• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

HS2 Review ongoing

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,834
When did Curzon Street move to Newcastle?

HS2 isn't going to any of those places. Phase 47, estimated to be built by 2060, might. HS2 is off to Birmingham.
Are we playing semantics here in that the infrastructure isnt going to those locations or that HS2 trains arent?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
But the question isn't "should we build HS2 or a motorway" so I have no idea what relevance this has to anything.

If HS2 won't run at capacity then there is no business case for it. And I'm not seeing 20,000 people demanding to get to Birmingham a bit quicker.

You are right that HS2 won't run at capacity, however that doesn't mean that there's no business case for it.

The business case is built on there being 100 million passenger movements per year over so stations which services which run on it will serve, whilst that is likely to be about 20,000 an hour that's both ways (in and out) for London services and between all the stations along the routes, as well as both ways for the Birmingham (non London) services and between all the stations along the routes.

Given that there's 36tph on the London services as well as those on the Birmingham (non London) services that's an average of less than 1/2 the seats used at some point along a service (i.e. a seat used from London to Birmingham Interchange isn't used by a passenger traveling Birmingham Interchange to Manchester) on any given service across all services.

OK there's going to be some half length sets which will skew that but broadly the business case appears to be built on ~50% seat usage. Which is a long way short of 100% seat usage, which is still a long way short of running at capacity.

However, given the desire to use cars less and that rail growth is still out performing predictions (we're currently at up to 170% when predictions for 125% for now and 150% for opening of Phase 1 and 155% for the opening of Phase 2a, and we're a good free years adrift from either of those) it is highly likely that passenger demand could well exceed predictions.

The problem is that tinkering with projects like Platforms 15/16 (which should get built anyway) isn't going to cater for this growth.

Given that we as a country are starting to be much more aware of our impact on the planet and electric trains are available now at much lower costs than electric cars, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw significant growth. Possibly to the extent that a lot of people's pet rail projects are built, as well as HS2, over the next 20 years. Even then it's likely that there's still going to be not enough capacity.

With a rapidly "greening" power grid (coal down from 30% in 2014 to 5% in 2018), with excess power being used to refill hydro dams to act as a battery system for times of low light and low wind, we could remove a lot of the gas powered power stations. Add in a bit more efficienty with lower energy hungry goods (as there's still likely to be a lot of 10+ year old kitchen appliances) and people fitting more insulation (as there's likely to be quite a lot of 1960-1990's housing stock which is still not well insulated) and or could continue the lowering of the per user rate of consumption (currently the lowest rate since 1984) and maybe even the total amount of electricity used (currently lowest since 1994).

With a shift away from the internal combustion engine and maybe even gas powered heating/hot water, the UK could see a massive drop in the amount of CO2 emissions. However part of that is likely to require a lot more rail capacity, chiefly that large increase provided by HS2.

As not only does HS2 increase capacity from 589 to 1,100 per train (minimum of +86%), but also the retained services (which are effectively new services as we've assumed 100% of the existing seats transfer to HS2 services) could be run by higher capacity trains (+ 107%).

That could mean a capacity increase of 1,100 seats per service which is replaced and retained. If we assume 2tph are retained in the London/Birmingham corridor that's at least an extra 2,700 seats an hour. As well as being able to use at least 1 path per hour for local services for Birmingham, as well as using that same path for local services for London (as the two wouldn't overlap).

Add in changes like XC going to Moor Street and there could be scope for even more local services to and through New Street.

One of the problems petite have with HS2 is their lack of vision as to what it could do for the rest of the network as they get stuck with looking at it as a London to Birmingham thing, when it's impact is much wider.

I'll repeat again that travel from Southampton to Manchester will see an improvement (at least faster journey times) because of it, as well travel from Winchester to York or Guildford to Gateshead. Yet that are missed as the focus is on those "10" minutes saved on a journey that the person making the comment doesn't make.

