HS2 Approved

[Philip Phlopp]

Okay, some good discussion! Thanks.
(1) correct, the trains might still run, but there was also a contract that forced TPE to run trains with first class to Blackpool which was ended for example. And Lincoln and Hull services were listed as 'Anglo Scottish' at the time.

(2) is much slower than HS2, I don't think it'll be unfair to compare it with a slow stopping Pacer to a 185 express, people will get the fast train. The funding on ECML makes the HS2 business case weaker, why build HS2 if current services will be suitably fast, and it won't take North to South passengers away from the current line? A major selling point is the York connection and if most trains fail to use it, what's the point?

(3) Aberdeen people would surely change if it's faster by HS2, if not the claim it will benefit Scotland alot is a bit of a joke since the ECML upgrade (a seperate scheme) is the only timesaver they have.

(4) the intermediate places that keep the WCML and ECML going are Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle and are all to be served by HS2 as the fastest connections.

(5) I'm confused about this, if 1 Train Per Hour from London to Edinburgh used HS2 instead of ECML, there won't be extra room for London to Newcastle as the track from York to Newcastle would be shared by the HS2 route, so no new capacity and why would a Newcastle person use the slower service? And HS2 using that section would likely diminish any possible HS3s capacity too.

You're making the classic mistake of working on current and indeed historical traffic demands, providing no possibility of growth.

1) TransPennine's first class service provision is neither here nor there, we're talking about journey options, not seating options. Train layout, seating, catering, length, station calls are always being adjusted based on demand, timetabling constraints, pathing constraints and financial considerations. It's just as likely more capacity will be provided as it is capacity will be removed or services dropped.

2) that's end to end traffic again, the ECML is still vital to connect stations that won't be served by HS2 services, so everything south of York on the ECML, with stations north, even those served by HS2. HS2 won't help me do an Aberdeen to Peterborough journey.

3) see above. If HS2 doesn't go to where they're wanting to go, they won't be changing, will they ?

4) only Leeds and Newcastle keep the ECML going ? That's news to me and I suspect everybody else in the industry.

5) seats on the route, not necessarily paths. If end to end traffic (Edinburgh to London) moves onto HS2, that leaves more seats available for people travelling from Edinburgh to somewhere on the ECML that HS2 won't serve.

 

[najaB]

(1) correct, the trains might still run, but there was also a contract that forced TPE to run trains with first class to Blackpool which was ended for example. And Lincoln and Hull services were listed as 'Anglo Scottish' at the time.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make here.

(2) is much slower than HS2, I don't think it'll be unfair to compare it with a slow stopping Pacer to a 185 express, people will get the fast train. The funding on ECML makes the HS2 business case weaker, why build HS2 if current services will be suitably fast, and it won't take North to South passengers away from the current line? A major selling point is the York connection and if most trains fail to use it, what's the point?

The most likely route for HS2-Scotland trains is via the west coast, so services via the ECML will likely continue to run with a similar service pattern as today.

(3) Aberdeen people would surely change if it's faster by HS2, if not the claim it will benefit Scotland alot is a bit of a joke since the ECML upgrade (a seperate scheme) is the only timesaver they have.

It depends. It's reasonable to assume that high speed tickets will be more expensive than classic - there are some people for whom it will make sense to pay extra for speed, there are others who aren't in a hurry. The fact is that three-hour London-Scotland journey times does open up new opportunities - leave Glasgow at 6am for a 10am meeting in Central London and be back home by teatime - unlike flying you can work along the way.

(4) the intermediate places that keep the WCML and ECML going are Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle and are all to be served by HS2 as the fastest connections.

And will still be served by the ECML and WCML as they are today - HS2 doesn't *replace* the existing lines, it complements them.

(5) I'm confused about this, if 1 Train Per Hour from London to Edinburgh used HS2 instead of ECML, there won't be extra room for London to Newcastle as the track from York to Newcastle would be shared by the HS2 route, so no new capacity and why would a Newcastle person use the slower service? And HS2 using that section would likely diminish any possible HS3s capacity too.

