HS2: Will Old Oak work and what could be done to improve it?

[Bletchleyite]

It came up on the thread about double-deck stock that the Old Oak short dwells could be a problem. Personally, I think they are too short to work even with mitigating factors like multiple platform accesses and compulsory reservations, based on what I know about how British people use trains (see Manc Picc 13/14), and thus think that the effect of them will be that they will make a right mess of punctuality on HS2. Late arrivals at Euston will just look sloppy (but that's no good for a brand new, multi billion pound line), but late departures northbound will knock on to half the network.

So what can be done about this? I can see it being a mess like LNR's Liverpool services, and a need to either miss out some OOC stops or increase the dwells to a few minutes, or even both.

Any more thoughts?

 

[Ianno87]

If HS2 is timed like any other high speed line, there'll be a small amount of recovery built into running times, so if dwells do overrun at Old Oak Common slightly, there's a good chance it'll be recovered by further north anyway.

E.g. on a 49 minute journey time to Birmingham (of which 45 minutes is actual running time once 2 x 2 minute dwells are accounted for), one would expect at least a couple of minutes if this to be "recovery".

 

[HSTEd]

You can't realistically miss out OOC stops without completely stuffing the timetable.

Personally I think they should have specced 8 platforms instead of 6, but it is what it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If HS2 is timed like any other high speed line, there'll be a small amount of recovery built into running times, so if dwells do overrun at Old Oak Common slightly, there's a good chance it'll be recovered by further north anyway.

E.g. on a 49 minute journey time to Birmingham (of which 45 minutes is actual running time once 2 x 2 minute dwells are accounted for), one would expect at least a couple of minutes if this to be "recovery".

You do already have this at MKC, I suppose, in that it's very, very rare in my experience for a Pendolino to make the nominal 30 minute running time between Euston and MKC, a delay of 1-2 minutes is the norm as even one double-yellow knackers it, yet these trains aren't rocking up half an hour late at Manchester (it's 35 minutes southbound, funnily enough). Though the problem with that is that it looks extraordinarily sloppy. You can get away with that on the WCML by explaining how packed the line is, but there's no excuse for that sloppiness on a brand-new multi-billion-pound non-mixed-traffic line. HS2 should be built and timetabled so it runs on time, all the time, unless a delay is imported from the classic line sections.

I fear that OOC will be yet another example of that curious British railway disease, namely that if there's a way to eke out another path, another train will be crammed into it, without respect for the fact that mid-journey recovery time and building for resilience are virtues.

 

[Ianno87]

You do already have this at MKC, I suppose, in that it's very, very rare in my experience for a Pendolino to make the nominal 30 minute running time between Euston and MKC, a delay of 1-2 minutes is the norm as even one double-yellow knackers it, yet these trains aren't rocking up half an hour late at Manchester (it's 35 minutes southbound, funnily enough). Though the problem with that is that it looks extraordinarily sloppy. You can get away with that on the WCML by explaining how packed the line is, but there's no excuse for that sloppiness on a brand-new multi-billion-pound non-mixed-traffic line. HS2 should be built and timetabled so it runs on time, all the time, unless a delay is imported from the classic line sections.

That's deliberate at MK. On the Down, the timing is deliberately "rounded down" so that, on a good run from Euston, it doesn't end up just sitting waiting time at MK, when it could "save up" the recovery for further north.

You can apply the same logic at Old Oak - a deliberately tight timing from Euston to Old Oak so that recovery is best saved for further north, and there's no wasteful waiting around only a few kilometres into the journey.

 

[Bald Rick]

@Bletchleyite - I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, can I check?

Are you suggesting that the proposed layout of station platforms at OO, combined with 2 minute dwells, won’t be sufficient for the passenger numbers and that there will thus be regular delays due to extended dwell times?

 

[HST43257]

Surely 6 platforms (3 in each direction) is enough for pretty long dwells if needed.

If you want to keep dwell times low, make it set down and pick up only at OOC.

 

[Horizon22]

@Bletchleyite - I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, can I check?

Are you suggesting that the proposed layout of station platforms at OO, combined with 2 minute dwells, won’t be sufficient for the passenger numbers and that there will thus be regular delays due to extended dwell times?

