HS2 in the press

[GCR]

26 minutes to the Birmingham International/Airport Complex and then something like 42 to London, so 68 minutes.

Why are all HS2 journey times start to stop with no allowances whatsoever, not even to get to/from the station entrance. Presumably access roads will be provided so you can alight from your car on the platform next to an open door and hope the train departs immediately once on board. None of this 'doors close a minute before the train departs stuff'. Your driverless car will then depart for its next journey. I trust the platforms will be designed for this.

 

[GCR]

They have and Ive seen them, they would have been a requirement of the Hybrid Bill.

The attached Hybrid Bill plan looks like it was drawn by an architect, not a traffic engineer. The large roundabout is a classic of how not to do do it and it should guarantee queues if forecasts are to be believed.

 

[6Gman]

Most long distance journeys are not between HS2 station cities.

I rather suspect they are ...

 

[The Planner]

The attached Hybrid Bill plan looks like it was drawn by an architect, not a traffic engineer. The large roundabout is a classic of how not to do do it and it should guarantee queues if forecasts are to be believed.

That is as may be, but the plans are there regardless. Many aspects of hybrid bill design has been changed, thats what the additional provisions were for initially.

 

[The Ham]

I rather suspect they are ...

... And even if they are not (which is doubtful as most people on most lines which serve London are heading to/from London), what does that matter?

If 30% of rail passengers so using the WCML then that's 30% of the existing trains which can be used by others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The attached Hybrid Bill plan looks like it was drawn by an architect, not a traffic engineer. The large roundabout is a classic of how not to do do it and it should guarantee queues if forecasts are to be believed.

The problem is trying to get 4 arms on the northern ( assuming North is to the top of the page) side of the junction.

There could be an argument for having three smaller roundabouts with two overbriges, however given that these could then be at an angle it would push the price up. It could also take up more land space.

 

[MarkyT]

The attached Hybrid Bill plan looks like it was drawn by an architect, not a traffic engineer. The large roundabout is a classic of how not to do do it and it should guarantee queues if forecasts are to be believed.

Those kind of big roundabouts can work reasonably well if provided with signals all round, then any dominant flows don't lock out others at peak times, as can be the case with default roundabout rules. Doubtless drivers will get annoyed with them for being there at all, but actually they can be quite efficient, with fairly fast phasing at each signal position alternating between only two merging flows.

 

[Voglitz]

They have and Ive seen them, they would have been a requirement of the Hybrid Bill.

The stations do not seem to have been designed (as of May 2016). Detailed road designs don't tend to need acts of parliament, so those in the hybrid bill for HS2 might be considered somewhat lorem ipsum in character.

Why are all HS2 journey times start to stop with no allowances whatsoever, not even to get to/from the station entrance. Presumably access roads will be provided so you can alight from your car on the platform next to an open door and hope the train departs immediately once on board. None of this 'doors close a minute before the train departs stuff'. Your driverless car will then depart for its next journey. I trust the platforms will be designed for this.

For those without driverless vehicles, presumably there could be on-platform valets to park up their cars, and bring them back up to the platform, for the end of the return commute... 19 miles back to Binley Woods, etc.

 

[The Planner]

But those designs I suspect are more than suitable for calculating what you are trying to do when you suggested they didn't even exist.

 

[HSTEd]

Why are all HS2 journey times start to stop with no allowances whatsoever, not even to get to/from the station entrance. Presumably access roads will be provided so you can alight from your car on the platform next to an open door and hope the train departs immediately once on board. None of this 'doors close a minute before the train departs stuff'. Your driverless car will then depart for its next journey. I trust the platforms will be designed for this.

Why can't we just use the same tech that means Coventry station needs no allowances at all either.
In this case there is no need for such allowances as they will be similar in both cases and will thus null out to a first approximation

 

[WatcherZero]

Final options for Euston redevelopment transporting material by rail rather than Road (originally planned) due to Camden council complaints presented to Transport Secretary. The two favoured options would result in £9.5m of additional cost and unmitigated 6 months delay.

The two favoured options are to decommission either platform 13 or platform 18 and use it as a freight platform offpeak and overnight. This would remove 16.7% of lorry trips and result in decongestion benefits of £21.75m under the medium congestion scenario or £49.99m under high congestion scenario.