This is almost certainly not going to be the case.

 

[MarkyT]

It's called Hyperloop for a reason. It's quite literally a billionaire's pipe dream (no pun intended). If it ever works at all, which is a big if, it will only be after a very, long and costly development cycle or cycles. And since it's not even designed or developed yet, all those cost 'estimates' are pretty much complete guesses rather than estimates. That's before the fact that a pipe on legs stretching from London to Birmingham and beyond would give the NIMBYs apoplexy and the over-estimated number of passengers carried per hour is still a fraction of that of high speed rail.

The technology shares with maglev a complete incompatibility with existing railways, so new construction would be required everywhere direct service was desired. HS rail's success in Europe has been as an incrementally expanding network that uses a combination of new HS dedicated tracks with services extended over classic tracks to a much broader range of destinations than could be reached on the new tracks alone. In mainland Europe, standard HS trains are fully compatible with most of the electrified classic network. That is rail's 'USP and the ability has often been used as a method to open new routes in stages, with new HS trains to final destination starting right from the beginning of a project then incrementally switching to new sections of route as they are completed, a process that is sometimes phased over many years, even decades. The classic compatible concept will be used to similar effect in the UK. Right from day 1 of phase 1 operations, HS2 will be able to offer significant service improvement to a large range of north western destinations in addition to Birmingham. No other technology could achieve that without significantly more new route construction.

If Hyperloop technology is developed successfully eventually, it might be more appropriate for passenger operations in the USA where the claimed higher speed benefits could compete with air on very long transcontinental journeys, and compatibility with conventional rail would not be such an issue, as inter-running high speed rail operations with the typical very heavy slow freights on the US classic network would be very difficult. Space for new route construction is more readily available there even in many large cities along the wide freeway corridors.

 

[HSTEd]

Britain probably comes out closer to Japan than most of continental Europe in terms of settlement patterns.

 

[The Ham]

Where do you suppose the vast majority of that £50B is going? That's right, into the pay packets of the thousands of people who will make HS2 a reality.

...and then a proportion of it will head straight back to the government in the form of taxes. It's more akin to buying something online with a cashback website providing you money and a cashback credit card giving you a bit more.

The list price may well be high but what it ends up costing you is quite a bit less given you get a chunk of money back.

 

[Grimsby town]

I think another thing to remember for post HS2 services is that it allows for better spacing between journeys. Take Doncaster for example trains to York and beyond arrive between :05 and :20. So that's 3 trains north all at practically the same time. As the need for non stop trains south of York practically disappears with HS2 meaning that trains can be more spaced out and make more stops.

Again taking Doncaster as an example areas such as Bawtry, Rossington and Tuxford can have stations rebuilt meaning that commuter rail for the Doncaster area is significantly improved.

Even with more stops journey times could remain the same if 140mph running was implemented in places so the vast majority of places need not lose out. Obviously some places will lose out on London services but these will mainly be areas on the current mainlines near to the large cities where HS2 stations will be located eg Stockport and Wakefield. In most cases stations that lose London services will be able to travel more quickly by HS2 to London even with a change of trains and will gain extra local services to a greater range of destinations. I can honestly not see a single station losing out significantly if at all.

 

[ainsworth74]

You are begging the question. HS2 benefits only London. It does not provide local or regional services.

In terms of local and regional services on HS2 itself perhaps not but it does release capacity on the WCML which can be filled with more stopping services and more freight.

It is designed only for London Euston. It is not designed for, say, Cardiff, or Southport, or Tipton, or Goole.

And the Ordsall chord has nothing to do with Cardiff, Tipton, Goole or plenty of other places in the UK. So why is one a good thing and the other not? HS2 will probably be of more benefit to more people in the UK as a whole than the Ordsall chord ever will be! I'm almost certain to benefit from HS2 I'm highly unlikely to benefit from the Ordsall chord...

 

[The Ham]

You're making the classic mistake of working on current and indeed historical traffic demands, providing no possibility of growth.