I gather he's suggesting a 3 minute dwell at Old Oak Common if there's double decker stock (which isn't confirmed?). That still seems excessive to me and I'm not sure why proper passenger flow management can't resolve the situation. The station is new and will be built with this in mind and analysing passenger conflict points and routing. Plus the other "soft" mitigations such as on-board announcements, wide doors and active staff involvement.

 

[CW2]

OOC is already planned to be pick up only / set down only.
There will be multiple entrances / exits to each platform.
Normal passenger loading would be about 500 persons boarding or alighting.
Two minutes should be adequate in those circumstances.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@Bletchleyite - I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, can I check?

Are you suggesting that the proposed layout of station platforms at OO, combined with 2 minute dwells, won’t be sufficient for the passenger numbers and that there will thus be regular delays due to extended dwell times?

Yes. I'm suggesting that a 2 minute dwell for an InterCity train in the UK with large numbers boarding/alighting will not work regardless of platform layout, which will lead to one of two things - messy, sub-5-minute and unprofessional looking* delays of the kind you get at MKC, or a completely unreliable service if there isn't lots of slack north of Old Oak.

MKC barely manages 2 minutes with a Pendolino with maybe low double figures boarding. 500? No chance of that working in a million years. 3 or 4 minutes will be needed to ensure you get away on time every time, which is what needs designing in on a new railway.

Indeed, it strikes me that the whole thing is falling into that typical British trap of building the bare minimum and cramming it full. It is the wrong way of doing it. In Switzerland, who know how to do this kind of thing, it would never, ever do.

* It was interesting to learn it is deliberate, but that doesn't affect my view that it's sloppy. Trains should in my view run punctually to the minute and have enough timetable slack at every intermediate station (not just at the end) to do so unless they have a pick up/set down restriction that makes departure time irrelevant.

active staff involvement.

I hope that doesn't mean CLJ style blowing whistles at people. I understand why it's necessary at CLJ given its constraints, but it is incredibly rude and customer unfriendly and should be designed out of being needed on a brand-new railway. You need to give people time to board. For a premium service (which I still believe it will and should be), the whole experience from start to finish needs to be pleasant and enjoyable, not rushed and stressful.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes. I'm suggesting that a 2 minute dwell for an InterCity train in the UK with large numbers boarding/alighting will not work regardless of platform layout, which will lead to one of two things - messy, sub-5-minute and unprofessional looking* delays of the kind you get at MKC, or a completely unreliable service if there isn't lots of slack north of Old Oak.

MKC barely manages 2 minutes with a Pendolino with maybe low double figures boarding. 500? No chance of that working in a million years. 3 or 4 minutes will be needed to ensure you get away on time every time, which is what needs designing in on a new railway.

Indeed, it strikes me that the whole thing is falling into that typical British trap of building the bare minimum and cramming it full. It is the wrong way of doing it. In Switzerland, who know how to do this kind of thing, it would never, ever do.

* It was interesting to learn it is deliberate, but that doesn't affect my view that it's sloppy. Trains should in my view run punctually to the minute and have enough timetable slack at every intermediate station (not just at the end) to do so unless they have a pick up/set down restriction that makes departure time irrelevant.



I hope that doesn't mean CLJ style blowing whistles at people. I understand why it's necessary at CLJ given its constraints, but it is incredibly rude and customer unfriendly and should be designed out of being needed on a brand-new railway. You need to give people time to board. For a premium service (which I still believe it will and should be), the whole experience from start to finish needs to be pleasant and enjoyable, not rushed and stressful.

I didn't mean that - I meant announcements in good time (both on-board and the station), zones for boarding with staff on hand to assist etc. Doors for an HS2 train should be wider and more vestibule space than a Pendolino as well with any luck. Ultimately though it's a passenger transport network and you don't let people dawdle around nor should they want to - assist those with their luggage and reduced mobility promptly. Without excessive dwell times everywhere, its always going to be somewhat "rushed" and the boarding of the train is a small aspect between a nice station and train environment which is the more premium part. Otherwise dwell times becoming an increasingly high % of the overall journey times, especially for a HS service.

