HS2: RailUK Opinion Poll: what do you think will happen?

[RLBH]

A brand new HS line paralleling the M1 might as well be an extension of a Birmingham or Cambridge route unless you plan to serve Luton, Milton Keynes and Northampton.

Getting to the East Midlands via Birmingham or Cambridge really doesn't make sense. If you drove that way, you'd be thought mad.

The Birmingham route is defensible as an intermediate measure, as the line via Birmingham is being built anyway to serve Manchester and Scotland. With a huge speed improvement over existing lines, it's still faster despite going the long way around.

If you were building a direct line from London to the East Midlands, you wouldn't stop in the middle, whether for Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Cambridge or Birmingham. Stopping high speed lines at every large town makes them pointless. If Cambridge needs a higher-speed line, it needs to justify that on its' own merits.

What might well make sense is if, once HS2 takes the load off the southern ECML, the Cambridge line is improved to allow 125mph (or even 140mph) operation with Azumas. But this is straying into hypothetical territory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, if we eventually get nuclear powered trains and there is a meltdown, then said equation of Einstein's will be most appropriate!

We already have nuclear powered trains, the nuclear power is just sat somewhere away from the railway with a load of wires connecting them up.

 

[ashkeba]

Getting to the East Midlands via Birmingham or Cambridge really doesn't make sense. If you drove that way, you'd be thought mad.

To the contrary, enough people drive London- Cambridge- Peterborough (which is on the border of the East Midlands which starts at Lincolnshire and Rutland) that the last bit is currently being upgraded to motorway. I know it has big railway history but Derby is not in the centre of the East Midlands!

Nevertheless, I agree it seems daft to send early high speed rail lines that way for a stop within 100 miles of London.

 

[camflyer]

I just think a high speed route serving Cambridge would be beneficial for East Anglia as it is the fastest growing region in the country. A brand new HS line paralleling the M1 might as well be an extension of a Birmingham or Cambridge route unless you plan to serve Luton, Milton Keynes and Northampton.

I like the idea of a HS line from London (maybe to Stratford for a link to HS1) to Stansted, Cambridge and northwards. Even better if it could link up with Crossrail 2 or extend south to Gatwick and Brighton.

 

[reddragon]

My bet is on Old Oak Common to Birmingham, and slower speed, with passive provision for Manchester arm, but not Leeds.

The Birmingham - Leeds option should be dead in the water as it serves too low a value. Instead replace it with a Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - East HS3 which will benefit the whole country.

 

[woodhouse122]

Just scrap it all together as it will be unafordable,especially with the fallout from Brexit,Use the money saved for electrification work

 

[The Nomad]

What a terrible poll, but not a surprise from the creator. Presumably they will be along at some point to state that no one expects the route to be completed in full.

FWIW, I'd want to see better connected stations, but that's not really HS2's fault. Why Sheffield didn't want to be on the route, I'll never fully understand.

 

[EM2]

It will be a fudge, because that's what happens when Government get too closely involved.

 

[PR1Berske]

What a terrible poll, but not a surprise from the creator. Presumably they will be along at some point to state that no one expects the route to be completed in full.

FWIW, I'd want to see better connected stations, but that's not really HS2's fault. Why Sheffield didn't want to be on the route, I'll never fully understand.

My options are taken from the options suggested by another forum member quoted in the OP.

 

[The Nomad]

My options are taken from the options suggested by another forum member quoted in the OP.

And that makes it better because? You made the poll and you chose the options, whether you lifted them from someone else is irrelevant. You have repeatedly ignored anyone challenging your view of HS2 and now you've created a poll where there is no option for people to state that they think it will be built as planned.

 

[paul332]

Combine Phase 1a and NPR with HS2 to Manchester and Leeds served via Manchester or preferably a triangular junction southeast thereof. London-Leeds needs its own capacity so will need to bypass or non-stop Manchester. This solves the west coast capacity issue and the Northern Powerhouse. Limit the speed to 300 or 320Kph. Electrify and upgrade the MML to satisfy the midland destinations to Sheffield, and tweak east coast routes as necessary to improve capacity; perhaps selectively upgrade to 225Kph.

 

[camflyer]

Isn't th problem with combing the schemes the HS2 phase 1a is well advanced in planning while NRP is still at the crayon stage

 

[The Planner]

Just scrap it all together as it will be unafordable,especially with the fallout from Brexit,Use the money saved for electrification work

What makes you think that the money would go to the conventional railway? Its more than likely to just get removed off the books entirely as money that doesnt need to be spent.

