How would you do HS2 differently?

[tbtc]

There seem to be three camps on HS2:

Those in favour of it (massive investment, funds which will otherwise be lost to railways, a chance to match other countries with high speed travel that can compete with air travel, a direct link to The Continent etc)

Those against it (massive projects go wrong, destroys the Chilterns, only benefits people in Birmingham, doesn’t tackle problems elsewhere, would be better spending the money on bottlenecks like Welwyn etc)

And those who are in favour of big investment in railways, but not the current HS2 proposals (e.g. wanting to benefit more of the UK than one corridor, unhappy with the alignment of HS2 but still wanting a new line).

So, if you are in the third “camp”, what alternative would you like?

My own thoughts (on 200 miles of 125mph railway) are as follows:

1. If you said “HS2 (in its current plan) or nothing” then I’d take HS2, but that’s not to say I completely agree with the current plans for HS2

2. I think capacity is more important than top speed

3. 125mph is “high speed”

4. Going above 125mph becomes disproportionately expensive

5. Rather than trying to increase linespeeds on existing lines (which HS2 would need to run on north of Birmingham in the short/medium term) we would be better tackling the junctions/ alignment where trains can’t reach full speed on existing lines (e.g. Morpeth on the ECML)

6. The benefits of HS2 become weaker the further away from London you get (the costs go down slightly as you get away from London, but not as much)

7. HS1 seems a good idea, but I’d like to see it working for longer before we know how much of a success it is.

8. Instead of HS2 I’d like to see three lines from London roughly 50/75 miles long to act as the London end of the ECML/ MML/ WCML/ GWML

9. One line from London to Huntingdon, one to Northampton and one to Didcot, allowing 125mph services to run non-stop or only at Stevenage, Luton Airport and Heathrow

10. You’d then get consistently faster journeys from London to the rest of the UK (bypassing Welwyn/ Reading etc), additional capacity for journeys from the “Home Counties” and scope for the three new lines to be extended into longer-distance high speed lines as and when required

 

[YorkshireBear]

i think i'd build the high speed line, for 140 mph running allow pendilnos to bomb up at it at full speed, just to bimringham where they can go onto conventional

i have read reports that running costs increase exponetially with speed on electric trains (ruunign costs mainng amount of energy needed in thsi case)

i want a new line that will help relieve congestion but like you say not entirely convinced by HS2

I'd build high speed (140) shaddow lines on WCML ECML first would be my choice

WCML as far as birmingham

ECML to just south of doncaster, allowing leeds services to be sped up

cant really say much more

 

[TGV]

First of all, that's a very well thought out post.

A few of my own points:

I'd disagree that 125mph is high speed - it isn't when your main competitor to a destination 400 miles away is a budget airline. You need to move faster.

I also don't think that the benefit dimishishes with distance from the capital. There is a zone of optimisation where it has the most benefit and it is between 100 and 400 miles from the main destination - in our case London. That means that people in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh would benefit most (with B'ham, Manchester and Leeds being the best off), whereas people in the home counties just North of London would see very little, or no difference in every day reality.

140mph running is almost ruled out as the cost is large, and I suspect it would give a poor return on investment to capacity increase compared to spending admittedly more, but gaining a whole extra railway.

Huntingdon is an interesting point though - it would be a good place to rip up that stupid busway and link Cambridge to the ECML with a quicker and more direct route - also providing a diversion. In fact, any high speed lines aside, I still reckon that should be done.

 

[imagination]

a new 125mph line from Didcot to London to bypass:
- the second most used station on the entire Great Western network (and one of the most used stations in the entire country) which is also arguably the most conveniently sited station on the network for interchanges bar Birmingham New Street
- no other stops
- along a 4 track line
- where the fast track has 125mph operation for most of it anyway
seems like madness to me...

Especially when said station is already getting major investment to eliminate the major bottleneck known as "platform 4" (and the problems of goods freight crossing from one side to the other)...

 

[WatcherZero]

What I would do differently would be to start some lines from Glasgow/Edinburgh down to Leeds/Manchester at the same time as the construction starts around London and have them meet.

The main advantage is from sustained high speed, these stretches while serving the least would offer the greatest time savings. When plugged into the national network they would greatly enhance the benefits of HS2 as a whole.

