HS2 Relaunch

[YorkshireBear]

IMO the whole HS2 idea is a load of c..p: I think there are better ways of spending £50bn than shaving a mere 10 minutes off a train journey and I think the entire scheme should be scrapped.

Dave

Ill cancel the GWML upgrade at same time then.

 

[trainplan1]

IMO the whole HS2 idea is a load of c..p: I think there are better ways of spending £50bn than shaving a mere 10 minutes off a train journey and I think the entire scheme should be scrapped.

Dave

IMO the whole HS2 is a load of wonderful excellent thinking. I can't think of anything else better to spend £50bn than shaving 10 minutes off a train journey and I think the entire scheme should go through unabated.

*Just imagining if those with a positive view on HS2 were taking this simple approach. Worrying isn't it?

Ill cancel the GWML upgrade at same time then.

Please do, it's outrageous to spend all that money on new trains, infrastructure etc so a few business people in the west country can get to London quicker and have a seat. Why don't we just move Bristol closer to London because that's all this GWML upgrade is going to benefit. I don't care if you tell me that there are other places in the west country, my head in the sand approach means I'm right and this money should be used elsewhere.

*Again, a simplistic approach always works...

 

[YorkshireBear]

IMO the whole HS2 is a load of wonderful excellent thinking. I can't think of anything else better to spend £50bn than shaving 10 minutes off a train journey and I think the entire scheme should go through unabated.

*Just imagining if those with a positive view on HS2 were taking this simple approach. Worrying isn't it?

Please do, it's outrageous to spend all that money on new trains, infrastructure etc so a few business people in the west country can get to London quicker and have a seat. Why don't we just move Bristol closer to London because that's all this GWML upgrade is going to benefit. I don't care if you tell me that there are other places in the west country, my head in the sand approach means I'm right and this money should be used elsewhere.

*Again, a simplistic approach always works...

You Sir/Madam (i would guess Sir but....) have won post of the day award.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps we should move Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle to within zone 9?

 

[po8crg]

Well, at least this is less mad than Transport Watch, who think we should tarmac all the railways in the country and make them bus ("express coach") lanes.

 

[trainplan1]

You Sir/Madam (i would guess Sir but....) have won post of the day award.

Yes it's a sir

 

[The Decapod]

A direct link between HS2 and HS1 has now been ruled out (yesterday, BBC News). Isn't this repeating the mistake of when the Channel Tunnel was built, not rectified until HS1 was opened - and making HS2 even more pointless a concept than it already is?.

If only the Channel Tunnel Link had kept its name and not been called HS1, perhaps nobody would have thought of HS2 !

 

[YorkshireBear]

The link would be very damaging. There is no proven demand for it as it is not felt the budget airlines can be competed with.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think the link would have been damaging, but it wasn't a very well thought out connection. It can wait, but will happen (or another solution found).

HS2 has of course never been about travel to and from mainland Europe and was always an additional benefit.

It has been about cutting journey times, dealing with serious capacity issues and also enabling more freight to be carried away from roads.

 

[joeykins82]

Passenger services that used the HS2-HS1 link wouldn't be able to stop at a central London station; I love the concept of the Euston Cross through platforms but the simple fact is that there's no economical way that isn't massively disruptive to all existing services that you could dig out a station box in order to make it work. This limits the options to either running on the service across Camden Road and massively limiting the potential development of LO NLL services as well as demolishing swathes of Camden, or tunnelling from HS2 near Adelaide Road to HS1 between Caledonian Road & Barnesbury and Highbury & Islington stations; there's not enough capacity on the southern end of HS2 with the currently planned service pattern to run frequent enough XC-HS services from, say, Ashford to Manchester/Leeds in order to make them worthwhile, and the demand for direct continental rail services from the 3 HS2 captive termini to warrant the expense. The only other potential benefit that I can see is if the Hitachi & Bombardier factories were connected to HS2 we could export continental gauge trains on rails all the way from the factory to the customer's European depot.

 

[jon0844]

It's been a while since I walked between Euston and St Pancras via Somers Town but would there be room (and ignore the planning issues and local objections for a second!) for a monorail above the road to shuttle people back and forth?

It's a pretty direct route, especially if you had a proper side entrance for Euston to save walking up and round.

People could obviously still walk at ground level.

 

[transmanche]

It's been a while since I walked between Euston and St Pancras via Somers Town but would there be room (and ignore the planning issues and local objections for a second!) for a monorail above the road to shuttle people back and forth?

No need. The future connection between Euston and St Pancras will be the 'Euston St Pancras' station on Crossrail 2. Problem solved.

