Possible combination of HS2 phase 2 with "rail north'

[a_c_skinner]

20 years. Strewth. If HS2 is such a good idea how can we afford to leave it that long? It needs about three years on site to actually build most of it (he guessed). This is stupid. If it is good and needed then lets build it, if it isn't then don't but to build it so slowly is simply stupid.

 

[tbtc]

20 years. Strewth. If HS2 is such a good idea how can we afford to leave it that long? It needs about three years on site to actually build most of it (he guessed). This is stupid. If it is good and needed then lets build it, if it isn't then don't but to build it so slowly is simply stupid.

Looking at how long it took to build things like the Borders line, how long do you think we should take to build hundreds of miles of line engineered for high speeds (with lots of tunnels)?

Even the Chinese might take more than three years to accomplish all of that.

 

[Mogster]

It’s a monumental engineering project. The problem with cracking on will be availability of trained people I’d guess, then there’s materials, building 16 TBMs isn’t going to happen instantly either.

 

[Haydn1971]

Person power is hugely restrictive on these projects, we have a huge vacuum in professionals for design, suitably experienced operatives for site and also the huge back office operations for street works coordination, safety officers, building information management, and so on...

 

[Haydn1971]

In addition, we have a massive shortfall in materials supply too, it’s not uncommon for black top to be shipped in 50-100 miles from three different plants on a simple road surface renewal. Suppliers need longer term assurance on projects, so they can invest sensible in new equipment to make excavators, boring machines, steel for rails, efficient concrete plants, the cables, control systems, etc... we ramped up in the Second World War to build tanks, aircraft and ships in huge numbers, all this manufacturing died post war, the switch was to building homes, public buildings and roads, we switched again in the 70s to technology and hi tech manufacturing, we need another huge shift to ramp up the production of things we need to make things. Hitachi is a prime example, initial investment to build IEP, then scaled back recently because of a lack of sufficient orders long term... government expects the private sector to invest, but doesn’t give longer term assurances to the private sector of its intentions

 

[edwin_m]

If HS2 / NPR was built without Phase 2B between Birmingham and York via Sheffield and Crewe to Manchester surely there would be no journey time saving for London to Leeds / York / Newcastle over today's ECML timetable?

That's correct. Although the trains could run faster between London and Birmingham, it's a long way out of their way if heading to Yorkshire and beyond, so they wouldn't save any time in total. They would also need more capacity on existing routes north-eastwards from Birmingham. If the bits that are also part of NPR were built (Birmingham-Toton area and north of Sheffield to Leeds) then there would be some time saving on Birmingham to the North East, maybe some on London to Leeds but not on London to Newcastle.

 

[Chester1]

That's correct. Although the trains could run faster between London and Birmingham, it's a long way out of their way if heading to Yorkshire and beyond, so they wouldn't save any time in total. They would also need more capacity on existing routes north-eastwards from Birmingham. If the bits that are also part of NPR were built (Birmingham-Toton area and north of Sheffield to Leeds) then there would be some time saving on Birmingham to the North East, maybe some on London to Leeds but not on London to Newcastle.

London to Crewe will be 55 minutes and Crewe to Manchester is 37 minutes. Assuming a 30 minute journey time between Manchester and Leeds it would be possible to save maybe 10 minutes! Not great!

 

[matacaster]

I find it quite strange that Brunel, Stephenson, Brassey and their ilk designed and built britain's railways rather quickly, with no pool of experienced designers, only ex-canal navvies (some irish), intelligence, imagination and drive. They seemed to cope quite well without computers, much mechanical equipment, had to invent signalling, develop steam engines from rudimentary initial devices etc. Were they around now to see today's pathetically 'managed' projects where the objective (of politicians, contractors, Planners, activists, Nimbys, lawyers, HSE types) seems to be to cover ones own backside and ensure that maximum money is taken from the public purse, they may well have laughed ..... no, they would likely have cried. A largely green field development and it still takes 15 years for phase 1, this country is a joke!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I find it quite strange that Brunel, Stephenson, Brassey and their ilk designed and built britain's railways rather quickly, with no pool of experienced designers, only ex-canal navvies (some irish), intelligence, imagination and drive. They seemed to cope quite well without computers, much mechanical equipment, had to invent signalling, develop steam engines from rudimentary initial devices etc. Were they around now to see today's pathetically 'managed' projects where the objective (of politicians, contractors, Planners, activists, Nimbys, lawyers, HSE types) seems to be to cover ones own backside and ensure that maximum money is taken from the public purse, they may well have laughed ..... no, they would likely have cried. A largely green field development and it still takes 15 years for phase 1, this country is a joke!

While I share your frustration at the timescale required to be build a new generation of mainlines it's also a little unfair to compare the country as it was in the early Victorian era with how it is today. Population now is somewhat greater, property ownership is much more widespread and the railways themselves facilitated to a very large degree the agglomeration of people into towns and cities that now makes the threading of new lines through critical areas very much more difficult. Not to mention that Victorian politicians had a very determinedly laissez-faire attitude to the everyday details of economic activity compared to the much greater level of oversight applied today. Yes things could surely be done a little more quickly but democratic accountability is not to be sniffed at.