 

[Fred26]

Huntingdon is an interesting point though - it would be a good place to rip up that stupid busway and link Cambridge to the ECML with a quicker and more direct route - also providing a diversion. In fact, any high speed lines aside, I still reckon that should be done.

Would it not be easier to upgrade the line via Ely and March to Peterborough?

I'm anti-HS2, but if we have to have it, I'd rather it ran to stations that already exist in centres that people want to travel to. I don't feel it's necessary though.
As suggested in the original post, clearing Welwyn's bottleneck and four-tracking Huntingdon-Peterborough would be a good idea. I'd have thought that that would improve more passenger journeys too.

 

[TGV]

Would it not be easier to upgrade the line via Ely and March to Peterborough?

Probably easier, but I'm offering increasing capacity or flexibility by having a new route that takes the Huntingdon/Godmanchester/St Ives population and puts it neatly beteween Cambridge and PBO with a direct, electrified route - keeping the Ely route as it is. The track bed was all still there except for the A14 bridge over the Great Ouse - that's what annoys me. A good and economical opportunity wasted.

 

[Fred26]

I agree with you. I don't know the area particularly well, but then I don't need too... if anyone suggests reopening anything, I agree. I don't think I could ever be trusted to make neutral decision on reopening former lines.
Would you run a Kings Cross to Cambridge via Huntingdon and St Ives service, or leave it as a Huntingdon-Cambridge train only?

 

[MCR247]

For me, I would build a HS Link, which means, when the GW is electrified, they would get 390s, and I'd build some HS capable stock for the WCML. They would be limited to 125mph on 'classic lines' but there would be a HS link from say outside London which they join to up north

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi,
I'd go for a new network with a very limited number of stops.

Over specify the civil engineering. Make all the allignments suitable for 250+mph. Make it as future proof as possible.

Make sure the stations have through lines and there are seperate lines for the platforms.
Make sure sufficient allowance is provided for deceleration and acceleration away from the main lines for each station stop.

Serve only the major regions of population.(Use a "Y" shaped line)
Eg HS stations at Birmingham, East Midlands, Leeds or Sheffield. Manchester or Liverpool. Scotland needs to be connected too.

Don't worry too much about city centre locations.
Make sure these stations are connected to the rest of the network in some way. eg B'ham International gets expanded with more platforms, services are diverted via the Erewash valley lines to serve the new station next to the HS station at Toton (Nottingham/Derby).
[Those are the only ones I know enough about to comment on!]

Serve Heathrow in some form or fashion, be it a direct link for all trains or a connection at Old Oak Common.

Make sure that services can join/split en-route. Eg, services from Manchester and Leeds join at Birmingham.

Make sure there are links to the classic network so that the HS network can be built and used in stages, even if these links are then not used for normal services.
Ensure the links can also be used for freight traffic so that at night the capacity of the line can be used for "normal" traffic if required.

Just my thoughts...
Jason

 

[mumrar]

For my own suggestions for this, I'll steer away from some of the minute details being talked of and look at the larger picture. For interchange purposes I would have the London end somewhere near Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross, but further 'in' to the city so to be close to passengers arriving from the south of London. I would then build the line as a 'spinal route', going as straight as possible, at pretty much any cost, to sweep by Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh. I would make it capable of future signalling/stock upgrades for 250mph running, but probably start at the 200mph mark. There would be several interchange stations on the spinal route where connecting services to nearby places such as Liverpool and York (there'd be lots more I can't think of that are similar) to help make quick journeys too, and probably look at a high speed branch running off from Leeds to Glasgow for the same specification, to be engineered for 250mph.

 

[tbtc]

a new 125mph line from Didcot to London to bypass:
- the second most used station on the entire Great Western network (and one of the most used stations in the entire country) which is also arguably the most conveniently sited station on the network for interchanges bar Birmingham New Street
- no other stops
- along a 4 track line
- where the fast track has 125mph operation for most of it anyway
seems like madness to me...

Especially when said station is already getting major investment to eliminate the major bottleneck known as "platform 4" (and the problems of goods freight crossing from one side to the other)...