The assumed growth rate for HS2 was 2.5% per year so between 2009 and 2026 it was assumed that growth would have gone up by 52% in 17 years and by 2033 it was assumed that growth would have gone up by 81% in 24 years.

Between the end of 2009 and the end of 2015 the number of passengers on the railways has gone from 1,266.5 million to 1,654 million which is an increase of 30.6% in just 6 years.

Therefore if growth goes up at 3% (bearing in mind that is low compared to what we have been seeing recently) we will hit the assumed number of passengers for 2026 by the middle of 2020. With the figures for 2033 being reached by the middle of 2026.

If growth goes up by 5% (more akin with what we've been seeing recently) and we could hit the assumed 2033 passenger numbers by the middle of 2020! (6 years before phase 1 is even due to open).

Also as others have alluded to not all passengers will be able to switch to HS2, as such there will be a percentage of people who will remain on the trains. Lets assume that the 2009 passenger numbers are 100 with the assumed 2033 passenger numbers being 180, that means that if 80% of people switch to HS2 that there will still be 36 people using the existing services.

To put that in perspective that would mean that it would be about 50% of the number of people using the trains at the turn of the millennium and would allow for 25 years worth of 3% growth before reaching the millennium passenger numbers on the existing trains. Of course if growth continues at 5% it would be just 15 years of growth. Either way that provides a good period of time for growth before something else needs to be done.

 

[MarkyT]

I think another thing to remember for post HS2 services is that it allows for better spacing between journeys. Take Doncaster for example trains to York and beyond arrive between :05 and :20. So that's 3 trains north all at practically the same time. As the need for non stop trains south of York practically disappears with HS2 meaning that trains can be more spaced out and make more stops.

Again taking Doncaster as an example areas such as Bawtry, Rossington and Tuxford can have stations rebuilt meaning that commuter rail for the Doncaster area is significantly improved.

Even with more stops journey times could remain the same if 140mph running was implemented in places so the vast majority of places need not lose out. Obviously some places will lose out on London services but these will mainly be areas on the current mainlines near to the large cities where HS2 stations will be located eg Stockport and Wakefield. In most cases stations that lose London services will be able to travel more quickly by HS2 to London even with a change of trains and will gain extra local services to a greater range of destinations. I can honestly not see a single station losing out significantly if at all.

Some stations on the classic routes could also gain very significantly improved services as a result of HS2. With places like Milton Keynes, Rugby, Peterborough introduced as regular stops on the remaining medium distance express service patterns, regular intervals of every 10 minutes or so could be realistic for fast limited stop departures to London, both in the peak and off peak daytime. With much 'skip stopping' abandoned too, some of these provincial towns will become far better connected to each other along the same corridor than has been the case traditionally throughout the 'inter city' era, encouraging more local journeys between them.

 

[RPM]

I think you'll find it's the pro-HS2 campaign that's well funded.

Plenty of very wealthy people funding the anti side. It hasn't been your average grassroots campaign of protest. I'd actually say the pro-HS2 argument has been put across to the public rather poorly - luckily the public at large didn't make the decision.

The rail industry isn't just one voice.

No, but the overwhelming majority is pro-HS2 and many of the minority who don't support it simply disagree on detail, not on the necessity of it

So you're just going to dismiss any and all objections to HS2 as lies?
And you call the Anti HS2 people idiots? Clearly research involves listening to both arguments. Idiots can exist on both sides.

I didn't call all those who oppose HS2 idiots. I said in my previous post that there are those with genuine concerns. However, the anti-campaign has also been populated by a lot of NIMBYS, conspiracy nutters and people who have political or ideological objections to public money being spent on public transport. Many of these people qualify as idiots. Perhaps the biggest idiots are people who campaign vocally against HS2, but in so doing manage to betray a breathtaking ignorance of the railway system and how it works.

The most common anti-HS2 views amongst the general population stem from ignorance rather than idiocy, I will concede.

Phrases like "vested interests" and "vanity project" keep cropping up courtesy of the anti-campaigners. Well yes, the government, DfT and rail industry do have a vested interest in HS2. They'll be left to answer for the resulting mess if it isn't built! And who's vanity project is it? It was started by the Labour government, supported by the Coalition government and brought to fruition by the Conservative government.