It definitely needs to be considered, but the only comparison we have is to probably Europe and I have no experience of what the average is at say, a busy TGV through station. If research suggests 2 is to small, then a timetable would be constructed to amend, but do we have any data to suggest it would be?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks. Some things to consider:

1) 2 minute dwell times are generally achieved by long distance services in this country today, at stations with boarding and alighting rather than just ‘one way’, as will happen at OOC.

2) HS2 stations and trains are being designed as an integrated system. Platform edge doors are still a possibility for example (although I suspect unlikely). But the near level and gap free boarding at OOC will certainly speed matters up compared to a Pendolino or Azuma.

3) the information systems on the stations will be light years ahead of where we are today. Expect specific information about where your coach will stop - even down to seat numbers - and thus where to wait.

I wouldn’t rule out a small proportion of trains exceeding a 2 minute dwell time, but as the train spec is set where 95% of dwells are done within 2 minutes, I would expect that to be easily achieved.

 

[BayPaul]

I agree with the others, no reason why OOC won't work, but even if it doesn't, simply increasing all trains to a 2.5 or 3 minute dwell wouldn't muck up the timetable, and there are plenty of platforms to allow this.

 

[Ianno87]

* It was interesting to learn it is deliberate, but that doesn't affect my view that it's sloppy. Trains should in my view run punctually to the minute and have enough timetable slack at every intermediate station (not just at the end) to do so unless they have a pick up/set down restriction that makes departure time irrelevant.

It encourages slick, disciplined working and is anything but sloppy, and better guarantees right time presentation further north. Sloppy woukd be just padding the timetable to have trains wastefully sitting around.

I hope that doesn't mean CLJ style blowing whistles at people. I understand why it's necessary at CLJ given its constraints, but it is incredibly rude and customer unfriendly and should be designed out of being needed on a brand-new railway. You need to give people time to board. For a premium service (which I still believe it will and should be), the whole experience from start to finish needs to be pleasant and enjoyable, not rushed and stressful.

With the right platform design, allocation of seats, spreading of passengers ready for arrival, "hustling" should not be necessary at all. How the departure time is advertised relative to actual departure assists this.

I agree with the others, no reason why OOC won't work, but even if it doesn't, simply increasing all trains to a 2.5 or 3 minute dwell wouldn't muck up the timetable, and there are plenty of platforms to allow this.

Reality is you'll get a mix of actual dwell from anything between 1.5 minutes and (say) 3 minutes, depending on time of day and the service.

The most important thing is that the timetable (and use of platforms) can absorb this in all but the most extreme cases, planning every train to the worse case dwell time is wasteful and risks being counter-productive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It encourages slick, disciplined working and is anything but sloppy, and better guarantees right time presentation further north. Sloppy woukd be just padding the timetable to have trains wastefully sitting around.

It's sloppy to wilfully operate trains at times other than those which are published. It would be less of an issue if the trains were pick-up only at MKC, but as things stand the railway is advertising a service (the arrival time from EUS) and providing something slightly different, and that, while 1-2 minutes is minor, is simply not being honest.

Trains waiting for time is not time wasted, it's time well spent in ensuring strict punctuality. Again, ask the Swiss.

You don't want "slick" working. You want punctual, reliable working day-in, day-out. I'm even less impressed with this now I know it's deliberate.

The running time from Euston to MKC should be 32 minutes with a 2 minute stop (no stop on an end-doored train should be under 2 minutes, and if a busy stop like Stockport or Old Oak should be 3 or potentially even 4). That is achievable reliably and is what actually happens most of the time. It might be that at present that can't be pathed, in which case I refer back to the "cramming excess trains in" principle, and would hope and expect this to be fixed when HS2 takes most of the fasts off.

With the right platform design, allocation of seats, spreading of passengers ready for arrival, "hustling" should not be necessary at all. How the departure time is advertised relative to actual departure assists this.

More obfuscation of the problem, then. Anyone see a minimum check-in time looming?

