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

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Norton Bridge was done.

 

[JamesT]

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0020/POST-PB-0020.pdf says the only real non-Metro implementation of moving block signalling has been a low capacity line in Kazakhstan.
Failing to do it on the WCML is part of what scuppered that upgrade a decade ago.
HS2 would probably actually be the best place to try it with as that will only be used by trains with the same performance characteristics, much more like the metro applications.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Norton Bridge was done.

No treatment for tumours, but ample for cancers. No budget for Community Outreach, large budget for CID Organised Crime Groups.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0020/POST-PB-0020.pdf says the only real non-Metro implementation of moving block signalling has been a low capacity line in Kazakhstan.
Failing to do it on the WCML is part of what scuppered that upgrade a decade ago.
HS2 would probably actually be the best place to try it with as that will only be used by trains with the same performance characteristics, much more like the metro applications.

This is why nothing in the UK is that worth it. The UK wants every technology proved beyond reasonable doubt at minute cost to the UK taxpayer, it thus follows that other countries who do invest/develop/invent new technologies get it first. By the time the UK thinks there's enough proof, the next generation of technology is within sight, so there is a permanent obsolescence with UK transport. For instance, if basic cab signalling was introduced in the 1980s to 1990s, we would be reaping the rewards of 140mph railways. Now the UK is looking at ERTMS seriously, the next generation systems of driverless technology and moving block is within sight.

 

[krus_aragon]

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).

Traffic management? Yes. I believe that's what the VHF timetable used to achieve the current level of service.

I fear that getting the first ERTMS Level-3 mainline installation designed and completed, along with your suggested flyover(s), may end up with a price tag not too far off building a separate line instead. On the basis of recent upgrade work, building a separate line would certainly be less disruptive to the existing service.

Apologies if my response was pointing the finger at you. But I'd appreciate your views on the incompetence you mention on the WCML. Is it the failure to complete Railtrack's modernisation, the fact that we're still sending freight along such a busy mixed-traffic railway, or something else?

 

[Peter Kelford]

I fear that getting the first ERTMS Level-3 mainline installation designed and completed, along with your suggested flyover(s), may end up with a price tag not too far off building a separate line instead. On the basis of recent upgrade work, building a separate line would certainly be less disruptive to the existing service.

The HS line is a plaster, based on an idea exploited many times by others, and which we know is suboptimal. Using the money to do moving block on the other hand, that would really put Britain in its rightful place on the world pecking order of railways - right at the top. Ultimately, the costs for ETCS will likely tally up to be the same, done later or done now.

Apologies if my response was pointing the finger at you. But I'd appreciate your views on the incompetence you mention on the WCML. Is it the failure to complete Railtrack's modernisation, the fact that we're still sending freight along such a busy mixed-traffic railway, or something else?

Our incompetence is that we fail to do either: a) jumping on the bandwagon quickly, moving fast when new technology comes out (e.g HSR in China, although even they are moving towards ) or b) Create and innovate, pushing the boundaries of existing technology (i.e. become a development lab of the world's railways, like France, Germany and to an increasing extent, China)

Long story short, we are lagging behind in terms of the developed countries of the world with a similar population. That said, we are arguably more dense in population and therefore better for railways than France, but they are the pioneers with Germany of 21st century rail.

 

[Ken H]

I would have voted Dunno. Politics in the UK will be volatile after 1st nov.
Will we have a general election before christmas? Will boris do enough to neutralise the brexit party? Will grand coalition of the left emerge or will they just squabble.
So is HS2 an electoral asset or liability? How the politicians assess that will affect what happens with HS2. To make it an asset then HS2 needs to sell itself and prove it can deliver on time and budget. The cross rail debacle hasnt helped one bit.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I would have voted Dunno. Politics in the UK will be volatile after 1st nov.
Will we have a general election before christmas? Will boris do enough to neutralise the brexit party? Will grand coalition of the left emerge or will they just squabble.
So is HS2 an electoral asset or liability? How the politicians assess that will affect what happens with HS2. To make it an asset then HS2 needs to sell itself and prove it can deliver on time and budget. The cross rail debacle hasnt helped one bit.

Agreed.

 

[AndrewE]

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.

You should know that joined-up thinking doesn't happen in the UK, in fact it is almost illegal, and transport planning has ceased to exist as a discipline!
Common sense is irrelevant when every scheme is examined in isolation to look for a viable "business case." We have a railway Network - well, we used to have one!