Another common statement that people come out with when you mention HS2 goes something like; "Waste of money. 50 billion to shave a few minutes of a London to Birmingham journey for a handful of wealthy businessmen". Everything about that statement is wrong but many believe it because they are ignorant and the anti-HS2 campaign has spun that line to the public relentlessly. In other words, they've lied.

 

[The Ham]

So you're just going to dismiss any and all objections to HS2 as lies?

No, but a lot of the points put forward by a lot of those opposed to HS2 do not stand up to much scrutiny.

And you call the Anti HS2 people idiots? Clearly research involves listening to both arguments. Idiots can exist on both sides.

Clearly Idiots can exist on both sides of the debate, what you need to do is look at how well people listen to the opposite argument being made. Often you will find that those most vocal on one or other side do not listen to points being made by the other side and just repeat the same point regardless of what has been said.

My view is that, given that HS2 was developed on the basis of 2.5% per year growth and that most of the anti HS2 groups had no answer as to what to do if growth went above the 80% higher than the 2009 flows (i.e. the 2033 opening year flows). As I have pointed out just 6 years in we are 30% higher with no sign of it slowing, which is quite an achievement given that we have had little in the way of investment due to the franchise process stalling.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if there was a need to do a significant amount of the works that the opponents were suggesting as the alternative to HS2 just to get us to the point of opening HS2 due to large numbers of passengers which we could well see over the next 10 years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One of the criticisms of HS2 is that it will only help a very small number of rail users (i.e. what does it do to help GWML or SWML). However both of these are due to see improvements in the form of Crossrail and Crossrail 2 in the same sort of timeline as HS2.

Likewise if HS2 works and passenger growth continues then there is nothing stopping further lines being built, especially as the would allow the use of double decker trains to provide significant passenger capacity improvements.

 

[Haydn1971]

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if there was a need to do a significant amount of the works that the opponents were suggesting as the alternative to HS2 just to get us to the point of opening HS2 due to large numbers of passengers which we could well see over the next 10 years.

A very good point, with one caveat in that the works done on the network will more than likely be focused on longer platforms as the quickest win, with other improvements focused on longer term needs post HS2 opening once the longer term picture is at least within a control period into the future. But it's very clear to me that classic rail will continue to need substatial improvements moving forward both before and after HS2.

 

[Ironside]

HS2 has had its second reading in the House of Lords and it's no longer taking any more petitions. I don't know how many petitions there are but I imagine that information will be available soon.

 

[6Gman]

Yet's consider Doncaster, Leicester and Stoke, is there any reason to assume train services to Scotland won't be diverted away from them?

Can you divert trains to Scotland away from Leicester and Stoke?

Surely they don't have any?

 

[Altnabreac]

Can you divert trains to Scotland away from Leicester and Stoke?

Surely they don't have any?

I'd expect post HS2, High Speed Scotland and Northern Powerhouse Rail that we might see a new Scotland - Leicester service.

Would really be combining a Scotland - Manchester service and a Manchester - Sheffield - Toton - Leicester service to avoid using up terminal capacity at Manchester HS2 station but it would certainly have value given the current Edinburgh and Glasgow to East Midlands air demand.

 

[6Gman]

I'd expect post HS2, High Speed Scotland and Northern Powerhouse Rail that we might see a new Scotland - Leicester service.

Would really be combining a Scotland - Manchester service and a Manchester - Sheffield - Toton - Leicester service to avoid using up terminal capacity at Manchester HS2 station but it would certainly have value given the current Edinburgh and Glasgow to East Midlands air demand.

Then GrimsbyPacer should welcome HS2!

 

[All Line Rover]

Some stations on the classic routes could also gain very significantly improved services as a result of HS2. With places like Milton Keynes, Rugby, Peterborough introduced as regular stops on the remaining medium distance express service patterns, regular intervals of every 10 minutes or so could be realistic for fast limited stop departures to London, both in the peak and off peak daytime. With much 'skip stopping' abandoned too, some of these provincial towns will become far better connected to each other along the same corridor than has been the case traditionally throughout the 'inter city' era, encouraging more local journeys between them.

