HS2 - the case for a review

[Voglitz]

Source?

'Demand and Capacity Pressures on the West Coast Main Line', Department for Transport, 2015

And what about the London Midland trains that use the WCML in the peaks? Remember HS2 releases capacity so more of these trains can run.

It wouldn't much change the number of London Midland commuter slow trains from Euston, or between Coventry and Birmingham. In any case, why is the 'answer' to a capacity shortage on 60 miles of track near London, the building of 340+ miles of new track to the north of England?

 

[HSTEd]

Because building two tracks for the first sixty miles does not develop two tracks worth of capacity, because of other bottlenecks

The only way to get all 18 potential paths out of those first sixty miles is to build the entire thing.

 

[Voglitz]

Because building two tracks for the first sixty miles does not develop two tracks worth of capacity, because of other bottlenecks

The only way to get all 18 potential paths out of those first sixty miles is to build the entire thing.

There's no evidence to support building the entire thing, on capacity grounds. Demand is much lower north of Milton Keynes. Outside the world of rail enthusiasts, provisioning excess rail capacity for which there is no market, makes no sense.

 

[najaB]

Outside the world of rail enthusiasts, provisioning excess rail capacity for which there is no market, makes no sense.

I don't know what trains you travel on but I quite regularly travel on trains that are standing room only until north of Crewe.

 

[The Ham]

That's what 2.5% compound growth would give, based on a starting point of 450 passengers on every peak train, with all paths used. But there aren't 450 passengers on every peak train, etc. It's a GIGO assumption.

I made an assumption, including a much lower than current growth rate, if I assume a closer growth rate of 4% then the start point could be about 330 passengers.

I used the 60% full (450 passengers) as that is the 2012 loading figures used by those opposed to HS2 to argue that HS2 isn't needed.

 

[PR1Berske]

I don't know what trains you travel on but I quite regularly travel on trains that are standing room only until north of Crewe.

But we can all point to intercity services where carriages north of Crewe are empty. The fundamental question mentioned only a few replies advice has not been answered: why build an entirely new railway for what is a regional capacity issue?

 

[Voglitz]

I made an assumption, including a much lower than current growth rate, if I assume a closer growth rate of 4% then the start point could be about 330 passengers.

Recent growth rates have actually exceeded 4% on all intercity routes. Is the Department for Transport planning to build a new railway from London to Penzance, and from London to Norwich?

In September 2013 Michael May estimated ICWC average PM peak loading as 229.

So, 'other starting points are available'.

I used the 60% full (450 passengers) as that is the 2012 loading figures used by those opposed to HS2 to argue that HS2 isn't needed.

You also have to bear in mind, average peak train capacity is not 600.

9-car Pendolinos and 10-car Voyagers have to be factored in.

 

[najaB]

The fundamental question mentioned only a few replies advice has not been answered: why build an entirely new railway for what is a regional capacity issue?

Because there are several 'regional' capacity issues that it will solve, it isn't just about end-to-end journeys. By moving the people who actually are doing long journeys onto HS2 it frees up *loads* of capacity for regional journeys.

And there are lots of people making those regional journeys by car today who *will* shift to rail if it's cheap, reliable and comfortable - three things that can't be used to describe today's overloaded WCML.

 

[Ships]

That's what 2.5% compound growth would give, based on a starting point of 450 passengers on every peak train, with all paths used. But there aren't 450 passengers on every peak train, etc. It's a GIGO assumption.

and growth has been much more than 2.5% year on year


What is called "West Coast route modernisation" is actually one of series of modernisations that has been carried out over more than a hundred years. There is nothing in the nature of throat remodelling, resignalling, train lengthening, or whatever, which make them non-repeatable events.

Before WCRM there hadn't been any real modernisation since electrification which was the best part of 50 years before. There are many reasons most of which have been made in this thread. There's only so much capacity you can gain from resignalling, sure moving block level 3 ERTMS is the holy grail in this respect but it's not happening for some time. Throwing out unquantified upgrades is all well and good but there's no explanation of how they will help. How would further remodelling at Euston improve on the previous recent remodelling? Platforms have already been lengthened for the 11 coach sets, there are many stations where it is not possible to lengthen further without massive cost and disruption. Then you come back to the fact we've already done all these things 10 years ago when the wins were easier and cheaper and it still caused massive disruption whilst being ruinously expensive and were already out growing it.

