HS2 construction updates

[Tobbes]

The fact remains that HS2 has had to make several attempts to gain this derogation and as far as I can tell it has still not been granted. Indeed an Under Secretary of State is in Hansard as saying there are no derogations and are not expected to be any.

And Brexit in any of its likely forms is unlikely to result in freedom from complying with EU TSI anyway. So I'm really unclear (a) why we'd want to (creating bespoke captive sets and throwing away the cost and innvoation benefits of competition) and (b) why we'd be allowed to.

 

[HSTEd]

How do you get the meet the requirement to wheel the catering trolley through without level floors?

I expect to embrace the truth of the matter.
That captive services will not have catering trolleys?

They are pointless on such short journeys.

And even if you want one for first class, you solve that by positioning first class entirely on the upper deck, where on a TGV duplex type vehicle there is a continuous flat corridor.

Leeds is closer to London in travel time terms than King's Lynn!
Birmingham will be as close to London in travel time terms as Cambridge on the non-stop train.

These are not true intercity journey times.

I doubt the trolley would even make it all the way down the set, after leaving Old Oak, before pandemonium sets in at Birmingham International. After all the trolley being caught mid-vehicle would mess up all those enormously important dwell times.

EDIT:

The updated HS2 rolling stock specification states that the platform height will be 1115mm, so yet another nonstandard height.

And it also states that manufacturers should "should assume that legal requirements allowing the use of platforms at such a height will be in place prior to the HS2 Network being brought into service"

In other words, we lost but are hoping the EU will blink or Brexit will let us bypass the requirement.

 

[hwl]

And Brexit in any of its likely forms is unlikely to result in freedom from complying with EU TSI anyway. So I'm really unclear (a) why we'd want to (creating bespoke captive sets and throwing away the cost and innovation benefits of competition) and (b) why we'd be allowed to.

They wouldn't be very bespoke, many European HS units actually have ~1200mm floors anyway e.g. Siemens Velaro and Bombardier (Hitachi) Zefiro. (and as realistically it is going to be one of those 2 winning the classic compatible order as everyone else will be very low down on the technical scoring) The UK spec would just involve not having cut outs in the floor for the step down to 760mm etc. on the Velaro D or Zefiro v300s

 

[hwl]

I doubt the trolley would even make it all the way down the set, after leaving Old Oak, before pandemonium sets in at Birmingham International. After all the trolley being caught mid-vehicle would mess up all those enormously important dwell times.

EDIT:

The updated HS2 rolling stock specification states that the platform height will be 1115mm, so yet another nonstandard height.

And it also states that manufacturers should "should assume that legal requirements allowing the use of platforms at such a height will be in place prior to the HS2 Network being brought into service"

In other words, we lost but are hoping the EU will blink or Brexit will let us bypass the requirement.

Which why 2 trolleys and suitable places to have them out of the way are in the classic stock spec...

1115mm platform height work well with extending ramps (under floor) with a slight angle for 1200-1250mm internal floor heights.

 

[HSTEd]

Which why 2 trolleys and suitable places to have them out of the way are in the classic stock spec...

The classic spec is almost an irrelevance however. We can have flat floors throughout the unit at almost any platform heights using things like the Talgo technology.

Also don't IEPs not have flat floors and still have trolleys?

1115mm work well with extending ramps (under floor) with a slight angle for 1200-1250mm internal floor heights.

So we are abandoning flat boarding entirely then in favour of ramps?

 

[hwl]

The classic spec is almost an irrelevance however. We can have flat floors throughout the unit at almost any platform heights using things like the Talgo technology.

Also don't IEPs not have flat floors and still have trolleys?


So we are abandoning flat boarding entirely then in favour of ramps?

Both specs have to work for the long term though.

The slope of the IEPs is fairly small and way smaller that what you would need to deal with "european" floors.
With a slight slope on the ramp you get knife edge on the ramp where it touches the platform so very easy to wheel on to the the ramp...

