How *should* HS2 have been built?

[The Ham]

How relevant is "efficiency" when we have an unrestricted loading gauge and 400m trains at our disposal?

The capacity of HS2 is so overwhelming compared to the classic railway that it renders inefficiency somewhat irrelevant in the near and medium term.
The Tokaido Shinkansen still manages 12 trains per hour even with at least three stopping patterns.

Capacity is no use if you have no way to use it, which is the situation HS2 finds itself in now.
As for non-stoppers, how many would there rationally be if the train goes through Birmingham?

The problem HS2 was trying to resolve was the lack of rail capacity on several lines all at once, whilst a new HS East would be great (and would probably be justifiable, especially if you consider the rail capacity heading to the Southwest, with a population of Devon and Cornwall if 1.4 million, and compare to that heading to our major cities in the North and how the populations compare) there was always going to be the risk that Leeds, York, Newcastle and the like would complain that they weren't seeing improvements, but they were all focused on the west of the country.

Arguably the capacity created on HS2 by removing the HS2 Eastern services from London could have been replaced with more services from Birmingham heading to the Eastern Arm and more trains from London heading northwestwards.

With 18tph (let's say 16 to allow for a bit of spare capacity) you could have had 5tph to Manchester, 5tph to Birmingham, 3tph to Liverpool and 3tph to Scotland. However, even then, in time we could have found that wasn't enough and that the widening of HS2 to 4 tracks could have been needed.

Between 2009 and 2019 Coventry went from 2.4 million to 8.2 million. That (at 342 passengers for every 100 in 2009) far outstripped the London West Midlands/Scotland/ Northwest growth (at about 170 to 175 passengers for every 100 in 2009), which in turn bet the expected growth rate (128 passengers for every 100).

Whist we are still a long way short of the previous passenger numbers (170) the amount we are short from the HS2 model numbers for 2024 (145) isn't that as far away from the 2022/23 numbers (128 for London Northwest) and given the was a significant number of problems and strikes which was suppressing rail use it wouldn't be a surprise to see passenger numbers reach close to the HS2 model numbers within a year or two of the strikes being resolved (if not exceed it).

Especially given that Long Distances rail use grew by 11% from September 2022 to September and Avanti saw nearly 25% growth over the same time period.

 

[eldomtom2]

Between 2009 and 2019 Coventry went from 2.4 million to 8.2 million. That (at 342 passengers for every 100 in 2009) far outstripped the London West Midlands/Scotland/ Northwest growth (at about 170 to 175 passengers for every 100 in 2009), which in turn bet the expected growth rate (128 passengers for every 100).

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here, since @HSTEd is arguing that HS2 should have served Coventry (among other places)...

 

[HSTEd]

Whist we are still a long way short of the previous passenger numbers (170) the amount we are short from the HS2 model numbers for 2024 (145) isn't that as far away from the 2022/23 numbers (128 for London Northwest) and given the was a significant number of problems and strikes which was suppressing rail use it wouldn't be a surprise to see passenger numbers reach close to the HS2 model numbers within a year or two of the strikes being resolved (if not exceed it).

Especially given that Long Distances rail use grew by 11% from September 2022 to September and Avanti saw nearly 25% growth over the same time period.

145 probably isn't enough when your Manchester trains could close to treble in capacity, once interiors are adjusted for the halving in journey time!

A "Clean Sheet" Shinkansen would have trains with capacity of 1330+ seats even with relatively generous interiors and no double decks. (Seating conditions approaching UK first class in standard!)

12 trains per hour of that is going to take a long time to overwhelm even with exponential passenger growth.

The problem is HS2 can't use its huge capacity unless hundreds of kilometres of lines are built stretching almost to York and Wigan.

 

[Trainbike46]

I agree that trains serving multiple places would have been ideal - but as I understand it, running HS2 London-Crewe-Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland with an intermediate stop in Birmingham would either have been slow or very expensive to build, so I understand why they didn't do that

 

[The Ham]

145 probably isn't enough when your Manchester trains could close to treble in capacity, once interiors are adjusted for the halving in journey time!

A "Clean Sheet" Shinkansen would have trains with capacity of 1330+ seats even with relatively generous interiors and no double decks. (Seating conditions approaching UK first class in standard!)

12 trains per hour of that is going to take a long time to overwhelm even with exponential passenger growth.

The problem is HS2 can't use its huge capacity unless hundreds of kilometres of lines are built stretching almost to York and Wigan.

