HS2 if the Germans had planned it

[Matt P]

The German ICE network is a mixture of upgraded and new build lines. Some routes built to 300kph standards others built/upgraded to 250kph and lines upgraded to 200kph (125mph). Most, but by no means all, ICE services run into the existing central stations in the major cities they serve.

This isn't mean to be an anti HS2 post or necessarily an alternative to HS2 post.

However, just for the fun of it, if the solution to problems of capacity on the WCML, MML and ECML and the desire to improve connectivity between major centres in the UK had be handed over to the Germans to plan for us, how do you think HS2 would look compared to HS2 as planned (including the cancelled sections).

1) Would the Germans have built the Y network?

2) Would the Germans have instead built cut offs for the WCML, MML and ECML to bypass congested and/or sections not conducive to higher speeds;

3) Would the Germans be building Curzon Street?

4) Would the Germans be leaving places like Coventry and Leicester of the HSL network?

5) Would the Germans be building better transpennine links rather than talking about them.

I have a few answers to each but I'd like to see what others think first.

 

[Irascible]

Given German planning, I suspect they'd still be talking about HS2, let alone any transpennine links.

 

[nanstallon]

I'd let the French take over. They just decide what they are going to do, and they get on with it.

 

[class26]

The German planning system is more convuluted than ours

 

[Lewlew]

They’d build it in 5 years but then let it sit disused for 9 years.

 

[MotCO]

Surely the restrictive planning laws here (for good reason) cause more delays than the nationality of the builders.

 

[MattRat]

It would have been cancelled due to being 'politically untenable', because there seems to be this stupid belief that Britannia still rules the waves, and allowing others to things for us weakens our nation, despite our nation already being incredibly weak.

 

[popeter45]

I'd let the French take over. They just decide what they are going to do, and they get on with it.

Yea but would end up with a Manchester parkway miles out from actual Manchester

 

[yorksrob]

Worth pondering.

Afterall, what's the wurst that could happen !

 

[zwk500]

The German ICE network is a mixture of upgraded and new build lines. Some routes built to 300kph standards others built/upgraded to 250kph and lines upgraded to 200kph (125mph). Most, but by no means all, ICE services run into the existing central stations in the major cities they serve.

The thing is that running services into existing stations requires 1. The capacity to do so (Both New Street and Piccadilly are largely full), 2. a reasonable distance to compensate the slower approach speed (London, Birmingham and Manchester aren't terribly far apart) and 3. an opportunity to 'tap in' the HSL at a suitable point (Birmingham Approach would have to be from International, Manchester approach from Cheadle hulme).

So I don't really see that German planners would have done much different, apart from some of the technical specs (Like 320kph rather than 400kph linespeed). The Germans would also be just as bad as us about building NPR/HS3. The French would be largely similar as well.

The only thing you could have done significantly differently would have been to orientate the Birmingham station north-south and serve London-Birmingham-Manchester as one train but that will require a budget several orders of magnitude larger than the existing one, which is apparently not affordable!

 

[Brubulus]

The thing is that running services into existing stations requires 1. The capacity to do so (Both New Street and Piccadilly are largely full), 2. a reasonable distance to compensate the slower approach speed (London, Birmingham and Manchester aren't terribly far apart) and 3. an opportunity to 'tap in' the HSL at a suitable point (Birmingham Approach would have to be from International, Manchester approach from Cheadle hulme).

So I don't really see that German planners would have done much different, apart from some of the technical specs (Like 320kph rather than 400kph linespeed). The Germans would also be just as bad as us about building NPR/HS3.

Yes but they would've built significantly less earthworks and tunnels and it would have steeper gradients - some German HS lines have 1 in 25 gradients. They also tend to follow motorways reducing objections in the planning stage.

 

[zwk500]

Yes but they would've built significantly less earthworks and tunnels and it would have steeper gradients - some German HS lines have 1 in 25 gradients. They also tend to follow motorways reducing objections in the planning stage.

We didn't build earthworks and tunnels to get rid of gradients, we did it to mitigate planning complaints from residents. Following the M40 wouldn't really have helped reduce objections, given it's own patchy record on environmental sensitivity.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd let the French take over. They just decide what they are going to do, and they get on with it.

Ah yes. Like the LGV between Bordeaux and Toulouse that the French decided to build in 2005…

 

[class26]

Out of interest the Chinese are on record as having said they could build the original, entire HS2 in 5 years and for half the budget

 

[NoRoute]

So I don't really see that German planners would have done much different, apart from some of the technical specs (Like 320kph rather than 400kph linespeed). The Germans would also be just as bad as us about building NPR/HS3. The French would be largely similar as well.

The Chiltern line would have seen more consistent investment over a longer period, so already have been electrified and likely steadily upgraded to provide a high speed service between Birmingham and London, that would have reduced the pressures on the WCML and New Street, so change the context in which HS2 was being designed.

 

[zwk500]

The Chiltern line would have seen more consistent investment over a longer period, so already have been electrified and likely steadily upgraded to provide a high speed service between Birmingham and London, that would have reduced the pressures on the WCML and New Street, so change the context in which HS2 was being designed.