Demand on the West Coast Main Line has not been too different from the wider railway. One could argue, 'there will come a point where demand will (probably) exceed supply between Inverness and Thurso, and between Ryde and Shanklin', etc.

But we're talking about HS2 and the WCML so it's irrelevant. The question is do we want rail to support the demand being asked of it, the answer given by the government seems to be yes


I don't think anthropomorphistic statements like "Blackpool would like direct trains to London" are very instructive. Truth is, on a per capita basis, people in the north of England make very few journeys to London.

Being a pedant isn't very instructive. However it doesn't change the fact virgin thought there would be sufficient demand to warrant new services from Shrewsbury and Blackpool, both of which were initially refused on the grounds there wasn't sufficient capacity to run these services and not disrupt the WCLM

 

[NotATrainspott]

Recent growth rates have actually exceeded 4% on all intercity routes. Is the Department for Transport planning to build a new railway from London to Penzance, and from London to Norwich?

In the long term, quite possibly. However, a new line that will serve 9 of the 10 largest cities in the UK seems like a better immediate use of money than one heading west.

It's now pretty clear that Voglitz is the person who I suspected. Here's the virulently anti-HS2 blog that Voglitz/Beleben writes.

 

[najaB]

Recent growth rates have actually exceeded 4% on all intercity routes. Is the Department for Transport planning to build a new railway from London to Penzance, and from London to Norwich?

So we get back to the "There's no point solving problem X because it does nothing for problem Y" argument. This is getting tiresome.

HS2 isn't intended to and cannot fix London to Norwich. There is a separate 'Norwich in 90' study looking at how to achieve sub-90 minute journey times. So far the solutions identified don't require much in the way of new build because there is low hanging fruit much like there was on the WCML in the 1990's. As and when additional capacity is needed beyond what can be achieved by these targeted interventions, new railway options will be on the table.

 

[Voglitz]

Being a pedant isn't very instructive. However it doesn't change the fact virgin thought there would be sufficient demand to warrant new services from Shrewsbury and Blackpool, both of which were initially refused on the grounds there wasn't sufficient capacity to run these services and not disrupt the WCLM

What would stop London - Wolverhampton trains from being extended to Shrewsbury? Is Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury 'at full capacity'?

On a weekday daily basis, how many people want to travel from Blackpool to London?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So we get back to the "There's no point solving problem X because it does nothing for problem Y" argument. This is getting tiresome.

What's tiresome is the argument that capacity problems A to X are deemed solvable by measures like train lengthening (etc) but problem Y is deemed to require £56 billion of spend. The evidence for that expenditure is nowhere to be seen.

 

[najaB]

What's tiresome is the argument that capacity problems A to X are deemed solvable by measures like train lengthening (etc) but problem Y is deemed to require £56 billion of spend. The evidence for that expenditure is nowhere to be seen.

Perhaps you've not noticed, but the platforms on the WCML have already been lengthened. Remember when 390's only had eight carriages, now they have eleven? Just how do you propose to lengthen them further?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What would stop London - Wolverhampton trains from being extended to Shrewsbury?

Erm... the fact that extending the diagram length would require a full rewrite of the southern WCML timetable?

 

[The Ham]

Recent growth rates have actually exceeded 4% on all intercity routes. Is the Department for Transport planning to build a new railway from London to Penzance, and from London to Norwich?

In September 2013 Michael May estimated ICWC average PM peak loading as 229.

So, 'other starting points are available'.



You also have to bear in mind, average peak train capacity is not 600.

9-car Pendolinos and 10-car Voyagers have to be factored in.

The link provided, which confirms the 229 figure is based on the 2012 loadings, given that you agree that rail growth has been greater than 4%, if we allow 4% growth from 2012 to 2016 then passenger numbers are likely to be at least 268 now (ish).

However, under the HS2 growth model we should have only got to 253 passengers over that time. Therefore there are 15 extra passengers paying train fares which weren't accounted for in the model. Going forwards these extra passengers could well end up getting more (even if we fall to 2.5%, as 2.5% more of 268 is more that 2.5% more than 253).