One of the criticisms about HS2 is that it does nothing for Wales and western England.

If you are going to build a new line west of London then Heathrow is a logical route (CrossRail will serve it too, of course), which ought to act as an "interchange" for western London. Was tempting to suggest Reading too, but stopping twice in the first 40-ish miles outside London would lose some of the "high speed" element. There will always be conflicting movements at Reading (the XC services from the Oxford lines to the Basingstoke ones, for example), even with the massive rebuilding. At least building the new line as far as Didcot should five a clear run, and free up paths on the GWML for direct London trains serving the likes of Henley...

No easy answers with something like this. If you serve Reading then why not Slough? Or Acton? Or...

 

[Dave R]

I would keep the alignment as planned but a station at Derby instead of a combined East Mids, but after the manchester/Leeds extensions I would build a line separating at around Aylesbury up to Milton Keynes, Northampton, Leicester, Nottingham and then have a triangular junction at around the Belper area. I would have the additional line because each of the major East Mids cities has a station as opposed to one big parkway station, it provides additional rail links (Northampton-Leicester), a true high speed service could operate (eg London-Nottingham-Leeds) or a more stopping service with loops at each of the stations (and the acceleration/decceleration times considered with the loops). And looking at a map would a station at Stoke be a good idea? It could be a potential junction in further stages of HS2.

 

[Clip]

Hi,
I'd go for a new network with a very limited number of stops.

This first and foremost. Its the main problem with the attempts at HS1 down in Kent in that it seems to stop at stupid station. I mean why bother stopping it at Gillingham Chatham AND Rochester.. Just make it Rochester then onwards. Same with the services coming up from Ramsgate. There is no need for it to stop at all the intermediate stations at all just make it worthwhile with connections.

 

[imagination]

One of the criticisms about HS2 is that it does nothing for Wales and western England.

If you are going to build a new line west of London then Heathrow is a logical route (CrossRail will serve it too, of course), which ought to act as an "interchange" for western London. Was tempting to suggest Reading too, but stopping twice in the first 40-ish miles outside London would lose some of the "high speed" element. There will always be conflicting movements at Reading (the XC services from the Oxford lines to the Basingstoke ones, for example), even with the massive rebuilding. At least building the new line as far as Didcot should five a clear run, and free up paths on the GWML for direct London trains serving the likes of Henley...

No easy answers with something like this. If you serve Reading then why not Slough? Or Acton? Or...

Because Slough is far smaller than reading, not as major a town, and is not one of the main railway interchange stations in the country like Reading is. And as for Acton - have a look at the location of Old Oak common

Avoiding Didcot would make far more sense than avoiding Reading, if you want to cut the curve off somewhere.

And as for additional London services to the likes of Henley:
firstly, there's only really a need for them during the peak and during the regatta week to Henley
secondly, "the likes of" - what else would be included? Marlow is too far removed from the network, Bourne End and Cookham are too small, and Windsor comes in on the wrong side of the railway line and has another railway running direct to London anyway. Even Wargrave and Shiplake have no need, as the residents of those places are generally far too snobbish to be seen stepping on something as plebish and lower class as a train.
Third, by reducing the number of services from places like Swindon and Chippenham to Reading (as you would have to do in order to free up this extra capacity), you are effectively cutting them off from the rest of the railway network.

Personally, I have a pet idea of making West Ealing - Langley (inclusive) 6 tracks, with only Hayes and possibly West Drayton/Southall served by trains on the middle tracks. Then you could have semi-fast trains on the middle tracks, stopping services on the slow tracks and fast services on the fast tracks. This would eliminate the problems caused by differences in stopping pattern (especially when crossrail comes in) and this would enable you to have your Henley - London services and also you may be able to free up an extra path or two on the fast tracks - as the hourly London-Slough-Reading service could probably be put on the middle tracks between London and Slough.

Don't think it will ever happen though.

 

[NSE]

Hmmmm how to do HS2, I personally wouldn't do away with it, but leave it quietly in a corner. I think that firstly, too many things are there to go wrong, and also we have plenty of problems with the current rail network.

I would rather see the money spent on a massive sweep tidying up all the lose ends, the Digswell Viaduct/Welwyn North station situation, electrification of odd lines to increase future all electric running (even if temporarily still diesel), the replacement of pacers etc. etc.