Maybe. Although I'd like to see what interventions you could make for modest investment in the Chilterns that give the same capacity benefit to the WCML as HS2. Fundamentally, Euston would still need expansion and any new tracks in London would still need to be in a deep tunnel.

 

[The Ham]

The Chiltern line would have seen more consistent investment over a longer period, so already have been electrified and likely steadily upgraded to provide a high speed service between Birmingham and London, that would have reduced the pressures on the WCML and New Street, so change the context in which HS2 was being designed.

Arguably those upgrades would mean more people using rail, and so HS2 would have had a better baseline.

Possibly it may have made it less unpalatable, as more people would have seen it as useful.

 

[Sonik]

So I don't really see that German planners would have done much different, apart from some of the technical specs (Like 320kph rather than 400kph linespeed).

HS2 isn't intended to be a 400kph service though, the linespeed allows some headroom for timetable recovery, which in turn enables maximal utilization of the infrastructure (i.e. TPH). Given the German penchant for efficiency, maybe they would have reached the same conclusion? (albeit probably not for a route built in Germany as it wouldn't work out due the the lower population density).

Otherwise, fully agree, there is not much that can realistically be changed; it's lack of capacity on the existing network driving the requirement, so full segregation is needed. Perhaps they would though use more economical solutions for some of the NIMBY mitigations e.g. acoustic fencing and tree planting instead of earthworks. Digging a ditch most of the way from London to Birmingham is pretty ridiculous.

 

[D365]

Out of interest the Chinese are on record as having said they could build the original, entire HS2 in 5 years and for half the budget

Yes they could… if they built it in China.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest the Chinese are on record as having said they could build the original, entire HS2 in 5 years and for half the budget

Yes they could… if they built it in China.

With Chinese labour, environmental policy and safety record.

 

[A0]

I'd let the French take over. They just decide what they are going to do, and they get on with it.

Which is much easier to do in a country with less than half the population density of the UK.

 

[A0]

The German planning system is more convuluted than ours

And Germany's not brilliant at managing or delivering large infrastructure projects.

Berlin airport opens 10 years late and three times over budget

The opening was initially scheduled for October 2011 but was then pushed back to October 2013, spring 2014, 2017, and the second half of 2018. It has finally opened its doors.

www.euronews.com

The saying "better late than never" has never been more apt than for Berlin's new airport which is finally opening — nearly 10 years behind schedule.

The Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER), which continues its streak of luck by opening in the middle of a pandemic that has caused travel worldwide to plummet, was meant to open its door on October 30, 2011, but poor planning and construction work has delayed the project multiple times and inflated its cost to the tunes of billions of euros.

 

[The Ham]

Out of interest the Chinese are on record as having said they could build the original, entire HS2 in 5 years and for half the budget

With Chinese labour, environmental policy and safety record.

I would also add that it's design life would also be a quarter and tolerances would likely be quadruple those acceptable.

 

[Snow1964]

The Germans would probably not have expanded Euston by building a (very expensive) new station on the side. Yes might have lengthened some platforms, but would have diverted all the suburban and middle distance trains to a new underground tunnel and station to make room.

They would also probably have erected thousands of apartments for rent (not sold them), over the approaches, so they have good income stream for next 100+ years.

 

[NoRoute]

Arguably those upgrades would mean more people using rail, and so HS2 would have had a better baseline.

Possibly it may have made it less unpalatable, as more people would have seen it as useful.

If there were already two high speed routes from London to Birmingham then yes there would, quite likely, be more rail passengers volumes between those destinations but, by virtue of having two high speed routes, the usefulness of HS2 in adding yet more capacity would be reduced, the WMCL capacity argument wouldn't hold water, the benefit for London to Birmingham would be marginal, and it's already pretty marginal as it is.

Therefore the whole context in which HS2 was designed would change, the need for capacity wouldn't be on the London to Birmingham route, it would be more about serving destinations further North, and that would lead to a redesign of the route, the need to swerve over towards Birmingham disappears, the route is pulled further to the East to connect and serve not only the more northern WCML destinations but also the East Midlands cities along the MML.

Rather than a route via the South East of Birmingham, it would favour a more central route nearer Rugby, tying into the Trent valley line and upto the MML at Leicester or further North. HS2 becomes more of a high speed South Midlands by-pass, fully integrated with the existing railway.

 

[The Ham]

If there were already two high speed routes from London to Birmingham then yes there would, quite likely, be more rail passengers volumes between those destinations but, by virtue of having two high speed routes, the usefulness of HS2 in adding yet more capacity would be reduced, the WMCL capacity argument wouldn't hold water, the benefit for London to Birmingham would be marginal, and it's already pretty marginal as it is.

Therefore the whole context in which HS2 was designed would change, the need for capacity wouldn't be on the London to Birmingham route, it would be more about serving destinations further North, and that would lead to a redesign of the route, the need to swerve over towards Birmingham disappears, the route is pulled further to the East to connect and serve not only the more northern WCML destinations but also the East Midlands cities along the MML.

Rather than a route via the South East of Birmingham, it would favour a more central route nearer Rugby, tying into the Trent valley line and upto the MML at Leicester or further North. HS2 becomes more of a high speed South Midlands by-pass, fully integrated with the existing railway.