As to the apparent question mark over phase 2b I suspect that decisions on the HS stations in Leeds and Manchester and the preferred future both of the TRU and NPR/HS3 (should we now refer to that simply as HSN?) are the key variables to be considered. A holistic approach to these may very well allow current cost estimates to be reduced without necessarily needing significant de-scoping.

 

[edwin_m]

London to Crewe will be 55 minutes and Crewe to Manchester is 37 minutes. Assuming a 30 minute journey time between Manchester and Leeds it would be possible to save maybe 10 minutes! Not great!

I was thinking of London to Leeds via ECML and possibly using a high speed section on the approaches to Leeds (intended mainly for Sheffield-Leeds NPR trains) if it connects to the Doncaster-Leeds line. I have already pointed out several times that London-Manchester-Leeds is unworkable due to putting too many trains on various sections of HS2/NPR.

 

[quantinghome]

I find it quite strange that Brunel, Stephenson, Brassey and their ilk designed and built britain's railways rather quickly, with no pool of experienced designers, only ex-canal navvies (some irish), intelligence, imagination and drive. They seemed to cope quite well without computers, much mechanical equipment, had to invent signalling, develop steam engines from rudimentary initial devices etc. Were they around now to see today's pathetically 'managed' projects where the objective (of politicians, contractors, Planners, activists, Nimbys, lawyers, HSE types) seems to be to cover ones own backside and ensure that maximum money is taken from the public purse, they may well have laughed ..... no, they would likely have cried. A largely green field development and it still takes 15 years for phase 1, this country is a joke!

No criticism of the amazing feats of engineering accomplished by those guys. But let's not have any rosey-eyed view. They often went way over budget with subsequent court cases going on for decades. More people died building a single tunnel than the total annual fatalities in the entire construction industry today. It took the rail industry another 100 years to get trains running at 100mph. And of course they did have a pool of experienced engineers and contractors - we had been building mineral railways, turnpikes and canals for over a century prior to the first 'modern' railway.

What the heck is an 'HSE type'?

'Largely green field'... have you walked from Euston to Ruislip recently? Or Coleshill to Birmingham, or Wythenshawe to Manchester? Most of the time and budget is going on these urban parts of HS2, particularly the stations. If it was just green field it would be a heck of a lot cheaper and quicker.

If you have some actual practical ideas to improve planning, design and construction efficiency of rail projects please feel free to share them.

 

[YorkshireBear]

HSE types

Wasn't going to be so long until they were brought up. Because apparently trying to ensure people don't die at work is a deplorable activity. We should just let people die in excavations, of wiels diesease, of asbestosis, of lead poisoning etc. because good old Stephenson did.

 

[Bald Rick]

I find it quite strange that Brunel, Stephenson, Brassey and their ilk designed and built britain's railways rather quickly, with no pool of experienced designers, only ex-canal navvies (some irish), intelligence, imagination and drive. They seemed to cope quite well without computers, much mechanical equipment, had to invent signalling, develop steam engines from rudimentary initial devices etc. Were they around now to see today's pathetically 'managed' projects where the objective (of politicians, contractors, Planners, activists, Nimbys, lawyers, HSE types) seems to be to cover ones own backside and ensure that maximum money is taken from the public purse, they may well have laughed ..... no, they would likely have cried. A largely green field development and it still takes 15 years for phase 1, this country is a joke!

They certainly didn’t invent signalling!

 

[mpthomson]

For me, the important aspect of NPR is to overlay a separate intermediate track layout that ties the second tier places into the key first tier places that HS2 ph2b serves... there must be a clear segregation from the existing classic lines, so that 225kph (or better) services can service the M62 spine of Liverpool-Warrington-Airport-Manchester-East Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-Selby-Hull, with at least 225kph line spurs to at very least Sheffield/Meadowhall, York and Preston, but also ideally at least express speeds using in part the existing classic network to key regionals like Bradford, Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster, Stockport, Bolton etc... this layer of services between NPR and locals is akin to what TPE and XC provide now for regional commuting

Said as someone who lives in York and uses trains to M'cr routinely, that's simply never going to happen, and it isn't needed either. What is needed is more reliable journeys on a better alignment and at slightly to moderately higher speeds than is possible now. There's no requirement for 140mph trains on the route at all.

 

[mpthomson]

If you are building a new line, make it as fast as you can, within reason...

No, build it to an appropriate specification on a cost/benefit basis by looking at passenger utilisation and flow and predictions thereof.

 

[quantinghome]

Said as someone who lives in York and uses trains to M'cr routinely, that's simply never going to happen, and it isn't needed either. What is needed is more reliable journeys on a better alignment and at slightly to moderately higher speeds than is possible now. There's no requirement for 140mph trains on the route at all.