China looked at HS platform height and decided 1250mm and Japan 1100mm, what is wrong with looking forwards not backwards

 

[edwin_m]

And level boarding is easily obtainable on these platform heights, as Talgo has demonstrated.

The classic spec is almost an irrelevance however. We can have flat floors throughout the unit at almost any platform heights using things like the Talgo technology.

Talgo technology has a very low-slung body and is unlikely to be workable for a classic compatible because the UK loading gauge is very narrow below the standard UK platform height of 914mm above top of rail. This also means a classic compatible will have a very large platform gap on UIC-gauge track if the entrances are below about 1m, and a much smaller gap if they are above 1m.

Optimising these trains to get step free access at one end of these journeys, by sacrificing a major capacity gain on the bulk of journeys on the system is the definition of madness.

It's not just step free access, it's a significant saving in dwell time at high speed platforms. Dwell time at classic platforms is less of an issue because the number of trains per platform per hour will be much less.

If you absolutely have to have a double deck train at an 1100mm-ish platform then I'm pretty sure it could be done by starting with the TGV design and raising the end vestibule floor with more steps down to the lower deck and fewer steps up to the upper deck. Some of the equipment in the space above the vestibule could be shifted to the space below it, and the vestibule in some cars could be lengthened to provide wheelchair spaces. This would still be TSI-compliant, as the entrance would be at the same height as compliant single-deck high speed trains. Or at least a lot less non-compliant than making a train 600mm higher!

 

[HSTEd]

China looked at HS platform height and decided 1250mm and Japan 1100mm, what is wrong with looking forwards not backwards

But this isn't really looking forward.
China has a fundamentally different experience with a much lower population density, which means the capacity of individual lines is much less important. Since they will need lots of lines with relatively low population along each one.

The majority of all intercity traffic in the UK will eventually have to flow between Old Oak Common and Birmingham International. Linear line capacity is everything in this situation.

And if we are forward looking we would recognise that double deckers are an obvious way to increase in capacity in the future, and we would therefore design the system to allow that in the future.
That means if we have huge platforms, we add the appropriate few hundred mm to the height specification, for less than a metre of clearance we could have level boarding and a flat corridor on both decks!

But instead we "forward look" when it suits HS2's agenda but otherwise copy other practice, even if it makes little sense.

 

[HSTEd]

Talgo technology has a very low-slung body and is unlikely to be workable for a classic compatible because the UK loading gauge is very narrow below the standard UK platform height of 914mm above top of rail. This also means a classic compatible will have a very large platform gap on UIC-gauge track if the entrances are below about 1m, and a much smaller gap if they are above 1m.

Talgo has a floor height of about 760mm arl, so if we rebuilt it for something on order of 915mm arl, we would gain 155mm of extra above rail height to work with, which will probably lift us above the very low slung parts of the lower structure gauge. Assuming am reading it correctly from an RSSB document.

I think that gets us far enough off the rail that we only take a small chunk out of the bottom corner of the passenger cabin, which depending on your interior layout might or might not be workable.

To be honest I think the only way to be sure would be a mockup.
The shorter articulation also potentially gains us a bit of width from reduced overthrows.
But I don't really have the tools to analyse that properly unfortunately.

It's not just step free access, it's a significant saving in dwell time at high speed platforms. Dwell time at classic platforms is less of an issue because the number of trains per platform per hour will be much less.

There are only two stations where dwell time has a significant impact.
Birmingham International and Old Oak Common.
The cost of an additional four platforms, giving you one in each direction at each of those stations, is a negligible fraction of the cost of the scheme. It would also have drastically improved the reliability of the system - which given that a collapse in the HS2 service would collapse the core of the entire rail network seems like a very good idea.