(I do like the idea that the published departure time should be the last time at which one can board, i.e. the point the "close" button is pressed, and the published arrival time the point the "open" button is enabled - but that would need to be done nationally, do it just for HS2 and again more confusion)

It simply comes down to that if you're building a multi-billion-pound new railway you shouldn't be cramming it absolutely full on day one. That approach is for things like the WCML where you need to cram in more commuter trains in the peak than it was ever designed to do, and if commuting reduces I'd like to see it backed off. HS2 should be designed so that you can set your watch by it, day in day out. Failure to do this is just skimping, just like not building that extra platform at Euston to save what is, in the overall scheme of things, about 50p.

Resilience isn't sexy, but it's absolutely vital.

To add to this, I've done a bit of searching and it appears DB, for ICE, use 2 minutes at a quieter station and 3 at a busier one. I'd say they've got that right. Old Oak will definitely be a busier one.

 

[Ianno87]

It's sloppy to wilfully operate trains at times other than those which are published. It would be less of an issue if the trains were pick-up only at MKC, but as things stand the railway is advertising a service (the arrival time from EUS) and providing something slightly different, and that, while 1-2 minutes is minor, is simply not being honest.

Trains waiting for time is not time wasted, it's time well spent in ensuring strict punctuality. Again, ask the Swiss.

HS2 is different to Switzerland. There is no point sitting at Old Oak Common or Milton Keynes waiting time if all passengers are loaded, when the recovery can be preserved to later in the journey (once you're out of the "pipe" from Euston)

And it is being honest at MK - the 30 minutes is achievable on a "clean" run. But that's the top X% of the bell curve only, not covering every eventuality.

You don't want "slick" working. You want punctual, reliable working day-in, day-out. I'm even less impressed with this now I know it's deliberate.

Yes you do. Padding the timetable excessively doesn't focus staff on efficiently managing dwell times. For example see the Thameslink core in 319 days compared to 700 days. Padding dwells just resulted in a sloppy operation.

More obfuscation of the problem, then. Anyone see a minimum check-in time looming?

(I do like the idea that the published departure time should be the last time at which one can board - but that would need to be done nationally, do it just for HS2 and again more confusion)

It simply comes down to that if you're building a multi-billion-pound new railway you shouldn't be cramming it absolutely full on day one. That approach is for things like the WCML where you need to cram in more commuter trains in the peak than it was ever designed to do, and if commuting reduces I'd like to see it backed off. HS2 should be designed so that you can set your watch by it, day in day out. Failure to do this is just skimping, just like not building that extra platform at Euston to save what is, in the overall scheme of things, about 50p.

Resilience isn't sexy, but it's absolutely vital.

Read my posts, it's not "cramming in" - it is tactically putting the recovery opportunity were it is of greatest value.

Dwells at Old Oak Common going slightly over 2 minutes is unlikely to break the timetable, as:
-There'll be some "slack" to the arrival of the next train in the headway anyway
-There's extra platforms to use at Old Oak Common
-Any minor late start can be recovered further north

"Resilience" does not mean everything runs second-perfect all the time. That's impossible. It means that the timetable is inherently stable and can recover from minor delays such as to dwell times encountered on route, with performance recovery distributed sensibly through the timetable to achieve this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 is different to Switzerland. There is no point sitting at Old Oak Common or Milton Keynes waiting time if all passengers are loaded, when the recovery can be preserved to later in the journey (once you're out of the "pipe" from Euston)

There is a point - being accurate, honest, precise and professional. Are they not virtues any more?

And it is being honest at MK - the 30 minutes is achievable on a "clean" run. But that's the top X% of the bell curve only, not covering every eventuality.

It's not being honest to publish a timetable that is not achieved something like 50% of the time. The timetable should be achieved, precisely (not within 5/10 minutes which is another obfuscatino), over 90% of the time, and only not achieved in the event of serious out of course running, not someone requiring a wheelchair ramp or help with their bags knocking several trains out.

Yes you do. Padding the timetable excessively doesn't focus staff on efficiently managing dwell times. For example see the Thameslink core in 319 days compared to 700 days. Padding dwells just resulted in a sloppy operation.

You should do both, then you get Japanese levels of punctuality. If HS2 doesn't achieve that, it will be a typical British embarrassment.

"Resilience" does not mean everything runs second-perfect all the time. That's impossible. It means that the timetable is inherently stable and can recover from minor delays such as to dwell times encountered on route, with performance recovery distributed sensibly through the timetable to achieve this.