Further using 8m cubed concrete delivery trucks rather than 6m could reduce lorry movements by 6% though there is a concern whether that many larger lorries would be available.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...Materials_by_rail_-_ESSB_report_July_2016.pdf

 

[NotATrainspott]

The stations do not seem to have been designed (as of May 2016). Detailed road designs don't tend to need acts of parliament, so those in the hybrid bill for HS2 might be considered somewhat lorem ipsum in character.

My understanding is that the Environmental Statement design is a feasible baseline that can be used to calculate things like waste tonnages and lorry routes. The railway aspects are mostly fixed by the Hybrid Bill although it would be possible to use standard legal procedures for smaller schemes (the TWAO process) to make amendments, as demonstrated by how Stratford International was added onto the HS1 scheme later on. The architectural design of the stations and the design of the non-railway bits can be amended through standard planning procedures.

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't concrete be an example of a material that could easily be delivered by rail?

A relatively short train could transport in concrete equivalent to a huge number of lorry loads easily enough - and you could probably form a train of concrete wagons into a top and tail formation with enough power that it could keep up with passenger trains in the approach. There is still an unused path from the Blackpool trains isn't there?

 

[The Planner]

You don't need a Blackpool path to do it, they would have to be top and tailed anyway as you cannot run anything round and even with both under power they will not keep up with a passenger up the bank. It will all happen in P18.

 

[HSTEd]

You don't need a Blackpool path to do it, they would have to be top and tailed anyway as you cannot run anything round and even with both under power they will not keep up with a passenger up the bank. It will all happen in P18.

A half dozen concrete wagons top and tailed with Class 92s and through wired for MU working might keep up

 

[swt_passenger]

A half dozen concrete wagons top and tailed with Class 92s and through wired for MU working might keep up

Delivering the bulk and unmixed components of concrete by rail is a completely different scenario to delivering ready mixed concrete to where it has to be placed.

On a large project you need just in time deliveries of exactly the right mix, often to be pumped across the site.

I don't think a train into one specific siding would help much with that.

 

[HSTEd]

Don't large projects like this normally have a batching plant positioned on site?
I swear I've seen portable ones before.

 

[edwin_m]

Crossrail has a concrete batching plant on a train, but unfortunately not to UK loading gauge.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/art...he-arrival-of-465-metre-long-concreting-train

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail has a concrete batching plant on a train, but unfortunately not to UK loading gauge.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/art...he-arrival-of-465-metre-long-concreting-train

It's just concreting slab track only, at a defined location easily reached by a pipe connected to the front of the train, and that is a fairly trivial job compared to rebuilding Euston.

 

[Phil.]

Why are all HS2 journey times start to stop with no allowances whatsoever, not even to get to/from the station entrance. Presumably access roads will be provided so you can alight from your car on the platform next to an open door and hope the train departs immediately once on board. None of this 'doors close a minute before the train departs stuff'. Your driverless car will then depart for its next journey. I trust the platforms will be designed for this.

Ah, you've just spotted the flaw in quoted rail times. Travel to the station, allow enough time to collect ticket and board the train. Arrive at destination station, travel to actual destination.
It all adds up y'know.

 

[edwin_m]

Ah, you've just spotted the flaw in quoted rail times. Travel to the station, allow enough time to collect ticket and board the train. Arrive at destination station, travel to actual destination.
It all adds up y'know.

Remember to add 2-4 hours to all quoted flight times as well.

 

[WatcherZero]

Don't large projects like this normally have a batching plant positioned on site?
I swear I've seen portable ones before.

Report explains that there isn't enough room on site to erect one as they normally would, so will have to be delivered by road.

 

[HSTEd]

Report explains that there isn't enough room on site to erect one as they normally would, so will have to be delivered by road.

This project is a logistical nightmare.

 

[The Ham]

Report explains that there isn't enough room on site to erect one as they normally would, so will have to be delivered by road.

Although I would guess, that given the scale of the project, that the contractor could be keen to set up their own batching plant relatively close by so as to minimise the distance they needed to move the ready mixed concrete.

If for no other reason as to reduce the total number of lorries needed (i.e. a plant 10 minutes away needs about half the lorries that one 20 minutes away needs). It also means that the total number of miles driven would be less as the dry goods can be delivered in fewer lorries then the ready to use concrete (as some of the bulk, generally about 10% - 15%, of mixed concrete is water).