I think that there'll be a lot of people who once HS2 opens will say "oh I didn't realise that it was going to improve this or that journey". Personally I think that HS2 should create an indicative timetable and allow people to our in the journeys that they make to see the positive impact which HS2 could provide (even if it's a comment like "longer distance travelers removed from this service freeing up seats for the remaining passengers").
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Personally I think that HS2 should create an indicative timetable and allow people to our in the journeys that they make to see the positive impact which HS2 could provide (even if it's a comment like "longer distance travelers removed from this service freeing up seats for the remaining passengers").

Problem is that I think you really need to produce an illustrative timetable for the full WCML and HS2 operation to prove that a) the stations which miss out on HS2 e.g. Coventry still have fast services to London, b) the stations which can then have better services actually get them and c) the additional capacity is apparent.

The hardest thing for the existing users of the fast services on the WCML to understand is why their train service needs to be moved off the line.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
Are we playing semantics here in that the infrastructure isnt going to those locations or that HS2 trains arent?

Both? The higher-capacity dedicated HS2 trains won't be compatible with classic lines, and the current £100bn only gets us to Birmingham.

As it is further to Birmingham than London from the North East, one can safely say HS2 won't benefit most of the places mentioned.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Both? The higher-capacity dedicated HS2 trains won't be compatible with classic lines, and the current £100bn only gets us to Birmingham.

As it is further to Birmingham than London from the North East, one can safely say HS2 won't benefit most of the places mentioned.

What's your source for £100bn for phase 1?

Not even the die hard stop HS2 supporters are suggesting that, unless phase 2 (cost of a share of £88bn) and other transport schemes (cited as costing £43bn) costs £43bn. In which case phase 2 at virtually £0 looks very good value.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
But the question isn't "should we build HS2 or a motorway" so I have no idea what relevance this has to anything.

If HS2 won't run at capacity then there is no business case for it. And I'm not seeing 20,000 people demanding to get to Birmingham a bit quicker.

If it runs at capacity from day one what on earth would we have done without it and we had already better start planning a relief to HS2 !!! If it runs at capacity from day one then it ought to be open NOW
It isn`t 10 minutes faster to brum, its closer to half an hour but that isn`t the point at all, its about free up capacity on the WCML which has been said thousands and thousands of times.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,834
Both? The higher-capacity dedicated HS2 trains won't be compatible with classic lines, and the current £100bn only gets us to Birmingham.

As it is further to Birmingham than London from the North East, one can safely say HS2 won't benefit most of the places mentioned.
Everything will be classic compatible, the captive idea is long gone.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
What's your source for £100bn for phase 1?

The whole project has already doubled in cost and estimates from people like Lord Berkeley are that it's likely to double again.

Looking at other major infrastructure, such as Edinburgh Trams and Crossrail, makes that very believable.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
Everything will be classic compatible, the captive idea is long gone.

So the estimated capacity will be lower, as the original plans were based on captive trains which were wider and had a higher capacity?

It's amazing how with every budget increase we get less for our money!
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,834
So the estimated capacity will be lower, as the original plans were based on captive trains which were wider and had a higher capacity?

It's amazing how with every budget increase we get less for our money!
Why is it less when those trains can now get to the places you orignally said they wont?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
Why is it less when those trains can now get to the places you orignally said they wont?

Smaller trains on phase 1 means fewer seats, surely? Especially as there are limits on train lengths at classic stations.

I also see HS2 are intending to run slower trains, and fewer of them, because the original budget was pie-in-the-sky.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
The whole project has already doubled in cost and estimates from people like Lord Berkeley are that it's likely to double again.

Looking at other major infrastructure, such as Edinburgh Trams and Crossrail, makes that very believable.

Right, infrastructure regularly goes overbudget. As you've pointed out, this isn't unique to HS2, so unless you want us to never build anything again ever the moment it goes over its initial estimated budget, the cost (and cost increases) alone is a bad metric to use. Especially for projects over very long timescales like HS2, where inflation naturally increases the cost relative to the initial estimate.