 

[nidave]

Why is there no "complete scheme in full"

 

[Peter Kelford]

You should know that joined-up thinking doesn't happen in the UK, in fact it is almost illegal, and transport planning has ceased to exist as a discipline!
Common sense is irrelevant when every scheme is examined in isolation to look for a viable "business case." We have a railway Network - well, we used to have one!

So true.

 

[PR1Berske]

Why is there no "complete scheme in full"

I used the options suggested by the poster I quoted in the OP.

 

[AndrewE]

Why is there no "complete scheme in full"

My vote too, so I used "another option," but unfortunately this could be taken to mean "a different scheme!"

 

[Peter Kelford]

My vote too, so I used "another option," but unfortunately this could be taken to mean "a different scheme!"

Because it's not going to happen.

 

[AndrewE]

I didn't realise that it was already such a certainty. Good that London Commuter relief line is likely to go ahead though...

 

[The Nomad]

The HS line is a plaster, based on an idea exploited many times by others, and which we know is suboptimal. Using the money to do moving block on the other hand, that would really put Britain in its rightful place on the world pecking order of railways - right at the top. Ultimately, the costs for ETCS will likely tally up to be the same, done later or done now.

Long story short, we are lagging behind in terms of the developed countries of the world with a similar population. That said, we are arguably more dense in population and therefore better for railways than France, but they are the pioneers with Germany of 21st century rail.

You're not making any sense. Moving block will not increase capacity whilst there is such a range of speed and stopping patterns on the WCML. The trains will still catch each other up. The only way to seriously increase capacity is to build more line.

Your talk of "put[ting] Britain in its rightful place on the world pecking order of railways - right at the top" is jingoistic nonsense. I'd just take in the top ten. The only time we were at the top was in the Victorian era when we built most of our railway lines. The way you and others speak suggests that if you'd been there then, you'd have opposed those lines you now think are so great, instead focusing on widening a few locks here and there.

And as for "we know is suboptimal", exactly which country's or countries' lines? France? Germany? Japan? China? I'd say they're pretty damn good.

All (AFAIK) of the world's best and fastest train lines are on segregated track. Exactly what HS2 is trying to do.

Why is there no "complete scheme in full"

Because it was created by someone staunchly opposed to HS2 and obstinately refuses to listen to reason.

 

[PR1Berske]

Because it was created by someone staunchly opposed to HS2 and obstinately refuses to listen to reason.

The options are based on those suggested by the user I quoted in the OP.

 

[The Ham]

Now I know this isn't overly scientific, but the general consensus (60.8%) appears to be HS2 will be built in part (London/Birmingham or Phase 1 or London/Birmingham & Crewe).

Cancelling it is ~15% whilst something else/some fudge makes up the remaining ~24%.

Even if we as a group are biased towards something happening you would need 3x the percentage voting for it to be cancelled for a referendum to even get to being a close vote.

The problem is that the vast majority of the population don't care so wouldn't turn out to vote, probably even if it were at the same time as a general election.

Chances are there would have to be a clear definition of what would happen with the money if HS2 was cancelled.

As such the question would be something like:

Do you support the building of HS2 or not, if not the funding wouldn't be available to be spent on something else?

Support/Oppose

Otherwise you'd have the same big red bus but with some other amount for the NHS which is unlikely to ever happen (OK probably not the exact same bus due to the time between the two).

 

[Peter Kelford]

You're not making any sense. Moving block will not increase capacity whilst there is such a range of speed and stopping patterns on the WCML. The trains will still catch each other up. The only way to seriously increase capacity is to build more line.

Your talk of "put[ting] Britain in its rightful place on the world pecking order of railways - right at the top" is jingoistic nonsense. I'd just take in the top ten. The only time we were at the top was in the Victorian era when we built most of our railway lines. The way you and others speak suggests that if you'd been there then, you'd have opposed those lines you now think are so great, instead focusing on widening a few locks here and there.

And as for "we know is suboptimal", exactly which country's or countries' lines? France? Germany? Japan? China? I'd say they're pretty damn good.

All (AFAIK) of the world's best and fastest train lines are on segregated track. Exactly what HS2 is trying to do.