This constraint appears to have been artificially imposed to provide a justification for the stock choice.
In return for this saving in platform costs, a ~30% reduction in line capacity has been imposed, if figures for the Avelia Horizon are anything to go by.
(It is a clean sheet redesign of the TGV Duplex with shorter power cars and more, shorter vehicles to make use of the extra length, with an interior redesign to fix the interior volume problems caused by it inherently being a 90s design)

If you absolutely have to have a double deck train at an 1100mm-ish platform then I'm pretty sure it could be done by starting with the TGV design and raising the end vestibule floor with more steps down to the lower deck and fewer steps up to the upper deck. Some of the equipment in the space above the vestibule could be shifted to the space below it, and the vestibule in some cars could be lengthened to provide wheelchair spaces. This would still be TSI-compliant, as the entrance would be at the same height as compliant single-deck high speed trains. Or at least a lot less non-compliant than making a train 600mm higher!

TSI-compliance is less important for rolling stock than it is for infrastructure.
Someone who buys a noncompliant train knows they have one, but the point of a TSI compliant train is that it can go anywhere!

So providing extra head room on the line does not make the line noncompliant with TSIs, at least until you reach the maximum extension of the standard height train's pantograph!
If you raise the vestibule height you lose the flat through deck, which removes one of the big advantages of the TGV system.

The combination of GC gauge and the higher platforms is what causes the problem, and the platforms are the only one we can really change at this stage.

I would prefer 760mm, but 915mm would be a decent compromise, because with the extra height of GC over GB+ we can probably manage a TGV duplex with near flat boarding.

This only becomes an issue because of the combination, as I said.

 

[Tobbes]

From a complete layman.... I'm not fussed about the specific detail of the solution, but if were going to build HS2, I want it to:

(i) be able to interoperate with standard European HSRs - I know that it won't initially, but this is a 50 year investments

(ii) to have maximum capacity, meaning the ability to have double deck captive stock.

We may not need this capability in phase 1, or even in early phase 2. But flexibility should be built in where feasible, because I'm sure that we'll need the capacity eventually.

 

[edwin_m]

Talgo has a floor height of about 760mm arl, so if we rebuilt it for something on order of 915mm arl, we would gain 155mm of extra above rail height to work with, which will probably lift us above the very low slung parts of the lower structure gauge. Assuming am reading it correctly from an RSSB document.

I think that gets us far enough off the rail that we only take a small chunk out of the bottom corner of the passenger cabin, which depending on your interior layout might or might not be workable.

The platforms are the very reason British gauge trains have to be narrower below platform height (for which the standard is 915mm, which I increased to 1m on the train to allow for dynamic movements). Notice how the lower bodyshell taper on Anglia FLIRTs is more than on any other train, as the price of level boarding. It just about works on Anglia where platforms have the standard UK setback, but UIC platforms have to cope with the standard UIC gauge (flat-sided nearly down to rail level) so are that much further away from the track.

 

[Bald Rick]

Depends on your definition of "construction". Enabling works such as a rather hefty junction on the M25 may not put steel rails on the ground but a lot of people would still describe them as "construction".

My definition of construction is irrelevant. What is important is what the the contracts say, and they say that construction of HS2 hasn’t started. Enabling works have started, and that’s includes construction of supporting infrastructure (and lots of demolition). But there has been no construction of what will become HS2.

 

[Brush 4]

Nor will there be. The Brexit delay and the Crossrail fiasco will be used- in private- as reasons to delay construction further. Gov so hates making big decisions. Heathrow 3rd runway, HS2, Brexit, all put off again and again. Probably a word like paused will be used, or a further assessment of options. I don't want to be correct and, hopefully won't be but, there is a familiar pattern.

How long can 'enabling' work go on before there is nothing left to do?

 

[The Planner]

How long can 'enabling' work go on before there is nothing left to do?

For a good while seeing as most of the enabling works will require the diversion and moving of utilities. Working with third parties is never normally quick.

 

[hwl]

For a good while seeing as most of the enabling works will require the diversion and moving of utilities. Working with third parties is never normally quick.

Also helps reduce risk though uncertainly on the main works

 

[HSTEd]

The platforms are the very reason British gauge trains have to be narrower below platform height (for which the standard is 915mm, which I increased to 1m on the train to allow for dynamic movements). Notice how the lower bodyshell taper on Anglia FLIRTs is more than on any other train, as the price of level boarding. It just about works on Anglia where platforms have the standard UK setback, but UIC platforms have to cope with the standard UIC gauge (flat-sided nearly down to rail level) so are that much further away from the track.