 

[Trog]

How far can you pump concrete? Could a batching train or at least say a Redlands train of aggregate feeding a fixed batching plant sit on one of the backing out roads with just the cement powder delivered by road?

 

[Phil.]

Remember to add 2-4 hours to all quoted flight times as well.

But we're being told to travel by train nowadays. It's friendlier on the environment they say.

 

[najaB]

How far can you pump concrete?

A quick Internet search indicates that 1km is within reason, maybe as far as 1.5km.

 

[Deerfold]

But we're being told to travel by train nowadays. It's friendlier on the environment they say.

Who's telling you that? I haven't seen the government saying it recently.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But we're being told to travel by train nowadays. It's friendlier on the environment they say.

How is this relevant?

 

[WatcherZero]

Government response to ORR consultation on PR18/CP6.

Give more prominence to HS2 making the most of the investment and integrating it in to the existing network in CP6 plans. (Spend more on HS2 supporting infrastructure).

We agree with the spending plans and performance review by route idea.

We want more support for private investment in Infrastructure.

Government will be more restrained in financing due to attempts to reduce national debt.

Want a higher level HLOS strategy (lol) that is more flexible, based on a steady state, some major infrastructure projects e.g. Crossrail and keeping the network ticking along efficiently. Improvements will then be authorised when they are ready to be authorised and in step with franchising, rather than in bulk through CP plans. Wants three separate pools of plans; What Ministers think is worth developing, what has been developed to a stage worth designing in detail, whats designed and worth delivering. Those that are considered worthy will then be further tested by their impact on the supply chain/disruption.

Want a PR18 process that determines outputs by quality e.g. more capacity, more speed, rather than specifying specific projects to input. Also considering whether in light of regulation on a route basis its worth setting trajectories rather than outcomes.

Dft is considering and talking to ORR about a change in station licensing and access charging.

Want ORR to consider route based charging to better align with sources of financing (e.g. devolved governments, private investment).

Government planning from 2016 budget date to create a levy on new open access operators so that they contribute to the socially and economically important but unprofitable services that franchises have to fund. Understand and want to avoid harming passengers and creating perverse incentives.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...onse-to-orr-initial-consultation-response.pdf



All that could mean quite a shakeup, ORR being encouraged to fund HS2 integrating projects, change to CP settlement so that it would basically be paying for status quo while other improvement projects would be individually authorised and paid for.

 

[Altnabreac]

Government response to ORR consultation on PR18/CP6.

Give more prominence to HS2 making the most of the investment and integrating it in to the existing network in CP6 plans. (Spend more on HS2 supporting infrastructure).

We agree with the spending plans and performance review by route idea.

We want more support for private investment in Infrastructure.

Government will be more restrained in financing due to attempts to reduce national debt.

Want a higher level HLOS strategy (lol) that is more flexible, based on a steady state, some major infrastructure projects e.g. Crossrail and keeping the network ticking along efficiently. Improvements will then be authorised when they are ready to be authorised and in step with franchising, rather than in bulk through CP plans. Wants three separate pools of plans; What Ministers think is worth developing, what has been developed to a stage worth designing in detail, whats designed and worth delivering. Those that are considered worthy will then be further tested by their impact on the supply chain/disruption.

Want a PR18 process that determines outputs by quality e.g. more capacity, more speed, rather than specifying specific projects to input. Also considering whether in light of regulation on a route basis its worth setting trajectories rather than outcomes.

Dft is considering and talking to ORR about a change in station licensing and access charging.

Want ORR to consider route based charging to better align with sources of financing (e.g. devolved governments, private investment).

Government planning from 2016 budget date to create a levy on new open access operators so that they contribute to the socially and economically important but unprofitable services that franchises have to fund. Understand and want to avoid harming passengers and creating perverse incentives.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...onse-to-orr-initial-consultation-response.pdf



All that could mean quite a shakeup, ORR being encouraged to fund HS2 integrating projects, change to CP settlement so that it would basically be paying for status quo while other improvement projects would be individually authorised and paid for.

Basically DfT telling ORR to keep its nose out of enhancements thank you very much.

Last CP5 decisions did have some bizarre circumstances of schemes that Network Rail wanted and government wanted being turned down by ORR, equally ORR insisting on other schemes that government weren't keen on.