Reason, my friend, is what dictates that we shouldn't just throw money and time into the bin. The cost per km is significantly higher what you'd expect in the rest of Europe, not to mention what can only be described as rather sluggish progress. Unfortunately, we have squandered the ideal window. I expect us to genuinely realise benefits in 2030, by which time we must consider what might happen. Do we want to consider new technologies around the corner and on the horizon or are we to consider just what is good for PR today? Gerard Fiennes in his now-famous 'I tried...' notes towards the end the concept of the 250mph railway, which he does not intend to be a part of. That said, for railway managers of the 1960s to have thought of that, other countries to have long realised something similar (PSE opened in 1981) and the UK to have done nothing shows how undeveloped we are. Unfortunately, we have too many bureaucracies and a genuine unwillingness to work with abroad (the old Victorian 'top of the world' sentiment that you mistakenly think I hold) to keep costs down for the same product, to speed up construction and to ultimately make HS2 a better line.

The government only started looking at it in earnest in 2009, when the could well have done so earlier, in the 1990s or even 1980s.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Do you support the building of HS2 or not, if not the funding wouldn't be available to be spent on something else?

Support/Oppose

I sadly agree here - to an extent. This is ultimately what forms one of the last pieces of my reasons against HS2 - utter despair at the sad state of affairs at the moment. I don't believe that HS2 can nor will be built and from a realistic point of view, there's little point building something which will be so skeletal in its use that it might as well be not built.

I would like to now state what I would like to see happen:

300km or 320km lines -

HS2 - London to Birmingham
HS3 - Birmingham to Manchester with triangle junction for Liverpool
HS4 - Manchester TransPennine
HS5 - Leeds to Newcastle via Vale of York
HS6 - Newcastle to Edinburgh to Scotland
HS7 - London to Leeds via Cambridge, Peterborough, Nottingham, Sheffield
HS8 - London to Cardiff via Bristol

Together with the 7 HS lines (admittedly some like HS2, HS3, HS4 would be branded under one name), the optimal arrangement would also see (like in France) trains travelling beyond the HS network, thus significantly upgrading lines like Cambridge-Norwich.

Together with this, I would propose adding solutions to bottlenecks. You might as well also consider creating a suburban rail network not dissimilar to Glasgow or one of the larger European cities, where trains are able to cross the city efficiently, but a single Crossrail line for London is actually pretty useless without some joined-up thinking. Simultaneously, there would be major electrification and re-signalling projects.

Long story short: building new lines only works as part of a strategy, often also needing planners to spend a bit more money to prevent some areas feeling underdeveloped, perhaps building or upgrading in places where the need for a relief line is not at 'critical'. However, I don't make these sorts of comments because the last time I did, it attracted a lot of criticism for being 'unrealistic', but HS2 as a standalone is equally unrealistic.

 

[The Planner]

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.

You can do that now and we plan to 3 minute headways on the WCML fasts and its still full.

 

[The Nomad]

I expect us to genuinely realise benefits in 2030, by which time we must consider what might happen. Do we want to consider new technologies around the corner and on the horizon or are we to consider just what is good for PR today?

I fully intend to be alive in 2030 and would like the benefits of a HSR. There is no magical new technology that is feasible in the next 20, 30, 50 years. With the exception of one experimental MagLev line in Japan and the LoopyHype concept, all HSR is on rails. Look at China that experimented with MagLev and abandoned it in favour and investing massively in HSR.

That said, for railway managers of the 1960s to have thought of that, other countries to have long realised something similar (PSE opened in 1981) and the UK to have done nothing shows how undeveloped we are. ... The government only started looking at it in earnest in 2009, when the could well have done so earlier, in the 1990s or even 1980s.

I fully agree with you there, but the solution is to get on with it, not mourn for a prior time.

 

[HSTEd]

With the exception of one experimental MagLev line in Japan

An operational experimental line and a full scale commercial line under construction?
It is currently projected to be opening about the same time as HS2, on HS2s existing timetable - let alone HS2s probable actual timetable.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I fully intend to be alive in 2030 and would like the benefits of a HSR. There is no magical new technology that is feasible in the next 20, 30, 50 years. With the exception of one experimental MagLev line in Japan and the LoopyHype concept, all HSR is on rails. Look at China that experimented with MagLev and abandoned it in favour and investing massively in HSR.

But we should hold out for five years and then build the latest technology at the cutting edge, rather than being exhausted after building a useless single HS line and again leaving us 1 generation behind the world.

 

[The Ham]

But we should hold out for five years and then build the latest technology at the cutting edge, rather than being exhausted after building a useless single HS line and again leaving us 1 generation behind the world.

