How *should* HS2 have been built?

[sleepy_hollow]

I‘m afraid this is fundamentally incorrect.

The original objective of what became HS2 was to provide additional capacity and quicker journeys between the key economic centres, in the most efficient manner, to enable economic growth. Simple analysis showed this as being London - W Mids - Greater Manchester / Liverpool / North West and on to Scotland.

Deciding that something can be done and then working out whether it is useful to do it is a sensible way of proceeding. HS2 may have been started by observing that the French can do it hence so could we, but the result is as Bald Rick says: the original Y network would have renewed the core of the UK railway network. That the Y copies the earliest form of UK railways is not surprising, in fact an additional justification, because the economic centres of the UK are still largely where they were, although the predominance of London has increased. Too much in the way of comparative studies of different options can lead to abstract specifications that cannot be achieved. In fact comparative studies seem to be part of the HS2 problem, it seems that key parts, like the Euston design, have still not been decided on.

The problem is not the decision to build the Y network, but the apparent failure of the attempt to do so. Why that has happened seems to be difficult to determine, at least in terms that point to solutions. There have only ever been two possible system level arguments against HS2, either the railway industry will make an exhibition of itself as usual, or the nation cannot afford it. The current feeling seems to be that both those arguments are coming true, with a large contribution from government to both problems.

As Bald Rick implies, it is time to put the speed and capacity arguments together. HS2 will solve a capacity problem and also provide faster speed between the main centres. If a 200 kph railway were built then the same people asking 'who wants to spend X billion to get to Birmingham 30 minutes faster' would be asking 'who wants to spend £X billion to get to Birmingham 5 minutes faster'. The answer to the 30 min question is, 'everyone travelling from London to Birmingham', and even more the people who will save an hour travelling from Manchester to London. The speed also allows the new railway to compete better with other modes.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It should have been accompanied with a massive publicity campaign so that "20 minutes quicker to Birmingham for £100bn", wasn't the first thing that people think of about it.

Perhaps the prospect of a nationwide scheme to follow on would have helped - Birmingham-Bristol, Leeds-NE, further towards Scotland

It maybe me, but is there not enough threads about HS2 within the Speculation area where the Title in discussion could if it has not been already be discussed?

I suppose there could have been merit in making Birmingham an underground through station, avoiding the need to build a dedicated spur for the city. The only issue is would London - Manchester trains easily reach capacity to the point that intermediate Birmingham passengers cannot board?

I've always liked that idea. The Tokaido Shinkansen is one line and manages with high demand across multiple city pairs. I think a London - Birmingham - Manchester line would be easier to sell because it's pretty clear it will reduce Birmingham to Manchester (and presumably Liverpool) journeys.

12tph London to Manchester, alternating between "stopping" and "fast" would have been pretty cool.

 

[PTR 444]

Another option I might have considered when HS2 was still in the planning stage was adding northward and southward chords to the Leamington - Coventry Line where it crosses. This would have provided direct Euston - Coventry - Leicester services and allowed the XC South Coast routes to use HS2 north of Leamington Spa.

 

[The Planner]

Another option I might have considered when HS2 was still in the planning stage was adding northward and southward chords to the Leamington - Coventry Line where it crosses. This would have provided direct Euston - Coventry - Leicester services and allowed the XC South Coast routes to use HS2 north of Leamington Spa.

The chords would be massive to get you up to and down from HS2 line speed. What stock would XC be using to not destroy the capacity? How are you getting across Nuneaton?

 

[eldomtom2]

Really we should have started "BNTR" off by doing something like a Leeds-Teesside-Newcastle High Speed Railway learning all the lessons on a relatively easy bit, under current governance you couldn't do that because it would be likely that such a project would have a negative cost benefit on its own and treasury wouldn't allow it.

The problem with that is then people complain about it going from nowhere to nowhere. See California High-Speed Rail.

 

[Sorcerer]

The problem with that is then people complain about it going from nowhere to nowhere. See California High-Speed Rail.

I wouldn't say that California High Speed Rail is an example of nowhere to nowhere since the plan was to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the biggest metropolitan areas in California which is America's most populous and one of the most economically important states. If your argument meant to suggest that it wasn't a case of nowhere to nowhere and just people wrongfully complaining that it is, then I think we can say that it has been even more badly sold to the general public than HS2 in it's current state has been.