Passenger loading bridges are used on things like the Mini-Shinkansen in Japan, so this would seem to constitute a relatively solvable problem, assuming we can fit the cabin into the envelope.

 

[ap2048]

I am increasingly concerned that a new Tory government could scrap or cut back HS2 so I have setup a petition to urge the government to bring forward legislation to allow the line to be built as soon as possible.

The link to the petition is below. It requires 5 signatures for it to go live. Please do sign it and encourage others to do so too.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/258550/sponsors/new?token=dFuSpVDKrJ7bpGtubu0c

This is an outline of the petition statement

Legislate urgently to enable the construction of HS2 in its entirety

HS2 is increasingly under threat by politicians, particularly members within the Tory cabinet who are potential leadership contenders. This is a petition to urge the government to pass legislation in order that the building of the HS2 train line can begin after initial works have been completed.

The west coast main line, which connects cities in the north west of England including Manchester and Liverpool, is nearly at full capacity. HS2 is needed to add much needed transport capacity for travel to the north west of England. HS2 will also open opportunities for new routes outside of London on the WCML as current routes move to HS2. It will create thousands of high skilled jobs including apprenticeships and university based research. Finally, it will help bridge the north south divide.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

From a complete layman.... I'm not fussed about the specific detail of the solution, but if were going to build HS2, I want it to:

(i) be able to interoperate with standard European HSRs - I know that it won't initially, but this is a 50 year investments

(ii) to have maximum capacity, meaning the ability to have double deck captive stock.

We may not need this capability in phase 1, or even in early phase 2. But flexibility should be built in where feasible, because I'm sure that we'll need the capacity eventually.

You wishes have mostly been granted: HS2 (IIRC also HS1) is being built to GC gauge which should facilitate using DD captive stock in the future if need be. The only fly in the ointment with regards to HS2 trains running on to Europe (apart from the minor technicality of their being no link planned between the two) is HS2 is using a different signalling system to the LGV's. HS2 have specified shiny new ETCS where as the existing LGVs are using "legacy" TVM430. I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether there's any plans to transition the LGV's to ETCS (or any current implementations.) Possibly, the French LGV's are not old enough yet that their TVM430's are "worn out" and need replacing. Others here will probably know.

 

[kevin_roche]

The only fly in the ointment with regards to HS2 trains running on to Europe (apart from the minor technicality of their being no link planned between the two) is HS2 is using a different signalling system to the LGV's. HS2 have specified shiny new ETCS where as the existing LGVs are using "legacy" TVM430. I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether there's any plans to transition the LGV's to ETCS (or any current implementations.) Possibly, the French LGV's are not old enough yet that their TVM430's are "worn out" and need replacing. Others here will probably know.

I believe European regulation requires the operators to change the signalling on the Eurostar route to ETCS when they next update. French appear to be dragging their heels on the change though. In the UK we are following the regulations which require new lines to implement ECTS or get a specific exemption. The exemption for Crossrail in the tunnels, for example, is time limited and requires conversion to ECTS Level 3 when practicable.

 

[Maurice3000]

I believe European regulation requires the operators to change the signalling on the Eurostar route to ETCS when they next update. French appear to be dragging their heels on the change though. In the UK we are following the regulations which require new lines to implement ECTS or get a specific exemption. The exemption for Crossrail in the tunnels, for example, is time limited and requires conversion to ECTS Level 3 when practicable.

It's the same in France. All new high speed lines in France (LGV-EST from Paris to Strasbourg, LGV-SAE from Tours to Bordeaux, LGV-BPL from Le Mans to Rennes and the new line from Perpignan to Figueres on the border with Spain for the line to Barcelona) run under ETCS Level 2. They have also ran a couple of trials to convert conventional lines to ETCS Level 1 and I believe Nimes to Montpellier has been operational under Level 1 for a while now.