It's both. You want, as first principle, the timetable to be operable precisely punctually on a normal day to day basis, even with all those squishy things wandering around it causing trouble - wanting the ramp, wanting help with their bags, holding the train up while they check it's theirs. Recovery time shouldn't be to deal with that. Recovery time is to allow the overall service to recover properly and not completely collapse when something goes actually wrong - a medical incident, a minor train failure etc. Most of the time it should not be used, and if you're being really professional you follow the German example and run slightly slower than linespeed so as to maintain the correct arrival and departure times so the Takt works properly.

The UK simply has it wrong compared to, well, basically, most of the world*. Why do we think we should be different? What is it about British exceptionalism?

* That knows about railway operation; I wouldn't count the US and its day-long delays.

 

[Ianno87]

There is a point - being accurate, honest, precise and professional. Are they not virtues any more?

As is having a timetable that is robust and stable. You're looking for a perfect solution where there isn't one.

It's not being honest to publish a timetable that is not achieved something like 50% of the time. The timetable should be achieved, precisely (not within 5/10 minutes which is another obfuscatino), over 90% of the time, and only not achieved in the event of serious out of course running, not someone requiring a wheelchair ramp or help with their bags knocking several trains out.

So what is the right percentage then? 100% is not achievable. There is no right answer to that question.

You should do both, then you get Japanese levels of punctuality. If HS2 doesn't achieve that, it will be a typical British embarrassment.

OK, lets extend dwell times at Old Oak Common or Milton Keynes from 2 to 3 minutes, in both directions. That means 2 less minutes turnround time at every destination instead, and making those less robust instead.

And what is you've waited time at Old Oak Common/MK and then have a minor delay further north? Result is you arrive at destination more late than if you'd had a quick stop-and-go at Old Oak/MK.

It's both. You want, as first principle, the timetable to be operable precisely punctually on a normal day to day basis, even with all those squishy things wandering around it causing trouble - wanting the ramp, wanting help with their bags, holding the train up while they check it's theirs. Recovery time shouldn't be to deal with that. Recovery time is to allow the overall service to recover properly and not completely collapse when something goes actually wrong - a medical incident, a minor train failure etc.

No, no and no. Standard recovery margins are there to guard against minor incidents and running imperfections. See UIC-406 and UIC-451.

Recovery time in the schedule is not for "medical incidents"; how many heart attacks can be attended to in 2 minutes? That is where contingency plans, control interventions and the like kick in

The UK simply has it wrong compared to, well, basically, most of the world*. Why do we think we should be different? What is it about British exceptionalism?

* That knows about railway operation; I wouldn't count the US and its day-long delays.

Don't be ridiculous. The density of service we operate on our infrastructure day in day out is near-incomparable. And yes, that does involve compromises and trade-offs between capacity and performance.

I'd say trying to apply Swiss principles to a completely different network is flawed logic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK, lets extend dwell times at Old Oak Common or Milton Keynes from 2 to 3 minutes, in both directions. That means 2 less minutes turnround time at every destination instead, and making those less robust instead.

Better to have the time spaced out than at one end; absolutely. Or chuck another unit and crew in the circuit (and adequate station capacity) and make it even better!

Consider LNR's Liverpool service. It failed primarily because of:
- Trying to get too much out of diagrams
- Inadequate intermediate layover

It could have been made to work, and indeed fixing that was the proposal before COVID allowed the whole thing to just be pulled.

Don't be ridiculous. The density of service we operate on our infrastructure day in day out is near-incomparable.

And therein lies the problem. We overload our infrastructure, and so it is with HS2. We don't see the benefits of precision and resilience, and yet the rest of western Europe does. What gives? I would say if we're in the minority we are pretty certainly wrong.

I can see no reason to suspect that DB (a railway with 30 years' experience of operating high speed services with very long trains) has it wrong with 2-3 minute dwells with ICEs (2 at small stations like MKC, 3 at large/busy ones like OOC). I can see every reason to suspect we have got it wrong, because we get it wrong all the time. In fact if anything DB's relative punctuality issue might suggest that they perhaps haven't even gone far *enough*; to fix that, see Switzerland.