 

[PTR 444]

The chords would be massive to get you up to and down from HS2 line speed. What stock would XC be using to not destroy the capacity?

Same stock as the rest of HS2 (200m, not 400m units)

How are you getting across Nuneaton?

Build a high speed bypass of Nuneaton (not necessarily HS2 speed though)

 

[The Planner]

Same stock as the rest of HS2 (200m, not 400m units)

Build a high speed bypass of Nuneaton (not necessarily HS2 speed though)

And Coventry?

 

[HSTEd]

I wouldn't say that California High Speed Rail is an example of nowhere to nowhere since the plan was to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the biggest metropolitan areas in California which is America's most populous and one of the most economically important states. If your argument meant to suggest that it wasn't a case of nowhere to nowhere and just people wrongfully complaining that it is, then I think we can say that it has been even more badly sold to the general public than HS2 in it's current state has been.

CAHSR's first phase consists of a line from Merced to Bakersfield via Fresno.

It has nothing to do with LA or San Fransisco or anything like that and there is currently no firm schedule for it to do so.

 

[PTR 444]

And Coventry?

London - Leicester trains would stop there

In fact, an initial phase of HS2 as far as the Leamington - Coventry Line could have allowed London - Manchester/Glasgow trains to reach the WCML at Nuneaton via this route

 

[eldomtom2]

I wouldn't say that California High Speed Rail is an example of nowhere to nowhere since the plan was to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the biggest metropolitan areas in California which is America's most populous and one of the most economically important states. If your argument meant to suggest that it wasn't a case of nowhere to nowhere and just people wrongfully complaining that it is, then I think we can say that it has been even more badly sold to the general public than HS2 in it's current state has been.

Fresno and Bakersfield are urban areas of comparable size to Leeds and Newcastle.

CAHSR's first phase consists of a line from Merced to Bakersfield via Fresno.

It has nothing to do with LA or San Fransisco or anything like that and there is currently no firm schedule for it to do so.

CAHSR is exactly what was being proposed by the post I responded to - starting with the easy bit first.

 

[The Planner]

London - Leicester trains would stop there

In fact, an initial phase of HS2 as far as the Leamington - Coventry Line could have allowed London - Manchester/Glasgow trains to reach the WCML at Nuneaton via this route

I have heard some "interesting" suggestions on here, but that ranks highly! So you would have high speed trains bombing up to Kenilworth, then dragging themselves across Coventry, across Nuneaton and Ashby Junctions, including the 20mph Spon End viaduct? Its a struggle to get anything across the layout as it is, never mind four or more extras each way per hour!

 

[PTR 444]

I have heard some "interesting" suggestions on here, but that ranks highly! So you would have high speed trains bombing up to Kenilworth, then dragging themselves across Coventry, across Nuneaton and Ashby Junctions, including the 20mph Spon End viaduct? Its a struggle to get anything across the layout as it is, never mind four or more extras each way per hour!

Yes, with the associated NUCKLE upgrades and speed improvements. The initial pattern doesn’t have to follow my previous post though. It could simply be 3tph to Birmingham via Kenilworth chord/Coventry with Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow remaining on the WCML until a further phase is opened.

 

[Energy]

Yes, with the associated NUCKLE upgrades and speed improvements. The initial pattern doesn’t have to follow my previous post though. It could simply be 3tph to Birmingham via Kenilworth chord/Coventry with Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow remaining on the WCML until a further phase is opened.

NUCKLE upgrades are hardly going well and Kenilworth to Coventry isn't expected to be redoubled for many years.

Journey times from Nuneaton to London via current lines and your proposed via Kenilworth would be closer than you think.

 

[paul1609]

I get it for the urban areas, was an alternative option possible for the chilterns?

I'm lucky enough to live in an AONB on the Kent / Sussex border so I don't tend to regard the Chilterns as that special but to a large part of north/west London and the associated home counties it's their rural idyl and an important leisure facility. Building it on the surface would have been regarded in the same ilk as building a 6 lane motorway to Link Manchester and Sheffield through the hope valley in the peak district.

 

[Arkeeos]

I'm lucky enough to live in an AONB on the Kent / Sussex border so I don't tend to regard the Chilterns as that special but to a large part of north/west London and the associated home counties it's their rural idyl and an important leisure facility. Building it on the surface would have been regarded in the same ilk as building a 6 lane motorway to Link Manchester and Sheffield through the hope valley in the peak district.