I expect the French to upgrade the Paris - Lille - Calais corridor to ETCS at some point, greatly benefiting HS1 traffic. Particularly upgrading the Paris - Lille section will be very useful as the Belgian and Dutch high speed networks run a mix of conventional local signalling (around stations where they mix with older trains) and ETCS Level 2. This means that any train on the popular Amsterdam - Brussels - Lille - Paris route needs to work with four signalling systems. Any system they can remove reduces cost and risks of failures etc. so the three countries are keen to get rid of older signalling.

 

[Tobbes]

You wishes have mostly been granted: HS2 (IIRC also HS1) is being built to GC gauge which should facilitate using DD captive stock in the future if need be. The only fly in the ointment with regards to HS2 trains running on to Europe (apart from the minor technicality of their being no link planned between the two) is HS2 is using a different signalling system to the LGV's. HS2 have specified shiny new ETCS where as the existing LGVs are using "legacy" TVM430. I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether there's any plans to transition the LGV's to ETCS (or any current implementations.) Possibly, the French LGV's are not old enough yet that their TVM430's are "worn out" and need replacing. Others here will probably know.

Many thanks, Dave.

 

[hwl]

You wishes have mostly been granted: HS2 (IIRC also HS1) is being built to GC gauge which should facilitate using DD captive stock in the future if need be. The only fly in the ointment with regards to HS2 trains running on to Europe (apart from the minor technicality of their being no link planned between the two) is HS2 is using a different signalling system to the LGV's. HS2 have specified shiny new ETCS where as the existing LGVs are using "legacy" TVM430. I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether there's any plans to transition the LGV's to ETCS (or any current implementations.) Possibly, the French LGV's are not old enough yet that their TVM430's are "worn out" and need replacing. Others here will probably know.

The plan is that TVM430 installations are being gradually upgraded to ETCS it isn't actually that technically difficult.
New ETCS stock can easily run on TVM430/KVB networks using a STM (Special Transmission Module) in the same way the new stock such as the Crossrail Aventras interface with TPWS/AWS/ TrainguardMT using STMs.

 

[Bald Rick]

As has been said all LGVs since LGV-Est have been built with ETCS L2.

I’m sure I read somewhere that LGV-SE is being resignalled with ETCS L2 as well. Whilst the original TVM300 was upgraded to TVM430, this didn’t change much of the original kit, which is approaching its 40th Birthday.

 

[HSTEd]

You wishes have mostly been granted: HS2 (IIRC also HS1) is being built to GC gauge which should facilitate using DD captive stock in the future if need be.

GC gauge itself is not enough.
The platform heights combined with the relatively restrictive GC gauge height limit will make double deckers impossible if HS2 are permitted to deviate from the existing standards.

 

[Mark24]

There a huge amount of earth works just south of Newton Percell on the A4421 and close to the old Great Central line.
Would this be in relation to HS2, and a sign that things have already started?

The work looks too big to be anything other than a major project

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

There a huge amount of earth works just south of Newton Percell on the A4421 and close to the old Great Central line.
Would this be in relation to HS2, and a sign that things have already started?

A4421 is slated for a new alignment and a bridge over future HS2 line - might be that.
There is mitigation planting and so forth also thereabouts.

 

[swt_passenger]

There a huge amount of earth works just south of Newton Percell on the A4421 and close to the old Great Central line.
Would this be in relation to HS2, and a sign that things have already started?

The work looks too big to be anything other than a major project

You can see the intended alterations on the second map I linked in post #143.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

Also might be this.... (EDIT -on closer examination, maybe not.)

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...e/AWNC2B2029+Utility+diversion-compressed.pdf

The various "HS2 in...." web sites are well worth bookmarking is one is affected and/or interested on what is happening where...

https://hs2.commonplace.is

 

[Jozhua]

Maybe they can just build the whole line and call it "enabling works" until they have the first "enabling train" running an "enabling service"!

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

LOL - I doubt the enabling works budget would be big enough!

As well as "signing off" on the detailed design, one suspects "notice to proceed" is as much about releasing the funds for main construction contracts.