Then maybe we can start to look at High Speed rail, but to be honest I think that trains should ideally have the first stop no closer to London than Birmingham/Nottingham/Retford/Etc, and each sevice should be calling at a few stations, looking ideally at WCML timetable as a good example. London Midland call most stations to Crewe, allowing Virgin's services to run non-stop to Stafford/Warrington, I think that High Speed should be run like the Virgin timetable, and subsequent trains serving the rest of the stations on normal speed lines/commuter rail.

Those are my thoughts, its late and English homework looms so possibly not laid out in the most articulate fashion, but hey!

 

[LE Greys]

I'd take the concept of the high speed line in general and go for a somewhat more German model. Instead of there being new, isolated lines, I would use them as additions to the existing network (like the Selby Diversion, but faster and longer). With HS2, I'd ignore Birmingham for now and concentrate on the East Midlands, South Yorkshire and Scotland, basically by using large sections of the old Great Central, reopening the Woodhead and separating the lines in Yorkshire so that the former LNER and LMS routes once again become two separate networks. Upgrades to the LNER lines would allow HS2 trains to access Leeds, while electrification to York would allow them to access Edinburgh. Going the other way, the Woodhead would allow them to access Manchester, and electrification to Preston would get them to Glasgow. HS2 would then absorb a lot of the Anglo-Scottish traffic, allowing the ECML and WCML to concentrate on shorter routes. It would also take the vast majority of Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester passengers, effectively ending fast intercity services on the MML. Slowing the trains down there would increase capacity. The line would be four-track throughout, allowing some Cross-Country workings to run direct from Sheffield to Banbury and cutting an hour from the time while also taking the Norwich-Liverpool services off the MML and via Woodhead, possibly opening up a Norwich-Glasgow route. Note that it's plugged into the existing network at Aylesbury, Quainton Road, Brackley, Woodford, Rugby (twice), Leicester, Sileby, Nottingham, Darnell and Sheffield (twice). Finally, there would be an expanded local service on the (electrified) slow lines from Marylebone, taking in Rugby, Woodford, Brackley, Buckingham and Milton Keynes (maybe the little places like Finmere and Calvert as well). To make space at Marylebone, the Snow Hill and Stratford-upon-Avon trains would transfer back to Paddington. The Metropolitan Line would extend to Aylesbury and run off the new wires from Harrow-on-the-Hill.

As for HS3, that starts at Didcot and goes west . . .

 

[Benno]

Hi,
Don't worry too much about city centre locations.

Make sure these stations are connected to the rest of the network in some way. eg B'ham International gets expanded with more platforms, services are diverted via the Erewash valley lines to serve the new station next to the HS station at Toton (Nottingham/Derby).
[Those are the only ones I know enough about to comment on!]

Just my thoughts...
Jason

That's an interesting point, unless you are going to come off HS2 and spend time crawling on classic lines then City Centre stations will be pretty much out of the question.

What is needed are good connections to other lines. Last Sunday's East Midlands Politics show had a report on the route of HS2 North of Birmingham. Apparently they had seen 'hush hush' documents that said that the location for the station in the East Midlands would be on Toton sidings.

Apart from the amount of land available for parking it it just madness. There are no passenger services that would connect and any services diverted via the EVL would increase journey time if they are still to call at Derby / Nottingham.

The better idea would be to build extra platforms at East Midlands Parkway. At least Nottingham / Derby trains already call there.

 

[mumrar]

Purely an observation, but a lot of the comments seem to be made with no view to the future at all. Saying how expensive it is, or difficult. I don't think that the Severn Tunnel and the Forth Bridge were particularly cheap or easy tasks, and they had many boats doing the same job, so what was the point? It's hardly forward thinking, because bearing in mind that HS2 won't be running for over a decade if it goes ahead, it needs to meet the demands of the railway network from 2020 onwards, not 2010.

 

[j0hn0]

very true mumrar

I would keep HS2 as it is, but connect with HS1 before it terminates at Euston

Then I would expand the javelin fleet to operate to Heathrow (coming off HS2 at OOC) effectively creating a high-speed service to Heathrow. Sure passengers will have to change but it would increase frequency and service options.