Building a surface six lane motorway connecting manchester and sheffield would be almost impossible, you have to tunnel there for practicality concerns, not the same for the Chilterns where the reason for tunnel was purely political pressure.

 

[fishwomp]

I have heard some "interesting" suggestions on here, but that ranks highly! So you would have high speed trains bombing up to Kenilworth, then dragging themselves across Coventry, across Nuneaton and Ashby Junctions, including the 20mph Spon End viaduct? Its a struggle to get anything across the layout as it is, never mind four or more extras each way per hour!

Well, here's the trick. With the billions not spent on the rest of the line, you can afford the intersection interventions.

We get a lot of "too expensive", "it can't be done" on here - but HS2 is doing far more impossible things every day.

Honestly if someone had proposed HS2 on here first, it would have saved a lot of money as we'd have read "can't be done" and "too expensive" and not tried. It's like the options we get to choose are between a £50-100bn mega project, or anything that can be built for a bag of pork scratchings and half a pint of bitter - but nothing in between.

 

[Energy]

Well, here's the trick. With the billions not spent on the rest of the line, you can afford the intersection interventions.

We get a lot of "too expensive", "it can't be done" on here - but HS2 is doing far more impossible things every day.

Honestly if someone had proposed HS2 on here first, it would have saved a lot of money as we'd have read "can't be done" and "too expensive" and not tried. It's like the options we get to choose are between a £50-100bn mega project, or anything that can be built for a bag of pork scratchings and half a pint of bitter - but nothing in between.

No, Kenilworth to Nuneaton is just a really bad starting point. Kenilworth to Coventry has a lot of single track, it is currently unelectrified with several bridges likely needing significant modification for electrification or double track. Its pretty slow as well, with HS2 added on it would be barely quicker than the existing WCML.

 

[paul1609]

Building a surface six lane motorway connecting manchester and sheffield would be almost impossible, you have to tunnel there for practicality concerns, not the same for the Chilterns where the reason for tunnel was purely political pressure.

I think one man's environmental disaster is another man's political expediency. I can't see that the planned M57 would have been anymore difficult than the M62 or M6 over Shap, M74 over Beattock. A Hgh Speed rail line is far less flexible than a 70 mph motorway. The land take of HS1 when routed alongside the M20 down here in Kent was up to 3/4 mile wide alongside a relatively straight motorway and caused outrage at the time.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have heard some "interesting" suggestions on here, but that ranks highly! So you would have high speed trains bombing up to Kenilworth, then dragging themselves across Coventry, across Nuneaton and Ashby Junctions, including the 20mph Spon End viaduct? Its a struggle to get anything across the layout as it is, never mind four or more extras each way per hour!

And arrive at Leicester having been overtaken by a direct train leaving from St Pancras later!

as building a 6 lane motorway to Link Manchester and Sheffield through the hope valley in the peak district.

Or building a 6 lane motorway through, err, the Chilterns.
(not my pic)

 

[Sorcerer]

CAHSR's first phase consists of a line from Merced to Bakersfield via Fresno.

It has nothing to do with LA or San Fransisco or anything like that and there is currently no firm schedule for it to do so.

Los Angeles and San Francisco are still part of the plan though, given that the plans have passed the review stages for LA and are having track and systems installed in Frisco. That said, I will concede phase one looking more like a nowhere-to-nowhere route in comparison, especially given that not the entire has been fully approved yet.

Fresno and Bakersfield are urban areas of comparable size to Leeds and Newcastle.

CAHSR is exactly what was being proposed by the post I responded to - starting with the easy bit first.

I accept your points in light of said information. I think in terms of the project itself CAHSR would be better in full than how it is currently being done now, but that's a subject for another thread.

 

[The Planner]

Well, here's the trick. With the billions not spent on the rest of the line, you can afford the intersection interventions.

We get a lot of "too expensive", "it can't be done" on here - but HS2 is doing far more impossible things every day.

Honestly if someone had proposed HS2 on here first, it would have saved a lot of money as we'd have read "can't be done" and "too expensive" and not tried. It's like the options we get to choose are between a £50-100bn mega project, or anything that can be built for a bag of pork scratchings and half a pint of bitter - but nothing in between.