Rugby is questionable. Will Euston to Manchester services calling at Milton Keynes and Stoke-on-Trent suddenly have calls added at Watford Junction, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Stafford, etc? I'm not convinced. Euston to Stoke, and Milton Keynes to Manchester, are both established markets with reasonably fast journey times that will not be substituted by HS2 (especially the latter).

I can envisage the London Midland Trent Valley service being upgraded to half hourly, but apart from that I suspect the vast majority of improvements will be made to services within the 'official' commuter belt (i.e. every station south of Rugby).

 

[MarkyT]

Rugby is questionable. Will Euston to Manchester services calling at Milton Keynes and Stoke-on-Trent suddenly have calls added at Watford Junction, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Stafford, etc? I'm not convinced. Euston to Stoke, and Milton Keynes to Manchester, are both established markets with reasonably fast journey times that will not be substituted by HS2 (especially the latter).

I can envisage the London Midland Trent Valley service being upgraded to half hourly, but apart from that I suspect the vast majority of improvements will be made to services within the 'official' commuter belt (i.e. every station south of Rugby).

Probably not all trains, all stations, all the way to Manchester I agree. There's likely to be varying stopping patterns north of Rugby or MK, but it's interesting to note that timings for a Euston - Watford - Milton Keynes - Rugby stopping pattern and vice versa are almost identical for a pendolino versus a 110MPH Desiro. Hence a common stopping pattern on this section could in theory manage trains at very high frequencies indeed. After Rugby trains start fanning out to different destinations so the lower frequencies along each branch could then allow varying stopping patterns with faster trains catching up slower ones.

 

[HSTEd]

I worked this out a while back, it looks a lot more drastic than it is. The only real losers are Coventry and Stockport, and the latter is relatively well covered for by the Manchester Airport station anyway.
After all the stations at Preston and North pick up a classic compatible to replace the second service.

It implies some shorter stock, but that could probably be 110mph units on the Birmingham/via Wilmslow diagram, and it is not clear whether it is worth running classic trains to Liverpool at all, as all those journey opportunities are better provided by LM and Classic Compatible trains.

 

[The Planner]

The reason is dwell times for the comparison between 110mph and Pendolinos.

 

[Mark62]

I believe there's around £20 billion worth of civil engineering contracts being offered for the the initial London the Birmingham HS2 link.
How many of the the companies who get this windfall of public money will be contributors to to Conservative party? And how many contributed vast amounts to their re-election campaign?
He who pays the piper and all that. These companies always want something in return. I suspect many who contributed are about to get even richer.
And we dare to call ourselves a democracy.
We cannot separate politics from transport policy. Social policy, social mobility, and also intrinsically linked to transport policy.
It's time the debate about HS2 was widened somewhat beyond building new railway lines and we looked at the bigger picture.
It's because of politics that our railways were decimated and communities were isolated and run down.
It will be interesting to see who gets the contracts. I'll bet we could guess in advance. Look at the major contributors to the current government and then tick the boxes.
Paranoia or intuition? Let's wait and see.

 

[The Planner]

These are the consortia who are bidding, how many of those would you suggest have funded the Conservatives??

Align Joint Venture:- Bouygues Travaux Publics, VolkerFitzpatrick, Sir Robert McAlpine

ASL:- Acciona Infraestructuras, John Sisk & Son, Lagan Construction Group

Balfour Beatty VINCI BeMo (BBV):- Balfour Beatty, VINCI Construction Grands Projets, VINCI Construction UK, VINCI Construction Terrassement, BeMo Tunnelling

Catalyst:- Bechtel

Carillion-Eiffage-Kier (CEK):- Carillion Construction, Eiffage Genie Civil ,(previously Eiffage TP) Kier Infrastructure and Overseas

Fusion:- Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure,BAM Nuttall, Ferrovial Agroman (UK)