So, is HS2 still good value for money given the increases in spending? Well, as pointed out several times, passenger numbers on the extant mainlines continue to outgrow predictions, so that's at least a strong hint that it is. That's a major simplification obviously, but that's what the review is for, to examine that kind of thing in detail.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
The whole project has already doubled in cost and estimates from people like Lord Berkeley are that it's likely to double again.

Looking at other major infrastructure, such as Edinburgh Trams and Crossrail, makes that very believable.

Current cost estimate for both phases is up to £88 billion, given that in the early stages phase 1 was circa 50% of the cost (but didn't include costs for the trains, which it is unclear if the new costs do our don't include) then doubling of the cost (which you have to bear in mind would also include increases for inflation, so wouldn't be an actual doubling in costs in real terms) would still only be £88bn

So the estimated capacity will be lower, as the original plans were based on captive trains which were wider and had a higher capacity?

It's amazing how with every budget increase we get less for our money!

Current trains (class 80x) have 630 seats in 234m, if you pro rata this to 400m then you get to 1,077 seats per train. However that's using 26m coaches target than 25m but then it's also appling the pro rata of the capacity of the end coaches across the whole train, so probably balances out.

If we apply a factor of 0.95 to the capacity per coach then you end up with 84 standard class seats and 53 first class (end coaches stay the same as the 80x's as there's more flexibility to eak out 1m of lost space). Split a 16 coach HS2 service 5/11 first class/standard and that's 227 first class seats and 892 standard class seats. That's a total of 1,119. Which still gives you about the 1,100 seats being quoted for the full length trains.

Yes it's a slight reduction in the first class/ standard class ratio but even at 6/10 it's 280 + 804, so 1,088 seats, but then the ratio of first class is higher.

Which would likely mean a split class coach and near enough exactly 1,100 seats.

As such 1,100 seats/full length train is about (plus or minus a few seats) what is likely to be achieved.

Any increase in width would have been fairly small and would have possibly lead to the potential for 3+2 seating. Anyway, most standard class seats on Intercity trains are wider than most first class seats on aircraft.

The 200m trains are likely to be split 2.5/5.5 coaches so that's 95 first class and 430 standard class (525 seats total) which isn't that different to the 589 seats in an 11 coach unit whist still more than the 469 in a 9 coach unit. However that's still going to allow quite a significant capacity uplift between London and Crewe (the point where the trains change to being 200m trains) where the services are likely to be at their busiest. If Liverpool services are to busy then that then justifies fast tracking Northern Powerhouse Rail to create full length (400m platforms) services to the city.

If the Scottish services get too busy before the services diverge into different lines then you just provide platform lengthening and split from 400m to 200m later in the journey.

It should also be noted that I've not included in the above numbers the 4 spaces for wheelchair users.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
It should also be noted that I've not included in the above numbers the 4 spaces for wheelchair users.

At the risk of changing the subject abruptly, how did you arrive at the number of wheelchair spaces?
Roughly 1.8% of the population uses a wheelchair (source), which would be 20 spaces out of 1100. Even accounting for the fact that not every wheelchair user will need a wheelchair space, and for trains not being at capacity, 4 spaces seems low?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
At the risk of changing the subject abruptly, how did you arrive at the number of wheelchair spaces?
Roughly 1.8% of the population uses a wheelchair (source), which would be 20 spaces out of 1100. Even accounting for the fact that not every wheelchair user will need a wheelchair space, and for trains not being at capacity, 4 spaces seems low?

The 4 spaces are the number of wheelchair spaces on a class 80x, yes you'd need to reduce the number of seats by a few to provide a few more, but the overall impact would be almost unchanged in terms of overall capacity given that such spaces can have file down seats when they aren't otherwise needed.

My experience is that 1.8% of people traveling by train aren't wheelchair users (otherwise those spaces would be used a lot more than they are). That's not to say that we shouldn't be doing better.