Given that it's been 10 years since HS2 was announced and very little "new" transport technology has been created in that time.

Yes there's been progress with automated cars and electric cars are starting to be mainstream, but overall nothing significantly new and certainly nothing to remove the need for lots of rail capacity.

 

[The Nomad]

An operational experimental line and a full scale commercial line under construction?
It is currently projected to be opening about the same time as HS2, on HS2s existing timetable - let alone HS2s probable actual timetable.

Well okay, if you want to get into it. The Chuo Shinkansen is indeed under construction and roughly parallels the original Tōkaidō Line which was built about 60 years ago. It's now at full capacity with 16-car trains. They're building the Chuo Shinkansen basically through the Japanese Alps in a straighter line to be faster. It's also currently projected to cost about £70b for the 285km line.

The reason they're building this is the overwhelming success of the HSR. We're not even at the 1960's point, never mind the 2030 point. Also you're obsessed by the HS2 budget, and the Chuo Shinkansen is at least £70b for half the length of HS2.

But as I wrote, CURRENTLY there is only really the experimental test track in Japan and the (rubbish) Pudong Airport link. IF the Japanese MagLev line is brilliant then I would fully support building one in Britain, but we certainly can't wait till 2030ish to find out and then start planning one. We needed to start building HSR in Britain decades ago. HS2 is our chance to build something now.

And as you ignored it, I'll write it again. China a decade ago looked into building from scratch MagLev HSR and rejected it in favour of traditional HSR and look at how good that is. I've been on it. If that's antiquated technology, then that'll do me fine.

But we should hold out for five years and then build the latest technology at the cutting edge, rather than being exhausted after building a useless single HS line and again leaving us 1 generation behind the world.

But it won't be 1 generation behind the world, especially not in 5 years' time. Everywhere in the world that has an operating HSR line (or opening within 5 years) has it on rails!

 

[Peter Kelford]

But it won't be 1 generation behind the world, especially not in 5 years' time. Everywhere in the world that has an operating HSR line (or opening within 5 years) has it on rails!

Once the new technology comes out, we will have just 'reset' our 'countdown clock' before we build something new, so it's about keeping the money for the next generation products.

The other more important thing is to think about the fact that an isolated line sees very little benefit.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Just think about it as 6-tracking the WCML south of Rugby / Crewe (depending which bits go ahead). It makes total sense then. The journey time improvements are an incidental benefit.

This gives me an idea. "Scrap" HS2 (but still keep building it on the sly), and then create the "WCML Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester & Liverpool Bypass" that offers a "speed & capacity increase on not only the new bypass line but the WCML as well". Then when it's built, it can be a "success" and an extention to Leeds is built.

 

[The Ham]

Once the new technology comes out, we will have just 'reset' our 'countdown clock' before we build something new, so it's about keeping the money for the next generation products.

The other more important thing is to think about the fact that an isolated line sees very little benefit.

The problem is that which new tech do we go for, using the example from home entertainment Betamax or VHS?

Do we go meglev or hyperloop?

If we back the wrong one is it possible to switch to the other (not in the case of VHS), or are both wrong and we've sat on our hands for 50 years and still have nothing to show for it or worse for something which should be good but has been replaced by something else (minidisk anyone?), or doesn't get as much use as it could have done because of the limitations of the technology (Hovercrafts)?

Anyway the by expanding the market (providing more capacity) then ask that happens is that we make the business case for the next generation technology better. In that if there's currently a market of 13 million between London and the West Midlands and in 15 years time that's reached ~19 million then if 50% of people switch to the new travel option then there's still ~9.5 million on the old (which isn't that far behind what it is now). However by being able to use through services there's going to be few who will travel to Birmingham to change from meglev to classic/High Speed Rail to get to (say) Manchester or Coventry, as such the paths will just be repurposed for those places which don't have the maglev connections

There's few people saying "you know what I'm not going to buy a new car as self driving cars are just around the corner" as they will benefit from the new car until such time as the self drive technology had matured a bit.

Even if meglev is the correct technology, it's going to take a fairly long time before it's covering enough to make a serious dent in the numbers wishing to travel by rail (even high speed). If for no other reason than it is unlikely that you could run 10tph with 1,100 seats from day one, so the capacity available isn't going to be as high, leaving that lots would still need to use the existing services.