And then there is Castlefield, which has not worked properly since the 1998 timetable. Is it going to take 23 years to learn of the problem with HS2, too?

 

[Ianno87]

Better to have the time spaced out than at one end; absolutely. Or chuck another unit and crew in the circuit (and adequate station capacity) and make it even better!

Which is fine...until you meet the reality of stations like Liverpool Lime Street or Glasgow Central, where there isn't platform capacity to "chuck an extra unit and crew in the circuit" isn't practical if there isn't the station capacity to do this.

Consider LNR's Liverpool service. It failed primarily because of:
- Trying to get too much out of diagrams
- Inadequate intermediate layover

It could have been made to work, and indeed fixing that was the proposal before COVID allowed the whole thing to just be pulled.

Not sure that example is relevant here. The whole thing didn't fall down because of slightly short dwell times at a few stations.

And therein lies the problem. We overload our infrastructure, and so it is with HS2. We don't see the benefits of precision and resilience, and yet the rest of western Europe does. What gives? I would say if we're in the minority we are pretty certainly wrong.

If HS1 is anything to go by, it is timed on exactly the same principles of recovery as every other high speed railway in Europe; 5% allowance on the running times, with snappy dwell times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is fine...until you meet the reality of stations like Liverpool Lime Street or Glasgow Central, where there isn't platform capacity to "chuck an extra unit and crew in the circuit" isn't practical if there isn't the station capacity to do this.

Then we need to build the required infrastructure to operate, reliably, the service we intend to introduce. Or we need to reduce that service so it's below the maximum capacity of the infrastructure (see Castlefield).

If HS1 is anything to go by, it is timed on exactly the same principles of recovery as every other high speed railway in Europe; 5% allowance on the running times, with snappy dwell times.

HS1 (domestic service) is a commuter railway with the same people using it day-in, day-out, which means you can get away with tighter timings because most users know what they are doing. It also has units that are basically high speed Class 313s (they look like it, too) with wide doors at thirds on short vehicles designed for that purpose. Do you seriously propose an HS2 unit is going to look like that? If so, the infrastructure is wrong.

They aren't the same principles as every other railway - I've already pointed out that DB don't generally have dwells under 2 minutes on ICEs, and it's 3 or more at large or busy stations, which would absolutely include the likes of OOC, Reading, New St and the likes.

 

[Ianno87]

Then we need to build the required infrastructure to operate, reliably, the service we intend to introduce. Or we need to reduce that service so it's below the maximum capacity of the infrastructure (see Castlefield).

What is "reliable"? That means minor delays can be absorbed and recovered from (where Castlefield didn't work). That is not the same thing as being 100% right time.

HS1 is a commuter railway with the same people using it day-in, day-out, which means you can get away with tighter timings because most users know what they are doing. It also has units that are basically high speed Class 313s (they look like it, too) with wide doors at thirds on short vehicles designed for that purpose. Do you seriously propose an HS2 unit is going to look like that? If so, the infrastructure is wrong.

On HS2, you design it so people do know what they are doing, allocated seating and the like. And, as explained up-thread, you build flexibility into the track layout so that some slight dwell over times aren't a big deal to handle, and have margin between the technical capability of the signalling and the planning headway.

They aren't the same principles as every other railway - I've already pointed out that DB don't generally have dwells under 2 minutes on ICEs, and it's 3 or more at large or busy stations.

Again, you're applying principles from one network to a completely different network. ICEs are multi-centric, generally have much longer journeys, and much more intertwined with the "conventional" network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is "reliable"? That means minor delays can be absorbed and recovered from (where Castlefield didn't work). That is not the same thing as being 100% right time.

A brand-new, multi-billion-pound high speed railway should be aiming for 100% right time and able to have many days of the year - more than not - on which that is achieved. Ask the Japanese. This is not like eking out the last bit of capacity between 1630 and 1830 out of Euston on LNR. This is about designing something to work properly. A railway working properly is one operating precisely to the timetable.

On HS2, you design it so people do know what they are doing

But there will always be the ones that don't, far more so than a commuter railway. There'll be the person needing the ramp. There'll be the one needing help with their bags. There'll be the one that can't read the PIS, either because they're confused or because they have a sight disability. Etc.

