure (this could be total rubbish though). A TGV Duplex has a power output of 8.8 MW, an ICE3 8.0 MW - compared to a 390/1 at 5.9 MW it's not hugely higher (I realise that these trains don't run at 250 mph, but at 186 mph the power requirement should still be 5x that at 125 mph).

 

[JamesRowden]

ERTMS signalling can keep trains at a specified distance apart that is why it is suitable for high speed lines. Regenerative braking takes makes braking distances much much shorter.

I do not believe that ERTMS considers the speed of the train infront because there is more likely to be a problem resulting in a verry serious accident.

Braking distances are determined by start speed, end and deccaleration. Since Emergency Braking exists I think that we can asume that it is the G-forces/control of the train that limit the deccaleration rather than the level of braking technology.

The trains would be designed to be aerodynamically efficient so the energy required to do 250mph wouldn't be as huge as it would be for a train that had a "slab" front to do 250mph.

390s (pendolinos) are designed to be 'aerodynamically efficient' (low drag coefficient). If a train with the body of a 390 was run at 250mph rather than 125 mph the energy required per unit distance would be four times as much.

 

[NSEFAN]

3. The majority of people travel in the week, there is nowhere near as many people travelling on a Saturday than there is on any given weekday. Having a bus replacing services for half a year at will still happen if HS2 is built. The line has to pass over the WCML, and bridges will have to be built. This takes several possessions as a bridge reconstruction near me has demonstrated. Not to mention the disruption at Euston because of the complete reconstruction of the station. It doesn't take a few months to re construct a station, as St P. demonstrated and New St. will demonstrate. What's wrong with a blockade? Stopping trains over a period of reduced travel has happened and is still happening (Nottingham this summer). And for the most part, again from my own experience, the updating of a lesser used track, or the addition of an extra track on the outside on ex railway land isn't as disruptive as it is made out to be. PW have been replacing a freight line outside my house and it has taken them a week to re-lay the line (still waiting for tamping, that's being used where they're lowering the line for W10).

Euston is going to need rebuilding anyway. It was designed in the days of infrequent expresses and motorail. It is no longer fit for purpose. Rebuilding it for HS2 or a purely conventional system would see equal amounts of disruption at this end of the line.

One of the biggest problems with weekend blockades during the WCML improvment of the 2000s was over-running. Trains end up in the wrong place for the Monday am peak service and it causes absolute chaos. Perhaps Network Rail are better organised than Railtrack were when it comes to blockades, but installing a bridge (which has been done many times before) isn't the same as installing a completely new signalling system (which has only been tested on the Cambrian line and has been plagued with technical troubles).