LFM:- Laing O’Rourke Construction, FCC Construccion,J. Murphy and Sons

Momentum Infrastructure:- Dragados, Hochtief Infrastructure, GallifordTry Infrastructure

SCS:- Skanska Construction (UK),Costain, STRABAG

 

[deltic]

I believe there's around £20 billion worth of civil engineering contracts being offered for the the initial London the Birmingham HS2 link.
How many of the the companies who get this windfall of public money will be contributors to to Conservative party? And how many contributed vast amounts to their re-election campaign?
He who pays the piper and all that. These companies always want something in return. I suspect many who contributed are about to get even richer.
And we dare to call ourselves a democracy.
We cannot separate politics from transport policy. Social policy, social mobility, and also intrinsically linked to transport policy.
It's time the debate about HS2 was widened somewhat beyond building new railway lines and we looked at the bigger picture.
It's because of politics that our railways were decimated and communities were isolated and run down.
It will be interesting to see who gets the contracts. I'll bet we could guess in advance. Look at the major contributors to the current government and then tick the boxes.
Paranoia or intuition? Let's wait and see.

Paranoia

The procurement process is as clean as you can possibly make it with no political involvement.

 

[quantinghome]

I believe there's around £20 billion worth of civil engineering contracts being offered for the the initial London the Birmingham HS2 link.
How many of the the companies who get this windfall of public money will be contributors to to Conservative party? And how many contributed vast amounts to their re-election campaign?
He who pays the piper and all that. These companies always want something in return. I suspect many who contributed are about to get even richer.
And we dare to call ourselves a democracy.
We cannot separate politics from transport policy. Social policy, social mobility, and also intrinsically linked to transport policy.
It's time the debate about HS2 was widened somewhat beyond building new railway lines and we looked at the bigger picture.
It's because of politics that our railways were decimated and communities were isolated and run down.
It will be interesting to see who gets the contracts. I'll bet we could guess in advance. Look at the major contributors to the current government and then tick the boxes.
Paranoia or intuition? Let's wait and see.

Yup, paranoia it is.

Are you aware that HS2 has cross-party support? Donations to the Tory party have zero influence over whether or not it gets built.

With projects this size, you need pretty much every large contractor involved anyway, so it would be pretty pointless for companies to donate to the Tory party to get special treatment (if that's what you're suggesting; the logic of your post is pretty hard to follow tbh).

You evidently have little experience of procurement processes for major engineering works. They are transparent and have little room for the sort of practices you are insinuating. Any sniff of corrupt practices would produce an appeal to the courts by the companies who didn't get the contract.

 

[Harbornite]

You are begging the question. HS2 benefits only London. It does not provide local or regional services. It is designed only for London Euston. It is not designed for, say, Cardiff, or Southport, or Tipton, or Goole.

With your logic, the East Coast Mainline should not have been built because it doesn't serve Birmingham, Crewe or Manchester.

 

[backontrack]

I worked this out a while back, it looks a lot more drastic than it is. The only real losers are Coventry and Stockport, and the latter is relatively well covered for by the Manchester Airport station anyway.
After all the stations at Preston and North pick up a classic compatible to replace the second service.

It implies some shorter stock, but that could probably be 110mph units on the Birmingham/via Wilmslow diagram, and it is not clear whether it is worth running classic trains to Liverpool at all, as all those journey opportunities are better provided by LM and Classic Compatible trains.

But they still lose a service to London!

 

[HSTEd]

But they still lose a service to London!

Do they?
They go from 1 classic service to Birmingham and 1 classic service to london to one 1 classic service to Birmingham and 1 HS2 routed service to London.

 

[edwin_m]

Do they?
They go from 1 classic service to Birmingham and 1 classic service to london to one 1 classic service to Birmingham and 1 HS2 routed service to London.

The existing Birmingham service is now linked with the London-Wolverhampton to form a through train, so in theory they do lose a London service - however it is much slower than the direct one.

 

[PR1Berske]

The very core reason behind HS2 is to deny northerners rail services. It's only designed for London Euston commuters.

 

[The Planner]

Proof?