145 for every 100 passengers in 2009, bearing in mind that is currently with existing trains, isn't bad. Whist I agree that getting closer to 300 would be ideal (if not higher), you kind of need the capacity from HS2 to get above 200.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A large part of that is the accounting framework. When France builds an LGV, the cost quoted generally only covers the laying of tracks between cities. The route into the main cities is often accommodated on existing tracks because their network wasn't so rigorously rationalised pared to the bone in the 1960s like ours was ... or if a new city centre station is needed, that is counted as a separate project. Whereas we have bundled everything all into one, the tracks, the trains, the city centre approaches, the whole lot ... so no wonder it looks more expensive than comparable projects abroad.

We also have a more vocal nimby contingent and we pay more heed to them than in most European and Asian countries, where the public is more often supportive of the projects and the official attitude is to JFDI - and so we waste an inordinate amount of time and money going round in circles and putting in ever more expensive mitigations to placate the naysayers, and in doing so giving fuel to their complaints that the project is too costly.

Yes we have less existing capacity to borrow so a staged approach was impossible.

Perhaps politicians need to be reminded that our ever so efficient railway since the Beeching era is bereft of spare capacity needed now so it is time to pay for those savings.

For goodness sake I was riding on High Speed rail in France almost forty years ago.

I do agree that the original Y network was perfect and the Meadowhall routing should have been kept. I strongly disagree though that the point-to-point model was the right one, except for stage 1, where that choice was obvious. Having the two northern branches as largely stand alone has failed to generate visible benefits that go further than "we will be in London faster", which was not very likely to generate popular support in the north (and benefits for commuter journeys are largely abstract, especially if they consist in "Piccadilly trains will be 6 cars instead of 3 because we have more space in the patforms). Birmingham - Manchester shuttles for instance do not profit many people besides those living in the center of one of the two and needing to go to the center of the other. Through running through Birmingham (either by a connection to New Street or with a chord from Curzon Street tp the Camp Hill and the Perry Barr lines) would have spread benefits far and wide and enabled a convincing story to be told (which is essential to garner public support). Also, a Leeds - York chord, which BTW would have alleviated pressure on Leeds' Eastern approach. Unfortunately, the whole project (at least until NPR came along) was sold as something for the North, but designed as something for London. And voters do realize such things.

I think that realistically dropping the Y shape network is Okay *IF* NPR takes advantage of what is left of HS2 (Phase 1). Would have been better if Phase 2a to Crewe was added. I feel sorry for the East Midlands and Sheffield though - The Midland Mainline effectively remains in its own bubble and unaffected by High Speed Rail.

The way to look at HS2 now is as an enabler for further High Speed add-ons. NPR please to the rescue. These need to happen in stages. Can only hope.

---

Perfectionist here.

Well I would like HS(2) built all future proofed and well planned. But the realist in me comes crashing in with the realisation that you cannot carry the whole world with you. Most cannot be bothered with High Speed at all, many of those left interested want it kept simple. The plan should have been to cut corners where it would hurt less in the future. A staged approach would have been nice but not sure how to achieve that in the UK.

As I say - Fingers Crossed HS2 phase 1 ends up as an enabler for NPR to Leeds ad the NW.

 

[HSTEd]

Well I would like HS(2) built all future proofed and well planned. But the realist in me comes crashing in with the realisation that you cannot carry the whole world with you. Most cannot be bothered with High Speed at all, many of those left interested want it kept simple. The plan should have been to cut corners where it would hurt less in the future. A staged approach would have been nice but not sure how to achieve that in the UK.

Ultimately, HS2 Phase 1 had to be designed on the assumption that later phases would probably never be built.

Conceiving of a HS2 "network" taking over the vast majority of north south interurban journeys and then arbitrarily splitting it up was never going to work well.

 

[RT4038]

We also have a more vocal nimby contingent and we pay more heed to them than in most European and Asian countries, where the public is more often supportive of the projects and the official attitude is to JFDI - and so we waste an inordinate amount of time and money going round in circles and putting in ever more expensive mitigations to placate the naysayers, and in doing so giving fuel to their complaints that the project is too costly.

Not sure that is a reasonable comparison - much of where the French and Spanish High Speed lines have been built are in much less populated areas than in the UK. Germany has been slow at building such lines because of the vociferous complaints and the huge cost of mitigations. Society in Asia is not at all like here.