Thats not what is being suggested here though is it? The suggestion is that HS2 is built as per phase 1 with chords on to an existing line bang smack into a congested junction/station and fed with trains that the system cannot cope with until the next bit is built.

 

[philosopher]

Could a station have been built either at Aylesbury Parkway, interchanging with a realigned Chiltern line or where HS2 crosses East West Rail. While such a station would not have great usage, perhaps it could have helped to lessen some of the opposition to HS2 in the Chilterns. Given much of the tunnelling for phase 1 was done to placate opposition in the Chilterns, could such as station have reduced the demand for expensive tunnelling?

 

[The Planner]

Yes, with the associated NUCKLE upgrades and speed improvements. The initial pattern doesn’t have to follow my previous post though. It could simply be 3tph to Birmingham via Kenilworth chord/Coventry with Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow remaining on the WCML until a further phase is opened.

What NUCKLE upgrades? The bay at Coventry and the crossover at Arena? With a 45mph linespeed raised to 60mph, thats your lot and that hasn't been able to be delivered either. Nuneaton dive unders are a real pipe dream as it stands.

 

[Bald Rick]

Could a station have been built either at Aylesbury Parkway, interchanging with a realigned Chiltern line or where HS2 crosses East West Rail. While such a station would not have great usage, perhaps it could have helped to lessen some of the opposition to HS2 in the Chilterns. Given much of the tunnelling for phase 1 was done to placate opposition in the Chilterns, could such as station have reduced the demand for expensive tunnelling?

Almost certainly the opposite. The station would have naturally attracted significant levels of local development (“15 minutes from Central London”), and would have been huge - as every train would have to stop there. If every train didn’t stop there, then capacity of the line would have been reduced to 10-12 trains / hour max.

The demand for tunnelling is quite localised. The good folk of Chalfont St Giles and Little Missenden could not care less about a prospective station at Aylesbury, thanks very much.

 

[NoRoute]

Honestly if someone had proposed HS2 on here first, it would have saved a lot of money as we'd have read "can't be done" and "too expensive" and not tried. It's like the options we get to choose are between a £50-100bn mega project, or anything that can be built for a bag of pork scratchings and half a pint of bitter - but nothing in between.

I don't think you would have found that, quite the opposite, the prevailing opinion seemed to be that building an entirely new high speed rail network was likely to be significantly lower cost, quicker, more straightforward and deliver more benefit than attempting to do anything with the existing railway network.

There seemed to be an entirely unrealistic assessment of the level of construction risk associated with an entirely new railway project as compared to existing rail network projects.

 

[Kingston Dan]

UK domestic into London is mostly people catching connecting flights.

Not sure that's the case Scotland to London - it's difficult finding stats re connecting flights - but this report suggests a substantial number of the EDI - LHR passengers are point to point. https://assets.publishing.service.g...ic-surveying-business-passengers-document.pdf

A much larger proportion of passengers surveyed at Edinburgh stated they would use ‘an alternative mode of transport’ when compared to other airports – this can be explained by the large number of domestic travellers at Edinburgh where rail links perhaps provide the best feasible alternative.

 

[Manutd1999]

It's like the options we get to choose are between a £50-100bn mega project, or anything that can be built for a bag of pork scratchings and half a pint of bitter - but nothing in between.

I think this is especially important when we talk about the approaches into Birmingham and Manchester.

Take Manchester as an example. All of the other capacity enhancement schemes have been written off as "too expensive".

How much would it cost to add platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly, add some form of grade separation along the Stockport viaduct and install ETCS everywhere? I imagine it would be a lot cheaper than Phase 2b.....

 

[Arkeeos]

I think this is especially important when we talk about the approaches into Birmingham and Manchester.

Take Manchester as an example. All of the other capacity enhancement schemes have been written off as "too expensive".

How much would it cost to add platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly, add some form of grade separation along the Stockport viaduct and install ETCS everywhere? I imagine it would be a lot cheaper than Phase 2b.....

You could also do nothing, which would be the cheapest option by a mile, but that would be ignorant of the value of those projects.

 

[Bald Rick]

How much would it cost to add platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly, add some form of grade separation along the Stockport viaduct and install ETCS everywhere? I imagine it would be a lot cheaper than Phase 2b.....

How much capacity would that add?