Likewise we should be providing much better capacity for the carriage of cycles. However if the answer is a 400m train with 1,000 seats rather than 1,100 that's something which can easily be facilitated for quite some time.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Given that we as a country are starting to be much more aware of our impact on the planet and electric trains are available now at much lower costs than electric cars, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw significant growth. Possibly to the extent that a lot of people's pet rail projects are built, as well as HS2, over the next 20 years. Even then it's likely that there's still going to be not enough capacity.

With a rapidly "greening" power grid (coal down from 30% in 2014 to 5% in 2018), with excess power being used to refill hydro dams to act as a battery system for times of low light and low wind, we could remove a lot of the gas powered power stations. Add in a bit more efficienty with lower energy hungry goods (as there's still likely to be a lot of 10+ year old kitchen appliances) and people fitting more insulation (as there's likely to be quite a lot of 1960-1990's housing stock which is still not well insulated) and or could continue the lowering of the per user rate of consumption (currently the lowest rate since 1984) and maybe even the total amount of electricity used (currently lowest since 1994).

With a shift away from the internal combustion engine and maybe even gas powered heating/hot water, the UK could see a massive drop in the amount of CO2 emissions. However part of that is likely to require a lot more rail capacity, chiefly that large increase provided by HS2.
This post should be read in full as you put you finger on something that everyone else has missed. You are correct the the HS rail programme is not about the London to Birmingham silo in which many seem determined to frame it, for whatever motive. It is not even just about rail transport, or mobility in general. Rather it is one outcome of spatial planning as part of a holistic upgrade of society to the modern era. One that is needed to prepare the nation for the challenges of the 21st century of global warming, resource scarcity, the information economy, ageing populations, life expectations and all the rest of it, and addresses the spheres of environmental, social and economic sustainability.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
This post should be read in full as you put you finger on something that everyone else has missed. You are correct the the HS rail programme is not about the London to Birmingham silo in which many seem determined to frame it, for whatever motive. It is not even just about rail transport, or mobility in general. Rather it is one outcome of spatial planning as part of a holistic upgrade of society to the modern era. One that is needed to prepare the nation for the challenges of the 21st century of global warming, resource scarcity, the information economy, ageing populations, life expectations and all the rest of it, and addresses the spheres of environmental, social and economic sustainability.

Thank you, it's quite a long post but I'm glad you think it's worth the effort to read it.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,834
Smaller trains on phase 1 means fewer seats, surely? Especially as there are limits on train lengths at classic stations.

I also see HS2 are intending to run slower trains, and fewer of them, because the original budget was pie-in-the-sky.
Possibly, but if you run 200m sets which you can pair, what is the length issue? I don't believe it was ever envisaged for 400m trains to be running on every train anyway.
Crewe is getting renewed as part of NR renewals as it needs re-signalling so you can sort out 400m platforms there without any hassle. Preston doesn't need a lot doing to it and is also on the NR list to be renewed in terms of S&C and signalling, same goes for Carlisle.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
I also see HS2 are intending to run slower trains, and fewer of them, because the original budget was pie-in-the-sky.

They are not, as far as I'm aware, intending to run fewer, slower, trains. That is simply one possible idea that has been floated as a way of scaling back HS2, IF the Government does decide to scale the project back.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Thank you, it's quite a long post but I'm glad you think it's worth the effort to read it.
Thank you for writing it. In the UK we have never persevered with Spatial Planning at the national level despite it being part of the postwar consensus. The attempts to subsidise redistribution of industry away from the South East during the 1970's was given up on at the start of the Thatcher era for instance, only to start again to a limited degree during the Blair and Brown era. And the national challenges and pace of change are greater now than since the 1940's conflict during which the last tranche of national planning - think the Town and Country planning act, the Welfare state, the NHS to name three - were forged.

I humbly suggest that those who frame the HSR programme merely as a railway project, let alone a London to Birmingham connection are - whether intentionally or not - missing the point
 

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,449
Location
Liverpool
Classic Compatible units should theoretically be able to have the same capacity as a captive unit, should they not? At least if we're comparing like for like; ergo 200m single deck units.