I am sure the South east would like easier access to Heathrow as would HS2 passengers, increasing the business case and not needing to directly link to Heathrow.

Once the line is built, we can expand the services more to benefit local towns.

The principle of HS2 is actually, by definition, Inter-City, and will serve all the major cities, enabling service upgrades on classic lines.

 

[LE Greys]

very true mumrar

I would keep HS2 as it is, but connect with HS1 before it terminates at Euston

Then I would expand the javelin fleet to operate to Heathrow (coming off HS2 at OOC) effectively creating a high-speed service to Heathrow. Sure passengers will have to change but it would increase frequency and service options.

I am sure the South east would like easier access to Heathrow as would HS2 passengers, increasing the business case and not needing to directly link to Heathrow.

It would also make a very nice stub for HS3, heading onwards to Reading, where there would be an access line to the station. There are then several options, but I would certainly have an access to the line from the old mains at Didcot, "slip roads" at Swindon and access to a new junction around Wooton Bassett.

Once the line is built, we can expand the services more to benefit local towns.

The principle of HS2 is actually, by definition, Inter-City, and will serve all the major cities, enabling service upgrades on classic lines.

I certainly agree with that.

 

[Metroland]

The alternative package was looked into by Atkins for the DFT, which mainly consists of train lengthing on the WCML and/or Chiltern uprgrading and electrification. Line speeds would be 125mph (with possible further upgrades subject to ERMTS level 2), and new line/cuts off built at Banbury, Princes Risborough and High Wycombe. London-Birmingham services would mainly go from Paddington and Marylebone, presumably missing out Coventry.

But, overall, it's quite stop-gap and limited.

The only other 'low cost' way to add more N-S capacity would be to rebuild the GCR from Aylesbury and Ashedon Junction as far as Leicester, run along the MML, with various cut offs and enhancements around Derby, and then across the reopened Peak Line to Manchester. Although due to journey time limitations, the Peak line would mainly be used for additional freight rather than a direct NW service as the WCML would be quicker.

Then were back to adding more motorway lanes, which will clog up existing cities with the traffic being fed in the local road network or improving airports, which will cause major congestion around cities and isn't much good under 300 miles in any case.

The Atkins report can be read here

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf

 

[LE Greys]

The alternative package was looked into by Atkins for the DFT, which mainly consists of train lengthing on the WCML and/or Chiltern uprgrading and electrification. Line speeds would be 125mph (with possible further upgrades subject to ERMTS level 2), and new line/cuts off built at Banbury, Princes Risborough and High Wycombe. London-Birmingham services would mainly go from Paddington and Marylebone, presumably missing out Coventry.

But, overall, it's quite stop-gap and limited.

Well it seems quite possible, but as you say, it's limited. This, however, would be my alternative to sending HS2 via Birmingham. I tend to think that the Birmingham-London distance is too short for the new line to be of very much help, which is why I would send it up the East Midlands then towards Edinburgh. There, the current lines are slower and depend on diesels, so upgrading there is more urgent.

The only other 'low cost' way to add more N-S capacity would be to rebuild the GCR from Aylesbury and Ashedon Junction as far as Leicester, run along the MML, with various cut offs and enhancements around Derby, and then across the reopened Peak Line to Manchester. Although due to journey time limitations, the Peak line would mainly be used for additional freight rather than a direct NW service as the WCML would be quicker.

Why not at least consider going back through Nottingham? Rebuilding Victoria would be colossally expensive, but it's the crucial section, because it creates the link to the East Coast at Grantham, thus taking traffic off the Midland that would normally go via Chesterfield (not just the Norwich-Liverpools, freight as well). This also gives good access to the Woodhead, which ought to be rebuilt for separate reasons as a relief trans-Pennine route. It might actually be easier than all that work on an active railway, rebuilding a mostly-dead one.

Then were back to adding more motorway lanes, which will clog up existing cities with the traffic being fed in the local road network or improving airports, which will cause major congestion around cities and isn't much good under 300 miles in any case.

The Atkins report can be read here

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf

On balance, HS2 sounds like a better bet. Its current form isn't perfect, but what is?