 

[HSTEd]

If previous developments on the Underground in there area are anything to go by, it would quicker to walk between the two stations at street level.... via Waterloo than use it.

 

[po8crg]

would there be room (and ignore the planning issues and local objections for a second!) for a monorail above the road to shuttle people back and forth?

An above ground foot connection (ie a footbridge/travelator) across Somers Town would probably be better rather than a monorail, as well as cheaper - the monorail or other people mover will have capacity issues unless it's built on a big scale. There probably is just about enough room along Doric Way and then through the car park between the British Library and the Crick Institute.

 

[pablo]

Arup did a review of the options for HS2 a few years ago and settled for an elevated twin track monorail solution along Phoenix Way and Brill Place, which wouldn't fit comfortably in the space available. The options varied enormously. See here:

Option 1A Elevated APM £75 million
Option 1B Below-ground APM £110million
Option 2A Elevated APM £73 million
Option 2B Elevated Travelator £60 million
Option 4 Street Level-Walk £2.25 million
Option 5 Elevated Walkway £56.4 million

You can prob find the doc by searching APM on HS2's website.
I prefer MarkyT's solution. Less fees in it and keeps you dry.

But, really? Walking for 15 minutes between two HS services? And these trains will be 400m long not the 240m of present-day Pendos. So there is a lot more platform to traverse. If you are the wrong end, make it 20 minutes platform to platform.

Perhaps the compromise is to put only the through domestic and international services via Euston Cross and send all the others to sit for half-an-hour in the precious high land value terminal.

 

[jon0844]

Walking is fine for most people (goodness knows how many times I've done it), but I wouldn't really want to do that walk at all hours of the day.. and the 'safer' way along Euston Road is a PITA with so many junctions and roads to cross.

 

[YorkshireBear]

HS2 isn't going to benefit Torquay so Action Alliance is kicking off.

I think it is time the rest of us oppose schemes that don't come near us. I think GWML is a waste of money then because how do i benefit in Leeds....

I admit there needs to be more spending in the far south west. Infact i will actively support a Dawlish avoiding route (not Okehampton) if the BCR can be proved to be above 1.5. But this is not reasons for them all to vote against HS2.

 

[po8crg]

If you go along Phoenix Way, and it's elevated or below-ground, then it's running from about the middle of the current platforms. It could have direct connections to the connecting route from each platform, part way up the platform.

I'm thinking of the South Corridor ("Couloir Sud") at Brussels-Midi, which has entrances from well-up the Eurostar platforms and allows for some very fast transfers to Thalys/ICE services. If you don't have to go into the main concourse, but can go down, under the other lines and across to St Pancras and then back up to the Eurostar check-in - which is also well up inside the station.

Compared to going along Euston Road, you'd only cover about half the distance.

 

[MarkyT]

If you go along Phoenix Way, and it's elevated or below-ground, then it's running from about the middle of the current platforms. It could have direct connections to the connecting route from each platform, part way up the platform.

I'm thinking of the South Corridor ("Couloir Sud") at Brussels-Midi, which has entrances from well-up the Eurostar platforms and allows for some very fast transfers to Thalys/ICE services. If you don't have to go into the main concourse, but can go down, under the other lines and across to St Pancras and then back up to the Eurostar check-in - which is also well up inside the station.

Compared to going along Euston Road, you'd only cover about half the distance.

That was my thinking with the link design here:

http://www.townend.me/files/kxlink.pdf

I think an elevated link design would have major problems with visual intrusion, not only the impact on the streetscape itself, but also a raised link would overlook residential areas, perhaps affording its users with views into private flats etc. That might force an entirely enclosed passageway probably making it even more unsightly. It might as well be underground. I envisage a shallow cut and cover subway which could be linked via a gate-line on the western side of the station to stairways and lifts to each platform. Immediately public side of the gates a bank of large fast lifts and, or escalators could transfer people between the subway and any new raft developments and facilities above the station. In addition to providing a fast walking connection between HS2 and international services, the link would also plug HS2 effectively into Thameslink, with many destinations south of the Thames, and the HS1 domestic services, serving large parts of Kent.

 

[po8crg]

That was my thinking with the link design here:

http://www.townend.me/files/kxlink.pdf

Like it, but you probably want a walkway as well as the travelators. Some people can't use travelators safely (e.g. certain types of wheelchair).

 

[MarkyT]

Like it, but you probably want a walkway as well as the travelators. Some people can't use travelators safely (e.g. certain types of wheelchair).