However, 52% of a 9 coach 390 is 244 passengers, 52% of a pair of Voyagers is 260 and 52% of a 12 coach 390 is 306. As such there would have to be a one five coach Voyager to bring the average down to 229. Although this is where things start to unwind, as once a train starts to get full then growth stops being equal and so, alright there could still be a few quiet trains others could well be rammed.

Also a train out of London at 1702 is always going to be quieter than one at 1740 as less people are able to leave work to catch the earlier train. As such using the standard peak hour of 1700-1800 will always include some quieter trains which will bring the average down.

 

[Ships]

Trying to lengthen Stockport would be intresting to say the least!

 

[The Ham]

I know that when suggestions of 16 coach formations are suggested for the commutor lines in the south east we are told that due to signal spacings that this would lead to a reduction in capacity, as such (even ignoring platform lengthening costs) if it causes a similar issue (feel free to confirm if it would/wouldn't) then there could either be a substantial resignaling issue or a reduction in paths.

If 12 coaches was viable (circa 280m train length), even for a few routes, then I would also suggest that the only way to achieve it would be by the use of new trains.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

is there many miles of the WCML that has the room for future widening with an extra pair of tracks?

 

[NSEFAN]

What's tiresome is the argument that capacity problems A to X are deemed solvable by measures like train lengthening (etc) but problem Y is deemed to require £56 billion of spend. The evidence for that expenditure is nowhere to be seen.

Are you saying that there are not long-term capacity problems facing the WCML? Otherwise, what do you propose doing about them?

Pendo and Voyager vehicles are about 23m, meaning that with trainsets of about 250m they are already "maximum" length for most existing infrastructure. Do you feel that we would be better spending our time making existing platforms about 400m long instead?

 

[najaB]

is there many miles of the WCML that has the room for future widening with an extra pair of tracks?

It all does - if you have a near-bottomless pot of money, and are willing to put up with years of disruption to the existing railway.

 

[Senex]

It all does - if you have a near-bottomless pot of money, and are willing to put up with years of disruption to the existing railway.

That can't be too strongly emphasised. The reason why building new high-speed lines tends for the most part to go smoothly and within budget is precisely that it's new work that does not have to fit itself around continuing to try and run a service on an existing railway. Also, existing railways tend to have long sections very much hemmed in by buildings in urban and semi-urban areas which makes land-acquisition exceedingly difficult, quite apart from the environmental considerations in such areas.

When the WCML was modernised in the late 1950s and early 1960s there was much less traffic on the line and it was possible to divert most of the passenger services away to other routes on which good competitive times were possible for the duration. We all remember the endless chaos of the more recent modernisation when there was much more traffic and hardly any alternative routes available.

 

[Ianno87]

Perhaps you've not noticed, but the platforms on the WCML have already been lengthened. Remember when 390's only had eight carriages, now they have eleven? Just how do you propose to lengthen them further?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Erm... the fact that extending the diagram length would require a full rewrite of the southern WCML timetable?

And the fact that, for most of the day, there are no longer any Euston-Wolverhampton (only) trains. Joining these with the Birmingham-Scotland services gives better rolling stock utilisation.

 

[The Planner]

Don't get suckered into the fact HS2 isn't going to cause disruption on the existing network during construction though, it will.

 

[Haydn1971]

Don't get suckered into the fact HS2 isn't going to cause disruption on the existing network during construction though, it will.

That's accepted, but it will be nowhere even near the disruption of building next to an existing line.

 

[The Planner]

Granted, but I can imagine Euston isn't going to be a walk in the park and OOC plus the run in to Brum won't be either.

 

[Haydn1971]

Granted, but I can imagine Euston isn't going to be a walk in the park and OOC plus the run in to Brum won't be either.

Huge engineering challenges, but nothing the industry hasn't done before either here in the UK or in other parts of the world.

 

[Phil.]

It all does - if you have a near-bottomless pot of money, and are willing to put up with years of disruption to the existing railway.

"...years of disruption..."

Not that the building of HS2 is going to cause any disruption or be at least two and a half times the currently quoted cost.