Maybe, however it depends.

The question shouldn't really be, where has ample rail capacity when looking at what other rail capacity exists.

Rather it should be more about where is there enough potential demand from travel to justify new lines.

That would include looking at where there's a lot of road travel or air travel.

In reality as a country we should be building more than just HS2, at a very basic level it should be HS East Coast, HS to Scotland, HS SW & Wales, HS NE-NW, HS West Midlands to SW, and maybe even HS South Coast.

In the same way we should be building Crossrail 2, Crossrail Manchester, Crossrail Liverpool, Crossrail Leeds & York, etc. (That's not a full list or to say that "Crossrail" is the right sort of scheme, rather that there should be that sort if investment across many many places).

 

[Starmill]

The Germans would probably not have expanded Euston by building a (very expensive) new station on the side. Yes might have lengthened some platforms, but would have diverted all the suburban and middle distance trains to a new underground tunnel and station to make room.

They would also probably have erected thousands of apartments for rent (not sold them), over the approaches, so they have good income stream for next 100+ years.

This one has been discussed many times. Without a Euston rebuild how would you have modified the London Underground stations in order to cater for the enormous uplift in people arriving and going onto LU? What would have happened during any disruption on the classic lines, the station would have to be closed frequently for the purpose of crowd control?

 

[Matt P]

I was going to set aside any issues with the German planning system.

Personally I think something approximating to the Y network would have been proposed by the Germans. However I think they may have proposed the core route somewhere between Coventry and Rugby, with a spur connected to the existing Rugby to Birmingham line. Something not unlike the new line BR considered as part of the IC250 project.

Phase 2b may have been a route upgrade to the Birmingham-Derby line.

I also wonder if the Germans would have put their eggs all in one basket so to speak. Perhaps a high speed cut off from Kings Cross to Hitchen and some other cut offs for the ECML would have been considered as part of a route upgrade?

I understand that Curzon St and the proposals for Manchester Piccadilly and Leed are driven by lack of capacity at New Street and the existing stations in Manchester and Leeds. However if we'd approached transport planning like the Germans the existing stations would have been used. That isnt to say that more capacity wouldnt be provided but it would be done in a different way.

Firstly, we'd probably have to look beyond just HSL. I think we can look to Berlin Hauptbahnhof as an example of an alternative. A Birmingham crossrail could divert a lot of local services to an underground station (West Midlands S-Bahn?!).

In Manchester I'd like to think Picc-Vic would have happened if this were Germany, although perhaps not exactly as planned. Much of what is now Metrolink would perhaps be a Greater Manchester S-Bahn.

Out of interest the Chinese are on record as having said they could build the original, entire HS2 in 5 years and for half the budget

The Chinese would certainly have been a lot more efficient in dealing with objections to the project. Pretty sure most people would find their methods for doing so more objectionable than having a HSL pass close to their town or village.

 

[zwk500]

Phase 2b may have been a route upgrade to the Birmingham-Derby line.

Agree this would be possible.

I also wonder if the Germans would have put their eggs all in one basket so to speak. Perhaps a high speed cut off from Kings Cross to Hitchen and some other cut offs for the ECML would have been considered as part of a route upgrade?

It's worth pointing out German HSR doesn't enter the urban area to any significant degree. A German HS upgrade of the ECML wouldn't start until New Barnet/Potters Bar area.

I understand that Curzon St and the proposals for Manchester Piccadilly and Leed are driven by lack of capacity at New Street and the existing stations in Manchester and Leeds. However if we'd approached transport planning like the Germans the existing stations would have been used. That isnt to say that more capacity wouldnt be provided but it would be done in a different way.

How do you provide more capacity at those stations without significant demolition? (Again, remember Germany got the chance to rebuild a lot of it's network in the 50s and 60s with the post-war reconstruction).

Firstly, we'd probably have to look beyond just HSL. I think we can look to Berlin Hauptbahnhof as an example of an alternative. A Birmingham crossrail could divert a lot of local services to an underground station (West Midlands S-Bahn?!).

Tbf Moor Street basically already provides a Birmingham S-Bahn. The Cross-City line is kind of an awkward one but doesn't take up too much capacity at New Street. The biggest problem with New Street is that it's the central hub for XC. I don't see a 2-level X-shaped New Street being remotely viable, even with German engineering. Remember we didn't get half as flattened in WW2 and New Street is buried deep in a cutting to keep out of the way of the streets.
Berlin HbF is elevated, which makes it easier to add a second level.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Germans would probably not have expanded Euston by building a (very expensive) new station on the side. Yes might have lengthened some platforms, but would have diverted all the suburban and middle distance trains to a new underground tunnel and station to make room.

They wouldn’t, as there isn’t the space under Euston to do so.

They would also probably have erected thousands of apartments for rent (not sold them), over the approaches, so they have good income stream for next 100+ years.

They wouldn’t have done that either, for the same reason that HS2 aren’t going to - the sight lines from Primrose Hill are protected. HS2 will be maxing out development around the station and approaches as far as is allowable under the planning constraints.