 

[Energy]

Ultimately, HS2 Phase 1 had to be designed on the assumption that later phases would probably never be built.

Conceiving of a HS2 "network" taking over the vast majority of north south interurban journeys and then arbitrarily splitting it up was never going to work well.

I think this is where the phasing of projects fails, often they are done with the assumption that most phases will be built.

By itself, phase 1 relieves the south WCML and should improve reliability but fails as it just pushes the choke point further up. Extending phase 1 to Crewe (as it was later on when 2a + 1 were treated as one phase) makes it much more useful by itself.

 

[HSTEd]

By itself, phase 1 relieves the south WCML and should improve reliability but fails as it just pushes the choke point further up. Extending phase 1 to Crewe (as it was later on when 2a + 1 were treated as one phase) makes it much more useful by itself.

It doesn't even really relieve the south WCML that well, because political concerns are likely to force a lot of the trains to be retained.
There were relatively few trains that didn't stop somewhere on the section that HS2 Phase 1 bypasses. I make it four trains per hour out of the nominal nine ICWC pre-coronavirus services.
It probably won't be politically tenable to scrap all trains between Milton Keynes and various Northern cities, as an example.

So those trains will continue to run and continue to eat paths, but with vastly fewer people using them.

We've not built "two fast lines on the WCML" as people often claimed, we've built two fast lines on the Chiltern.

HS2 Phase 1 makes sense if you make assumptions:

1. Most or all phases of HS2 will be built, providing an outlet for HS2 Phase 1's enormous capacity
2. Unbounded exponential growth of rail traffic will continue ensuring that all trains on all routings (including the classic railway) will eventually soon be full and, consequently, little optimisation is needed in the short-medium term
3. There will never be substantial political pressure on rail industry expenditures, again requiring little optimisation in the short-medium term.

 

[eldomtom2]

Society in Asia is not at all like here.

If by that you mean that there are no NIMBYs in Japan you're absolutely wrong!

 

[HSTEd]

If by that you mean that there are no NIMBYs in Japan you're absolutely wrong!

The fate of the Narita Shinkansen is an object lesson in that regard!

 

[stevieinselby]

It doesn't even really relieve the south WCML that well, because political concerns are likely to force a lot of the trains to be retained.
There were relatively few trains that didn't stop somewhere on the section that HS2 Phase 1 bypasses. I make it four trains per hour out of the nominal nine ICWC pre-coronavirus services.
It probably won't be politically tenable to scrap all trains between Milton Keynes and various Northern cities, as an example.

So those trains will continue to run and continue to eat paths, but with vastly fewer people using them.

The difference is that those trains can now stop at a lot more places.
So instead of having 3 trains per hour from London to Manchester on the WCML, with one calling at Milton Keynes and Macclesfield, one calling at Stafford, Stoke and Stockport, and one calling at Nuneaton and nowhere else*, you can have 2tph calling at Euston, Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Rugeley, etc., providing a much better service to those intermediate stations that currently see 7 out of every 8 trains race through without stopping.

* OK, the calling points probably aren't paired up alphabetically, but (a) I couldn't be bothered to check the actual patterns, and (b) it would be cool if they were

 

[stuu]

We've not built "two fast lines on the WCML" as people often claimed, we've built two fast lines on the Chiltern.

What does that even mean? It's two new fast lines, which will remove the fastest trains from the WCML.

So those trains will continue to run and continue to eat paths, but with vastly fewer people using them.

Eat paths? What else would you propose used those paths except for semi-fast passenger trains?

 

[eldomtom2]

What does that even mean? It's two new fast lines, which will remove the fastest trains from the WCML.

His point is that unlike the WCML, HS2 does not serve anything between London and Birmingham, so it can only remove three trains per hour from the WCML without some WCML stations losing service.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Ultimately, HS2 Phase 1 had to be designed on the assumption that later phases would probably never be built.

Conceiving of a HS2 "network" taking over the vast majority of north south interurban journeys and then arbitrarily splitting it up was never going to work well.

This is really true !.

I think this is where the phasing of projects fails, often they are done with the assumption that most phases will be built.

By itself, phase 1 relieves the south WCML and should improve reliability but fails as it just pushes the choke point further up. Extending phase 1 to Crewe (as it was later on when 2a + 1 were treated as one phase) makes it much more useful by itself.