The only notable difference would be that captive units were slightly wider and taller.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Current cost estimate for both phases is up to £88 billion, given that in the early stages phase 1 was circa 50% of the cost (but didn't include costs for the trains, which it is unclear if the new costs do our don't include) then doubling of the cost (which you have to bear in mind would also include increases for inflation, so wouldn't be an actual doubling in costs in real terms) would still only be £88bn

A submission to the review is now saying £106bn.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...064-billion-almost-double-amount-claimed/amp/

How high does it need to go before the consensus becomes it's too much? (I'd suggest that already is the consensus outside enthusiast circles)
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Classic Compatible units should theoretically be able to have the same capacity as a captive unit, should they not? At least if we're comparing like for like; ergo 200m single deck units.

The only notable difference would be that captive units were slightly wider and taller.

Originally we were being told of 400m trains and the associated impractical construction that would be needed to accommodate them, like an extension of Glasgow Central across the Clyde.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
946
At the risk of changing the subject abruptly, how did you arrive at the number of wheelchair spaces?
Roughly 1.8% of the population uses a wheelchair (source), which would be 20 spaces out of 1100. Even accounting for the fact that not every wheelchair user will need a wheelchair space, and for trains not being at capacity, 4 spaces seems low?

Ermmm no... that’s a massively simplistic way of looking at wheelchair use. The NHS stats include a very significant majority of wheelchair users who are in residential or nursing homes and never use public transport as they’re too physically frail.

They’re included in the NHS figures as most of their wheelchairs are used in those settings. If you look at the proportion of the population in wheelchairs able to use public transport at all then it’s much smaller.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
946
It's the Gillian McKeith phenomena... remember when she used to show a family's weekly food laid out on trestle tables... of course it looked obscene - dozens of meals together was bound to... £50bn looks like a lot of money to most people - we feel we could buy a lot of things for that - but when you compare that spending (on something intended to last for decades, something intended to bring in large revenues too - something easily forgotten on these threads) against the ongoing funding required to pay for things like Nurses/ Teachers... it really winds me up. I'm left of centre but get frustrated by the "what about schools and hospitals" argument - it's like the "think of the children" argument that the woman has in The Simpsons - HS2 shouldn't be seen in the context of completely different spending - fine if you want to compare it to other transport infrastructure (HS2 or another few runways or re-opening various backwater branchlines) but comparing HS2 to the NHS is only done by those desperate to make a political point.

If only that were the case. And completely ignores that the NHS (as one example, defence is even more capital heavy) requires significant capital expenditure too. The now projected £106bn cost would fund the NHS capital expenditure for 15-17 years. That’s a lot of new or updated hospitals....
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Originally we were being told of 400m trains and the associated impractical construction that would be needed to accommodate them, like an extension of Glasgow Central across the Clyde.

They are going to split 400m trains for Glasgow and Edinburgh at Carlisle. No need to extend Glasgow Central for 200m trains. Edinburgh already has platforms long enough for 400m of course.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
If only that were the case. And completely ignores that the NHS (as one example, defence is even more capital heavy) requires significant capital expenditure too. The now projected £106bn cost would fund the NHS capital expenditure for 15-17 years. That’s a lot of new or updated hospitals....

If it finds the NHS capital budget for 15-17 years it sounds like you are talking about existing funding commitments. Are you suggesting we should double the NHS capital budget over that period?
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
They are going to split 400m trains for Glasgow and Edinburgh at Carlisle. No need to extend Glasgow Central for 200m trains. Edinburgh already has platforms long enough for 400m of course.

Therein is one of the massive problems with HS2. There have been so many different proposals, official and/or rumour, and changes that nobody actually knows what they're building and what services will run.

It's not surprising it's a difficult sell - we're building this because it's needed but we can't really explain what for, what it's actually going to do and we're not sure how much it will cost either. But trust us, something something powerhouse, something something capacity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top