Yes agreed absolutely, as shown in the centre of the typical cross-section included! I was inspired by the passageway constructed by the Jubilee Extension between the various parts of Waterloo Underground station which I used to pass through regularly to avoid the busy main line concourse above.

http://www.townend.me/files/kxlink.pdf

Updated to v3 - labels added to cross-section to clarify

 

[po8crg]

Thanks Marky - I'd read the "services" bit as meaning no public access!

 

[GingerSte]

Firstly, I'd like to say that I understand why the HS2-HS1 link has been sent for review. £700 million is a huge amount of money, and I can see how this cost could kill the project. Just looking at construction cost alone (stripping out maintenance/operations and the loss of capacity to NLL):

• 6% amortisation cost on £700M would be £42M/year
• 250 average days per year -> £42M / 250 = £168k/day
• 30 international trips per day -> £168k / 20 = £5,600 per train
• 200 average passengers per train -> £5,600 / 200 = £28 per passenger (£56 return)

(Please feel free to play with the above assumptions if you feel I've been too conservative/optimistic. I feel I've probably been too conservative there with the passenger/trip numbers.)

This £28 per person would just be for construction of the link aswell. It doesn't take into account any other costs. Even so, it puts the link on a bad footing with respect to the low cost airlines already. So, I can see why the costs would have to be reduced.

Also, as much as I don't like it, I agree with some of the concerns raised by Camdenish folk about loss of capacity. I think they're possibly over-egging it, but they do have some valid comments. Effectively singling the line between Camden Road Station and Primrose Hill Station would have a devastating effect on the Overground in that area.

The cost

So what could be done to reduce the cost of the link? A look at one of the drawings gives a clue. From Old Oak Common, the HS2-HS1 link runs in it's own tunnel until Primrose Hill Station, at which it joins the North London Line. I don't know the costs of each part of HS2-HS1, but I can easily imagine that this forms a huge part of the cost.

This seems crazy to me. Hopefully, when this gets reviewed, they will look at removing this tunnel for most of it's length and using the Old Oak Common to Euston tunnels as far as Primrose Hill. The link lines would then diverge from HS2 and meet in their own bore. I'm no expert on tunnelling, but I imagine that a solution could be found that was cheaper than six kilometres of single-bore tunnel. (And yes, I am aware that the stations on Crossrail are a big / the big part of the cost, but these point chambers would be nowhere near as large or as grand as these).

I am assuming that the section between Primrose Hill and HS1 is nowhere near as expensive as the tunnelled section, but as mentioned above, I'm no expert on tunnelling costs. Perhaps someone can give me a rough idea of how much tunnelling is per mile, and therefore how much would be saved by eliminating roughly 6km of tunnel.

The North London Line - Capacity

Again, a quick look at the drawings suggests a large part of the Camdenites' problem. One track of the NLL would be taken and used by HS2, leaving the NLL single track (while carrying Overground and Freight services). If this could be avoided, then that would be preferable for all involved.

Fortunately, I think it can.

Primrose Hill Station is made up of a single island platform between the two lines. If the HS2-HS1 link is brought up between the two instead of to the south, then it can be linked to both without any conflicting moves. Instead of completely taking one track, the link would share both tracks. The loss to the NLL would be one or two paths per hour in each direction. This is what I have in mind.

I note on the above that the position of the tunnel portal would have to avoid the foundations for the bridge over the NLL at Primrose Hill. I can't tell from the aerial photos exactly where they are, but a bit of site investigation by the HS2 bods would sort that.

There would still be one conflicting move, as HS1-bound trains crossed over the Westbound NLL line, but one or two conflicts per hour is a relatively small price (in my opinion) compared to the loss of a whole track. The fact that international services would be a completely different market (and less in need of services during the peak hours) means that services could be optimised for NLL in peak, and HS2-HS1 (or freight) during off peak.

You may notice on the plan and long section above, that the third track would pass over a bridge to the east of Primrose Hill Station. This bridge serves the Juniper Crescent housing estate and the Morrison's supermarket. By my reckoning, and looking at the maps, there is approx. 400 metres between the tunnel portal and this bridge. The existing plans show a 3.5% maximum gradient for this section. Assuming 1.5% for the first 100 metres (allowing for change in gradient) and 3.5% for the next 300 metres gives (0.015 x 100) + (0.035 x 300) = 12 metres. This is more than adequate for our needs.

It might not be possible to raise the track to the above level and plumb it in, though. However, I don't see this as a problem. Looking at aerial photos of the area (thanks, Multimap), there seems to be enough room on the bridge for a third track. The bridge also looks new, suggesting that the drawings and design calculations of the bridge could be obtained relatively easily. It could then be shown that this bridge could support the extra track without rebuilding or extending.