 

[Haydn1971]

OK, let's get something clear... Building HS2 is akin to putting an extension on an existing house... Whereas adding more lines to an existing route is akin to rebuilding the existing house plus adding the extension whilst a family lives in the house... Both are possible, the extension will cause disruption, but many times less than the latter option.

 

[The Planner]

or be at least two and a half times the currently quoted cost.

Now you should know by now that without sources and facts you are going to be called out on statements like that. So, source?

 

[Voglitz]

Perhaps you've not noticed, but the platforms on the WCML have already been lengthened. Remember when 390's only had eight carriages, now they have eleven?

So, some trains were lengthened, twice. And some platforms were lengthened, and some were not.

But you seem to think platforms can only be lengthened once. I don't understand why that would be. But on the information available, there is no current need to lengthen ICWC platforms.

Just how do you propose to lengthen them further?

In much the same way it has been done elsewhere.

But only when the need arises. On the information available, there is no current need to lengthen ICWC platforms.

Erm... the fact that extending the diagram length would require a full rewrite of the southern WCML timetable?

Did extending London - Wolverhampton trains to Scotland require a full rewrite of the southern WCML timetable? And why would rewriting the WCML timetable be a big deal, anyway? Would the timetable not be rewritten, if HS2 were built?

OK, let's get something clear... Building HS2 is akin to putting an extension on an existing house... Whereas adding more lines to an existing route is akin to rebuilding the existing house plus adding the extension whilst a family lives in the house... Both are possible, the extension will cause disruption, but many times less than the latter option.

I don't see who is advocating adding extra tracks all along the existing West Coast Main Line. It's not necessary, and plain barmy.

That can't be too strongly emphasised. The reason why building new high-speed lines tends for the most part to go smoothly and within budget is precisely that it's new work that does not have to fit itself around continuing to try and run a service on an existing railway.

In February 2009, shadow secretary of state for transport Theresa Villiers MP said a high speed rail from London to the North could be built at a cost to taxpayers of £15.7 billion, including 66% optimism bias.

If a project's budget is continually increased as costs increase, then of course it will remain "within budget".

When the WCML was modernised in the late 1950s and early 1960s there was much less traffic on the line and it was possible to divert most of the passenger services away to other routes on which good competitive times were possible for the duration. We all remember the endless chaos of the more recent modernisation when there was much more traffic and hardly any alternative routes available.

Building HS2 and 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' would mean massive disruption at Manchester, Crewe, and Euston. Stoke on Trent council's plans for a new station would also cause disruption. Disruption is what comes with modernising, or maintaining, a railway. Or a road.

 

[Domh245]

So, some trains were lengthened, twice. And some platforms were lengthened, and some were not.


But you seem to think platforms can only be lengthened once. I don't understand why that would be. But on the information available, there is no current need to lengthen ICWC platforms.

Because you soon being to run out of space to extend platforms, from things like points or bridges. Don't forget, that the overall length of trains on a line is determined by the length of the platforms at the terminus. Once you've maxed out Euston, you've maxed out the WCML.

Also, don't forget that eventually you reach a point where trains can't be extended any further. Once the train starts reaching critical length, not only do you then need to think about resignalling (because the length is approaching the length of a signal block) but the train becomes slower accelerating and takes longer to traverse any point of track, which then starts to reduce capacity.

Did extending London - Wolverhampton trains to Scotland require a full rewrite of the southern WCML timetable? And why would rewriting the WCML timetable be a big deal, anyway? Would the timetable not be rewritten, if HS2 were built?

Not quite a full rewrite, but there will have been some rewriting. Rewriting the WCML timetable isn't a big deal as such, but more of a case where rewriting it won't actually gain you much more capacity. And as for rewriting it post HS2, that would happen, but at least then we'd have gained capacity.

Building HS2 and 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' would mean massive disruption at Manchester, Crewe, and Euston. Stoke on Trent council's plans for a new station would also cause disruption. Disruption is what comes with modernising, or maintaining, a railway. Or a road.

It would mean massive disruption, but at least there would still be a number of trains running at any point. With upgrade works, you don't tend to have the option to leave 2 lines open and let trains run.