There's still the issue of had anyone managed to create a reliable meglev junction? If not then we're stuck with single lines and therefore fixed service calling points or reduced capacity.

Also the journey time improvements start to fall away, in that a 500mph max speed doesn't cut a journey of an hour to 30 minutes, rather is cut to 45 minutes.

As such travel between London and Manchester isn't going to be that much more attractive than on HS2. As such unless there's through ticketing (like the London travelcard on traditional rail tickets or even Guildford to Gateshead) then the cost could be prohibitive for those not right next to the meglev stations they wish to travel between.

I'm summary there's a risk of doing nothing and by doing something, although there's a risk, the risk is smaller and could actually help with the business case of the new technology.

 

[HSTEd]

Well okay, if you want to get into it. The Chuo Shinkansen is indeed under construction and roughly parallels the original Tōkaidō Line which was built about 60 years ago. It's now at full capacity with 16-car trains.

This is not directly comparable to HS2 however, since an examination of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen timetable demonstrates only something on order of 11-12 trains per hour.
It is also not directly comparable because HS2 is fundamentally not a Shinkansen project - it is much closer to the conception of a High Speed line in Europe (few stations and emphasising very long runs).

They're building the Chuo Shinkansen basically through the Japanese Alps in a straighter line to be faster. It's also currently projected to cost about £70b for the 285km line.

This is not really to do with the technology, but given that the line is constructed through multiple highly congested urban areas, almost entirely in deep tunnels, in Japan, we would expect quite a high price......

The reason they're building this is the overwhelming success of the HSR. We're not even at the 1960's point, never mind the 2030 point. Also you're obsessed by the HS2 budget, and the Chuo Shinkansen is at least £70b for half the length of HS2.

I am not "obsessed" by the budget.
After all I am the one proposing a scheme that is entirely in tunnels... which I fully accept will be somewhat more expensive.
I want the damn thing to be built and work, and to be built on time and on budget - whatever that budget is.

HS2 is a disaster that will be delivered years late and will probably cost as much as a simpler but more highly engineered underground solution.

Also given the maximum speed for conventional Japanese trains is about 80mph or so, we are a long way past 1960s Japan......

But as I wrote, CURRENTLY there is only really the experimental test track in Japan and the (rubbish) Pudong Airport link. IF the Japanese MagLev line is brilliant then I would fully support building one in Britain, but we certainly can't wait till 2030ish to find out and then start planning one. We needed to start building HSR in Britain decades ago. HS2 is our chance to build something now.

So you argue that HS2 is a ready-to-go off-the-shelf solution?
But it isn't.

Bespoke trains used nowhere else, with totally random non standard platform heights, a ludicrous speed profile (everyone has given up on 360km/h, let alone 400km/h), and a ridiculously over-complicated project schedule with thousands of moving parts.

If they wanted an off-the-shelf scheme it would look nothing like this.

And as you ignored it, I'll write it again. China a decade ago looked into building from scratch MagLev HSR and rejected it in favour of traditional HSR and look at how good that is.

The Chinese HSR network where bridges just fall down at random?
And it is only rapidly built because anyone who questions the party line, technology or routing simply gets disappeared?

But it won't be 1 generation behind the world, especially not in 5 years' time. Everywhere in the world that has an operating HSR line (or opening within 5 years) has it on rails!

But it won't be built in five years will it?
It won't even be built in ten in all likelihood.

The other more important thing is to think about the fact that an isolated line sees very little benefit.

But this simply isn't true.
Otherwise metro lines would bring very little actual benefit.

MagLev solutions are so much faster than everything else that the time penalty from changing trains simply melts away.
When you can get to Manchester in 35 minutes, waiting a few minutes for your train there makes little difference to you - you will still do it.

 

[MarkyT]

This is not really to do with the technology, but given that the line is constructed through multiple highly congested urban areas, almost entirely in deep tunnels, in Japan, we would expect quite a high price......

I have read the Chuo alignment has been designed to be fully compatible with conventional rail technology should the operator decide to ditch the maglev. With rails, the route could still be very fast due to the distance saving going through the mountain tunnels and also the avoidance of tight curves, down to 2500m radius on the original route. I'm concerned that people travelling from the far west of Japan will be faced with a change at Osaka to get the fastest journey time to Tokyo, instead of being able to use the through San'yō line trains that currently traverse the coastal Tōkaidō line to access the capital. How will that enforced change impact the attractiveness of journeys compared to the alternative of air all the way?