I agree the goal now is to get Phase 2a re-instated. It gives a very big gain by capitalising on Phase 1 for very little extra expenditure.

 

[The Ham]

His point is that unlike the WCML, HS2 does not serve anything between London and Birmingham, so it can only remove three trains per hour from the WCML without some WCML stations losing service.

However, as others have pointed out, without the need to use the long distance services to serve those stations there's scope for those services to serve more places.

For example, there was talk of a potential service running to Coventry and then Nuneaton before serving the Trent Valley. If that replaced a service which connected (say) Milton Keynes with Manchester by also serving those locations they would retain a direct service (without few would use it) but capture the main demand flow between London and Milton Keynes, but give Milton Keynes far better connectivity to those places than it has.

 

[HSTEd]

What does that even mean? It's two new fast lines, which will remove the fastest trains from the WCML.

The only two places on the WCML it services are Birmingham and London. It actively avoids all significant intermediate traffic centres to go wandering through the Chilterns.
The only trains that can be moved from the WCML without significant connectivity impacts are the ones that travel over this section non stop.

Everything else hurts someone to benefit other people, political factors here will likely make mass service cuts very difficult.

Eat paths? What else would you propose used those paths except for semi-fast passenger trains?

The railway infrastructure we have is not fixed and unchanging with time. Every path and piece of infrastructure we have has ongoing financial, operational and political costs.
HS2 Phase 1 as conceived will not be full, it will likely never be full. But it will still have to be paid for in operational terms.
The WCML will have to be run almost as intensively as it is now, and that costs a lot of money. The WCML operators currently burn a lot of net subsidy once the indirect subsidies via Network Rail are accounted for.

It's entirely possible that this project will cause a net deterioration in the railway's financial position whilst only providing minor improvements in societal benefits. The BCR is already not good and continues to deteriorate due to cost growth etc.

If we had built a 'West Midlands Shinkansen' to Wolverhampton, with stops at major intermediate destinations in the Japanese style, we would be able to conduct a proper modernisation-rationalisation on the classic line that would allow it to provide its vestigial duties at a fraction of its current financial and operational costs. It might end up with less infrastructure overall but it would be truly modernised and fit for purpose. Sure we would have to surrender some of HS2's enormous design capacity - but the reality is that it is very unlikely that capacity be needed for decades regardless.

 

[The Planner]

The only two places on the WCML it services are Birmingham and London. It actively avoids all significant intermediate traffic centres to go wandering through the Chilterns.
The only trains that can be moved from the WCML without significant connectivity impacts are the ones that travel over this section non stop.

Why are you ignoring Handsacre? Manchester gets 3tph from Euston, only 1tph stops at MK and Rugby, 1tph stops at Nuneaton. Add the Nuneaton stop to the other Manchester and you can bin 2tph with a minimal journey time increase for the other. The fast Glasgow via the Trent Valley doesnt stop anywhere south of Warrington. The Chester/North Wales doesn't stop south of Stafford.

 

[HSTEd]

Why are you ignoring Handsacre? Manchester gets 3tph from Euston, only 1tph stops at MK and Rugby, 1tph stops at Nuneaton. Add the Nuneaton stop to the other Manchester and you can bin 2tph with a minimal journey time increase for the other. The fast Glasgow via the Trent Valley doesnt stop anywhere south of Warrington. The Chester/North Wales doesn't stop south of Stafford.

So that's four, out of how many?

Before coronavirus it was a nominal nine.

EDIT:
Apologies it was eight.
EDIT:
Now I am even more confused because I can't apparently count to nine

Before coronavirus, I make it three Birmingham, three Manchester, one Glasgow, one Liverpool and one Chester.
We are now at two Birmingham, three Manchester, one Glasgow, one Liverpool and one Chester, I think.

 

[eldomtom2]

However, as others have pointed out, without the need to use the long distance services to serve those stations there's scope for those services to serve more places.

For example, there was talk of a potential service running to Coventry and then Nuneaton before serving the Trent Valley. If that replaced a service which connected (say) Milton Keynes with Manchester by also serving those locations they would retain a direct service (without few would use it) but capture the main demand flow between London and Milton Keynes, but give Milton Keynes far better connectivity to those places than it has.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're proposing here. The long-distance services still need to serve those stations to provide direct services to Watford, Milton Keynes, etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2024 ==

The Chester/North Wales doesn't stop south of Stafford.