One of the problems to deal with if HS2-HS1 shared tracks with NLL would be the gauging. The tracks would most likely require slewing to give the required clearance. However, the link track was supposed to be slewed in the original design anyway. This would not cause any additional cost to the project.

The next problem to deal with (moving east), would be the underbridge carrying the NLL over Camden Road and Royal College Street. I don't personally know whether these bridges can carry GC gauge trains. If they can, great. However, there is a risk that the east and west-bound decks will both need replacing. The west-bound one would have needed doing anyway, so this would not be an increased cost. The east-bound deck would be an addition, though, unless something could be done. However, this would be a deck replacement of the kind carried out by Network Rail umpteen times every year. NR have had far bigger challenges on deck replacements than this one.

The next issue is Camden Road Station. I can't see GC gauge playing well with platforms, as GC gauge is wider. I don't imagine the stepping distances would be appreciated by Network Rail and the Camdenados. This is the reason I think a single line was chosen, and which has led to the NLL-related protests.

Fortunately, I have a possible solution for this too.

1. Rather than taking out the westbound platform completely, trim it back to allow enough space for 2 No. GC gauge tracks.
2. Slew the westbound track to align with the platform, increasing the size of the six-foot.
3. Put new rails for the GC tracks in the four-foot and the six-foot as shown below.

The new tracks would of course not be operationally separate, but that makes no difference. Track circuits would be the same (just connect the GC gauge lines electrically to the existing NLL tracks. Switching between the two would use something akin to normal points, which would be controlled by the signaller based on the train's head code.

I would note that this is not the only way to do this. I did think about retractable platform edges, but these caused more problems than they solved.

I would also note that Camden Road Station has two platforms currently out of use. One or both of these could be used while the above works were taking place, subject to the necessary plumbing in. In fact, in a more general case I could see this sort of thing happening in the long term anyway.

This would certainly help with mitigation of the paths lost to HS2-HS1, but for me would be more of a general NLL upgrade. I'm not sure whether or not it would be needed to replace capacity lost to the link.

Edited to add: do I get the prize for the best use of crayons?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't think there would be any benefit in minimising the amount of additional tunnelling being needed because the cost of tunnelling isn't entirely linear. Once you have to have a TBM doing the tunnel, the additional cost of making it go the whole distance is not as large as could be thought. Then there's the additional cost involved in the underground junction needed instead - each step-plate junction cavern would have to have a diameter twice that of the running tunnels which would result in a truly biblical cavern, larger even than the Stepney Green caverns on Crossrail. The Stepney Green caverns had the advantage that they lie more-or-less entirely under the open green space around the city farm, so there would not be too great a risk in doing such an enormous tunnelling job underneath. That also provides space for the tunnelling shaft and for emergency access, which makes construction considerably easier. There is no such suitable location near where you want to put the two caverns, resulting in a need to demolish the residential properties above. With all these difficulties I don't think it's difficult to see why tunnelling all the way to Old Oak was preferred.

Unfortunately it was not as much the capacity after HS2 opens that made the link controversial but the massive amount of disruption needed to build it in the first place. Your proposals might be very technically feasible but they do not reduce the amount of disruption required during construction, possibly even increasing it. As a result they do seem like a non-starter, which is a terrible shame. Slewing the Kentish Town tracks to use the abandoned track bed through Camden Rd does seem to be a good idea even without the HS1-HS2 link. Since there is at least some space available further eastwards, north of the Kings' Cross railway lands, it might be possible to fit in some kind of enhanced or grade-separated junction to reduce conflicting movements and improve Overground and freight services through the station, which would benefit the local area considerably.

 

[GingerSte]

Thanks for your comments, NotATrainspott.

I don't know what the envisaged construction method was for the three tunnels, but I can see two options:

1. Tunnel from one end to the other using three TBMs.
2. Tunnel from either end and meet somewhere in the middle (using six TBMs).

With option 1, you would still have three TBMs, so yes, the only the part of the cost that is proportional to tunnel length would be saved. However, this is not an inconsiderable cost. You have huge costs associated with manpower, tunnel linings, spoil removal and so on. Besides, with the number of tunnels involved with HS2, I'm sure they'd get a group discount!

I would also add that the "International" TBM would be finished long before the "HS2" TBMs. This would present options with regard to the critical path, and possible redeployment.

With option 2, there would be six TBMs on the original design (I assume, based on the link tunnel being almost as long as the HS2 tunnels) and five in my proposed scheme. This would also have a shorter path, giving options for possible redeployment.

I suppose one way to get rid of the underground junctions would be to make one of the tunnels take two lines instead of one. This assumes that the additional costs from a larger-diameter tunnel are less than those from a separate tunnel. Again, I don't know the figures. Something like the below is what I imagine would be the case.