 

[TommyL4]

I believe the Japanese have always managed to reverse all Tokaido Shinkansen services at Tokyo station with only 6 platforms. Given HS2 will also have 6 platfroms at OOC, is there a specific reason why it's not possible to terminate all HS2 services at OOC if the OOC-Euston section is to be dropped?

 

[HSTEd]

Tokaido Shinkansen only has 10-11 trains per hours.

 

[class26]

What makes you think that the money would go to the conventional railway? Its more than likely to just get removed off the books entirely as money that doesnt need to be spent.

It has been stated numerous times that if HS2 is scrapped the money will NOT be used for alternate schemes

 

[Peter Kelford]

I think it will be somewhere between a fudge and London to Birmingham. In short:

• 330 km/h or something farcical like 321km/h so that the government can say 'fastest train in Europe'
• Nothing like the 18tph advertised.
• Only built where limited use exists - i.e. not alleviating the bottlenecks, just an eight track where not really needed
• Time taken to travel from departure point to new terminus at OOC loses the time saving of the HS line.
• No real options for travelling beyond to connect places in need of connection: e.g. Birmingham to Liverpool
• Make Scotland feel locked out - more reason for independence.

 

[The Planner]

Nothing like the 18tph advertised. Only built where limited use exists - i.e. not alleviating the bottlenecks, just an eight track where not really needed

Well logic dictates that if you only build the first phase and ergo the initial number of platforms at the southern end then you are never going to get 18tph. Even if it only is phase 1 then you have alleviated the biggest bottleneck so I'm a bit confused by your comments.

 

[RLBH]

It has been stated numerous times that if HS2 is scrapped the money will NOT be used for alternate schemes

Fundamentally, that's how government budgeting works. The Treasury has agreed to provide funding for Project X on the basis of its' business case. If Project X is cancelled, for whatever reason, the relevant department doesn't still get the money to spend on Projects P, Q and R - the Treasury keeps it. If the department responsible for Project X can demonstrate that Projects P, Q, and R have a favourable business case, the Treasury may well agree to fund them. But someone else might well come up with a better business case, or have more political backing (giving the NHS a bit of money is always good politics), or else the national debt might need paying down.

 

[MarkyT]

Time taken to travel from departure point to new terminus at OOC loses the time saving of the HS line.

For many central London passengers that will be the case. For others going to and from Heathrow and the Thames Valley heading west OOC will be very convenient, but think how long and expensive a taxi ride from OOC to the west end or city will be however. Only going to OOC in London is utterly absurd, unless as a very short term expediency. The Euston bound TBMs will have to be launched at the same time as others heading north from OOC or else a further extension eastward might become practically impossible in the future once the OOC trench is full of trains and passengers. Such a strategy would ensure the most possible project cost with the least benefit, in other words sabotage to make the project fail and undermine confidence in future rail projects as well. I really don't know why the Euston segment has become so contentious, as most of it is in bored tunnels, and the land has all been acquired at the terminus and most demolition already accomplished. The social housing impact is unfortunate but limited and the fact that many people affected may have to move a long way out of London is far more to do with housing policy generally than railways and transport concerns.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Well logic dictates that if you only build the first phase and ergo the initial number of platforms at the southern end then you are never going to get 18tph. Even if it only is phase 1 then you have alleviated the biggest bottleneck so I'm a bit confused by your comments.

Not really. The bottleneck could be far better managed through a moving block system. If we assumed that we could operate one train per 3 minutes each way on the WCML fast lines (e.g. with ETCS L3), we are talking quite simply about a fairly major capacity upgrade. Now, if we used the £100 billion to upgrade signalling and P-way properly, large swathes of the country would be better off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really. The bottleneck could be far better managed through a moving block system. If we assumed that we could operate one train per 3 minutes each way on the WCML fast lines

...then it would collapse to an even greater extent when someone breathed on it.

 

[krus_aragon]

Not really. The bottleneck could be far better managed through a moving block system. If we assumed that we could operate one train per 3 minutes each way on the WCML fast lines (e.g. with ETCS L3), we are talking quite simply about a fairly major capacity upgrade

That would be true as long as the trains on the fast lines are maintaining the same speed and stopping patterns as each other. If you have any train making a stop that others don't, that headway is going to evaporate quickly with the train in rear doing 125mph.