My general impression was that there were not going to be bimodes on HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

My general impression was that there were not going to be bimodes on HS2.

Well currently, as far as I know, no >250kph bi-mode is in service anywhere.

 

[Energy]

My general impression was that there were not going to be bimodes on HS2.

If you believe Rishi it will be electrified

So that's four, out of how many?

Before coronavirus it was a nominal nine.

EDIT:
Apologies it was eight.
EDIT:
Now I am even more confused because I can't apparently count to nine

Before coronavirus, I make it three Birmingham, three Manchester, one Glasgow, one Liverpool and one Chester.
We are now at two Birmingham, three Manchester, one Glasgow, one Liverpool and one Chester, I think.

You've also got the 2nd Liverpool. WCML Birmingham can be slimmed down to a 1tph Wolverhampton and a 1tph London - Birmingham - Scotland.

Why are you ignoring Handsacre? Manchester gets 3tph from Euston, only 1tph stops at MK and Rugby, 1tph stops at Nuneaton. Add the Nuneaton stop to the other Manchester and you can bin 2tph with a minimal journey time increase for the other. The fast Glasgow via the Trent Valley doesnt stop anywhere south of Warrington. The Chester/North Wales doesn't stop south of Stafford.

Nuneaton - Manchester traffic is very little, you can stick the Nuneaton on the North Wales service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2024 ==

For example, there was talk of a potential service running to Coventry and then Nuneaton before serving the Trent Valley. If that replaced a service which connected (say) Milton Keynes with Manchester by also serving those locations they would retain a direct service (without few would use it) but capture the main demand flow between London and Milton Keynes, but give Milton Keynes far better connectivity to those places than it has.

The tall was WMCA wanting to divert the Crewe - London to go via Coventry Post HS2 as they were concerned Coventry about Coventry going down from 3tph.

Coventry - Nuneaton is much slower than going via Rugby - Nuneaton.

 

[Nottingham59]

It seems clear that there will be fewer trains on the southern WCML after HS2 phase 1 opens, but they will stop in more places. So stations south of MK/Northampton will see a more frequent service, but services overall will be slower to their destination than they are now.

I also expect a reduced service frequency north of Milton Keynes. I can't see enough traffic to justify more than around 4pth through Rugby - perhaps one fast and one slow towards Coventry; one fast one slow up the Trent Valley? (Unless of course passengers are priced off HS2 onto cheaper slower LNWR services, which would be a tragic waste of HS2 capacity.)

 

[Krokodil]

So that's four, out of how many?

Before coronavirus it was a nominal nine.

With the Birmingham to London traffic transferred onto HS2, you lose most of the need for the xx:40 and xx:10 to run fast from Euston to Coventry. You can add a few stops in to benefit other stations even though Coventry would lose a few minutes as a result. You could probably drop one of the existing 3tph and just run a half-hourly semi-fast service instead.

 

[eldomtom2]

With the Birmingham to London traffic transferred onto HS2, you lose most of the need for the xx:40 and xx:10 to run fast from Euston to Coventry. You can add a few stops in to benefit other stations even though Coventry would lose a few minutes as a result. You could probably drop one of the existing 3tph and just run a half-hourly semi-fast service instead.

How much capacity would that free up, though?

 

[Austriantrain]

How much capacity would that free up, though?

There have been various proposals for the post HS2 timetable. They were published in Modern Railways, can easily be googled and give a good idea on what’s possible.

See https://www.modernrailways.com/article/what-best-service-pattern-hs2

 

[Krokodil]

How much capacity would that free up, though?

If you drop the third train then you gain one path. On the remaining two you will have all of the empty seats vacated by the end-to-end passengers to sell to passengers joining at the extra stops.

 

[eldomtom2]

There have been various proposals for the post HS2 timetable. They were published in Modern Railways, can easily be googled and give a good idea on what’s possible.

See https://www.modernrailways.com/article/what-best-service-pattern-hs2

Premium article, and it doesn't seem to be talking about Phase 1 only.

 

[HSTEd]

There have been various proposals for the post HS2 timetable. They were published in Modern Railways, can easily be googled and give a good idea on what’s possible.

See https://www.modernrailways.com/article/what-best-service-pattern-hs2

This doesn't really assume Phase 1 only, and obviously there are many things that can be timetabled that prove impossible in practice.

For example, see the repeated attempts to split Liverpool-Norwich at Nottingham. That still hasn't happened because of political factors.