I also thought about running this tunnel from Euston Station to Primrose Hill instead of Old-Oak Common. HS2 trains would travel to Euston, and then reverse (having presumably picked up a new driver and more passengers). The advantage from this would have been a shorter dig, even for its own tunnel. The disadvantages would have been increased complication and platform take (and therefore expense) at Euston, and the need to swing round at Primrose Hill to use the NLL as before. Of course, there may be other ways of doing this.

With regard to the disruption from construction, the increase is fairly small. The cutting leading to the portal would be contained within the existing platform of Primrose Hill Station, which is closed anyway. The slewing between Primrose Hill and Camden Road Stations would have happened anyway. Using the dis-used platforms at Camden Road would minimise any disruption during the works I described at the station. Only the Camden Road Underbridge represents an increase in disruption, and this is only if the east-bound deck cannot take GC gauge trains.

As far as slewing the tracks near Camden market is concerned, most of the works would take place at track level anyway, and would not affect the market. Some sort of cantilever sructure may be needed for the cess on this side, but again, this could be installed in overnight possessions from the rail side. The only disruption to the market would be the exclusion zones underneath the works (health and safety).

Even after slewing, I imagine that there is enough room on the viaduct for the tracks themselves. The cantilever I describe above would therefore only need to resist derailment loads (less than normal track loads) and pedestrian loads (obviously less than track loads). If appropriate measures were taken, then the derailment effects could (possibly) be omitted.

I would also argue that the disruption mentioned above is also relatively minor and short-term. If I was a Camdeninian, I would be more worried about the long term disruption from the original design. My proposal was mainly to mitigate this as much as feasible.

You mention a grade-separated junction east of Camden Road to eliminate the conflicting movement. I agree with you that it would help, but my intention was to reduce the cost of the link as much as I could. I saw grade separation as an option that could be added later if international passenger numbers warranted it.

I hesitated to include slewing the Kentish Town tracks, as this would require a short section of new viaduct and compulsory purchase of property (both controversial). Note that the rest of my proposal does not (discounting the difference between HS2 and Network Rail). Besides, I see this more as an NLL upgrade than something that is required for a HS2-HS1 link.

 

[NotATrainspott]

From what I have seen it looks like the plan would be only to use 3 TBMs, primarily because: there is no shaft in the middle where they could be recovered later, the distance involved is not long for a single TBM drive and the limiting factor for the construction timetable is the work at Euston and the Chiltern tunnel, so finishing this tunnel any faster would not be particularly useful. The problem of there being no suitable intermediate shaft location also makes the option of having a two-track bored tunnel extremely difficult as well, so that might not be as much of a solution as it might seem either.

I don't think it would be as easy as you believe to do such an enormous dig operation in between the two running tracks of a route. The amount of space available for construction workers would be extremely narrow and at the best of times, when the trains are not running, there would only be at most one narrow access point where it reaches the surface. Launching a TBM from that location might be possible for the initial construction but there would be no way of feeding it the supplies it needs to continue working, so it would only be possible to recover it from that direction which would still be a challenge in itself. Unfortunately there really don't seem to be any easy solutions to the HS1-HS2 link other than what was included in the Hybrid Bill, or the option of a fully-tunnelled link which would have to go all the way to Barking and cost more than Euston for the sake of a few hundred passengers a day.

 

[GingerSte]

^^^ This is why I'd like to see HS2 have a real look at the options for this section, taking expert advice from those in the know. Any idiot with crayons (ie me! ) can come up with crazy schemes but it needs a group of people that can produce workable plans.

If tunnelling from Primrose Hill is a problem, then tunnelling to Primrose Hill might be the solution. I'm basing the sketch below on my understanding of the construction of the Channel Tunnel, where one machine was diverted off line, and the other machine finished the tunnel off.

 

[NotATrainspott]

^^^ This is why I'd like to see HS2 have a real look at the options for this section, taking expert advice from those in the know. Any idiot with crayons (ie me! ) can come up with crazy schemes but it needs a group of people that can produce workable plans.

If tunnelling from Primrose Hill is a problem, then tunnelling to Primrose Hill might be the solution. I'm basing the sketch below on my understanding of the construction of the Channel Tunnel, where one machine was diverted off line, and the other machine finished the tunnel off.

Here's the original route engineering report from the original March 2011 HS2 announcement. It gives the cost and general idea of the three options - single track classic speed, double track classic speed and double track high speed and gave indicative prices for each.

Are you suggesting leaving the TBM in-situ, like some of the Channel Tunnel ones?