Again, you're applying principles from one network to a completely different network. ICEs are multi-centric, generally have much longer journeys, and much more intertwined with the "conventional" network.

The dwell times have precisely nothing to do with how intertwined or not they are with the conventional railway. They simply reflect that it is not feasible to board 500 people onto a train reliably, every time, within 2 minutes.

 

[Ianno87]

A brand-new, multi-billion-pound high speed railway should be aiming for 100% right time and able to have many days of the year - more than not - on which that is achieved. Ask the Japanese. This is not like eking out the last bit of capacity between 1630 and 1830 out of Euston on LNR. This is about designing something to work properly. A railway working properly is one operating precisely to the timetable.

No it isn't. Targets must be achievable to be meaningful. "Working properly" simply means "able to absorb all minor delays thrown at it without resorting to cancelling trains".

But there will always be the ones that don't, far more so than a commuter railway. There'll be the person needing the ramp. There'll be the one needing help with their bags. There'll be the one that can't read the PIS, either because they're confused or because they have a sight disability. Etc.

And that's why recovery is put in later in the journey, to cover this, or any other eventuality. But you don't need that allowance in every single train specifically at Old Oak Common, and assistance to these passengers is part of the dwell time solution.

The dwell times have precisely nothing to do with how intertwined or not they are with the conventional railway. They simply reflect that it is not feasible to board 500 people onto a train reliably, every time, within 2 minutes.

Perfectly possible. If you've got a 400 metre train (say 16 carriages, with 32 doors), that's 15 people per door. Say 90 seconds of door opening time, gives 6 seconds per boarding passenger, which is plenty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perfectly possible. If you've got a 400 metre train (say 16 carriages, with 32 doors), that's 15 people per door. Say 90 seconds of door opening time, gives 6 seconds per boarding passenger, which is plenty.

If you work on "wheels turning at scheduled departure time" you won't get 90 seconds of door opening time from a 2 minute dwell. But no, it's not plenty, and DB clearly understand that.

Have you ever seen a Pendolino boarding at say Stockport (which is comparable as hardly anyone gets off)? If you had, you'd know it wasn't.

There's always someone who blocks the aisle while faffing with their bags etc.

 

[Ianno87]

If you work on "wheels turning at scheduled departure time" you won't get 90 seconds of door opening time from a 2 minute dwell.

If you make the door cycle fast enough, you can. Pendolino doors are slow in this respect. The rolling stock spec and dispatch process is part of the solution too (e.g. driver controlled doors)

But no, it's not plenty, and DB clearly understand that.

Have you ever seen a Pendolino boarding at say Stockport (which is comparable as hardly anyone gets off)? If you had, you'd know it wasn't.

There's always someone who blocks the aisle while faffing with their bags etc.

I've watched Pendolinos at Milton Keynes stop and go within 90 seconds, and 2 minutes is commonly achieved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've watched Pendolinos at Milton Keynes stop and go within 90 seconds, and 2 minutes is commonly achieved.

Not with 500 boarding, though, usually well below 50. (Commuters don't count; HS2 won't be a commuter railway)

 

[Ianno87]

Not with 500 boarding, though, usually well below 50. (Commuters don't count; HS2 won't be a commuter railway)

HS2 also won't be operated with Pendolinos.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 also won't be operated with Pendolinos.

Are you proposing it's operated with commuter-layout EMUs like HS1 commuter domestics? Seriously? That's heading into "not fit for purpose" territory.

I'd expect something more like an ICE (i.e. Siemens Velaro) or a souped up 80x, which are both end-doored vehicles, and slightly slower to board than Pendolinos because the vehicles are 26 rather than 24m. And on none of the artist's impressions I've seen have they been anything other than the sort of end-doored high speed EMUs you get, well, everywhere else that does high speed rail.

Another "British exceptionalism" point then.

 

[Laryk]

For another internation example, Taiwan HSR has the following typical dwell times:



With this distribution of entrances/exits: (as of 2017)



With 12-car single deck trains and seating for just under 1000 people. Boarding is assisted with queuing lines for each door. Platform edge doors feature at Taipei.