If you're going to keep the fast lines for non-stop services at 3-4 minute intervals, then that leaves a lot of semi-fast, stopping, and freight services to fit on the slow lines.

 

[Tobbes]

Not really. The bottleneck could be far better managed through a moving block system. If we assumed that we could operate one train per 3 minutes each way on the WCML fast lines (e.g. with ETCS L3), we are talking quite simply about a fairly major capacity upgrade. Now, if we used the £100 billion to upgrade signalling and P-way properly, large swathes of the country would be better off.

Hmm, because moving block has successfully been implemented on mixed traffic mainlines of the complexit and importance of the WCML all aroudn the world. I dare say that at some point ECTS Level 3 + full moving block will mature sufficiently to work on WCML - but I'd expect to be travelling to Manchester in 68 mins on HS2 well before it does.

How many times does the analysis need to be rerun to convince folks that HS2 is the best medium term solution to capacity on the WCML south, with positive impacts from day one for LDHS services to/from London for the whole WCML service cluster?

 

[Peter Kelford]

...then it would collapse to an even greater extent when someone breathed on it.

Can you please provide some sort of evidence that other countries haven't managed to run a railway with moving blocks on a mainline? Similarly, fixed signals would stay in place for emergency use.

best medium term

At £100 billion, this sort of railway CANNOT be just medium term. Countries which jumped on the HS wagon in the 80s and 90s for a similar cost get 30 or 40 extra years out of the railway, and new HS lines just don't cost that much per km any more.

In short, our own lack of ability to build a railway quickly and/or cost effectively is forcing us to make this a longer term solution.

That would be true as long as the trains on the fast lines are maintaining the same speed and stopping patterns as each other. If you have any train making a stop that others don't, that headway is going to evaporate quickly with the train in rear doing 125mph.

If you're going to keep the fast lines for non-stop services at 3-4 minute intervals, then that leaves a lot of semi-fast, stopping, and freight services to fit on the slow lines.

Ever heard of traffic management? The trains stopping (say at Milton Keynes) could get put onto the slow lines at a new flying junction at Leighton Buzzard for instance. Ultimately, pointing the finger at the suggestion doesn't help because it just covers up our own incompetence when compared to other developed nations (and even developing countries).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you please provide some sort of evidence that other countries haven't managed to run a railway with moving blocks on a mainline?

I think it's usually the case that someone suggesting a hypothesis (i.e. in favour of it) provides evidence of its successful application on a 4-track mixed-use mainline, no? Proving the absence of something tends to be quite difficult.

(There aren't many 4-track mixed-use mainlines around the world like the WCML by the way...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ever heard of traffic management? The trains stopping (say at Milton Keynes) could get put onto the slow lines at a new flying junction at Leighton Buzzard for instance. Ultimately, pointing the finger at the suggestion doesn't help because it just covers up our own incompetence when compared to other developed nations (and even developing countries).

Grade separating Ledburn would certainly be of benefit (and it's in a field, which would mean there would be little difficulty or objection provided the farmer was offered a decent sum for his land) but I doubt it'd free up any more than about one path an hour (probably half a path per fast-line-to-Leighton EMU, which I think is 2tph) - if that. It would certainly provide a resilience upgrade, though.

This is the kind of work which should be done regardless of HS2 - it's not massively different in concept to Norton Bridge.

 

[Tobbes]

(There aren't many 4-track mixed-use mainlines around the world like the WCML by the way...)

Can we think of any?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Grade separating Ledburn would certainly be of benefit (and it's in a field, which would mean there would be little difficulty or objection provided the farmer was offered a decent sum for his land) but I doubt it'd free up any more than about one path an hour (probably half a path per fast-line-to-Leighton EMU, which I think is 2tph) - if that. It would certainly provide a resilience upgrade, though.

This is the kind of work which should be done regardless of HS2 - it's not massively different in concept to Norton Bridge.

But won't be done because of the vanity project concept. That's ultimately what HS2 will be. The gritty, yet important work that comes with no PR glamour needs to be done over the famous, big ticket jobs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can we think of any?

The only other ones I can think of are in the UK, i.e. the MML, GWML and ECML.

I can think of 4-track mainlines in Germany but these are all segregated i.e. S-bahn on the second pair, so would be more like south of Watford were the mainline bit 2-track with the completely separate LO bit.