Given the proposed station stops for the NPR new line (Liverpool, Warrington?, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds) I'd tend to agree. No stations will be more than 30 miles apart. Acceleration will be more important than top speed to get fast overall journey times. 125mph should work fine.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given the proposed station stops for the NPR new line (Liverpool, Warrington?, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds) I'd tend to agree. No stations will be more than 30 miles apart. Acceleration will be more important than top speed to get fast overall journey times. 125mph should work fine.

But if you’re going to build a new line, particularly if a fair bit of it will be in tunnel, it may as well be straight, and therefore quick.

There’s precious little cost difference in trains between 125 and 140mph. It’s only when you get up to 170mph+ that the trains become more pricey.

 

[ainsworth74]

We absolutely do not need yet more discussion of Brexit outside of either threads where it is completely on-topic or dedicated threads to discuss Brexit. On this thread it meets neither criteria. Therefore please desist from further Brexit chat.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which will not be much if anything at all. Assuming no tilt on new stock, there will be areas where such trains COULD travel faster today but can't because 100mph is the limit for any other train through this section as it was assumed only tilting units would ever be excede this. Pendolinos are also fairly low-powered for their weight, partly through the heavy bogies they have to use as part of the tilt system. New more powerful non-tilters will be able to go faster in places and accelerate out of curve restrictions more quickly, so could plausibly closely approach or even better current fastest times. TPE is interested, as their new 125mph capable electric trains could also take advantage. Requires detailed modelling and targetted interventions. TASS could be retained and developed to supervise appropriate speeds for all train types, as all modern trains will have the correct balise reader and computer to emulate TASS as part of being 'ERTMS-ready'.

There's time to sort something out for HS2 and its ETCS-fitted stock.
But 397s are not ETCS/TASS-fitted and I still can't work out how they might be allowed to do 125mph on the WCML "this year", as postulated elsewhere.
Among other things their ride at 110mph (any speed really) is so poor that I think I would avoid them if they were to go any faster.
Avanti has said they will keep their AT300s south of Preston to minimise the impact of non-tilt performance.

 

[matacaster]

They certainly didn’t invent signalling!

Indeed those people I mentioned didn't. However, railway signalling was developed initially based on naval practice by equally inspired and dedicated people.

 

[matacaster]

HSE types

Wasn't going to be so long until they were brought up. Because apparently trying to ensure people don't die at work is a deplorable activity. We should just let people die in excavations, of wiels diesease, of asbestosis, of lead poisoning etc. because good old Stephenson did.

Of course I am not suggesting that HSE is not important, just that the application of it can get way out of proportion to the likely risk. No sensible person would work without adequate protection from overhead or third rail electrocution for example. It all depends on whether it is a tick box exercise rather than a proper examination of risk and sensible and affordable measures to minimise that risk. Note however, there is a risk of being killed or maimed in crossing a road (or indeed simply being on the pavement), but I doubt anybody does a risk assessment before crossing the road, despite the fact that it is probably more risky than some activities on the railway. If safety becomes disproportionate on one mode of transport (rail), then rail can price itself out of the market leading to use of a cheaper and fundamentally more dangerous mode of transport (car).

 

[Haydn1971]

Said as someone who lives in York and uses trains to M'cr routinely, that's simply never going to happen, and it isn't needed either. What is needed is more reliable journeys on a better alignment and at slightly to moderately higher speeds than is possible now. There's no requirement for 140mph trains on the route at all.

Some guy on here timed a 395 sprint to 140mph as about 8 minutes over 12km, you perhaps have an argument if all trains stopped at all stations, but I’d expect to see some stations missed out on some services, especially if I was travelling from say Hull to Liverpool, or Newcastle to Manchester Airport... as pointed out above, it’s not a big ask to aim for 225kph alignment over 200kph, or perhaps we should just aim lower and be happy with 145kph alignments...

 

[MarkyT]

397s are not ETCS/TASS-fitted and I still can't work out how they might be allowed to do 125mph on the WCML "this year", as postulated elsewhere.

I'd be most surprised if the 397s were not specified to be at least 'ETCS ready' which I believe has been standard for all new trains for a while now.

 

[Chris125]

I find it quite strange that Brunel, Stephenson, Brassey and their ilk designed and built britain's railways rather quickly, with no pool of experienced designers, only ex-canal navvies (some irish), intelligence, imagination and drive. They seemed to cope quite well without computers, much mechanical equipment, had to invent signalling, develop steam engines from rudimentary initial devices etc. Were they around now to see today's pathetically 'managed' projects where the objective (of politicians, contractors, Planners, activists, Nimbys, lawyers, HSE types) seems to be to cover ones own backside and ensure that maximum money is taken from the public purse, they may well have laughed ..... no, they would likely have cried. A largely green field development and it still takes 15 years for phase 1, this country is a joke!

Construction may have been more straightforward but planning was a shambolic affair and the parliamentary process was often dodgy if not outright corrupt - the influence of the wealthy and well-connected, especially landowners and those with vested interests, is legendary with a huge and often detrimental impact on the network's development.

 

[edwin_m]

But 397s are not ETCS/TASS-fitted and I still can't work out how they might be allowed to do 125mph on the WCML "this year", as postulated elsewhere.

Isn't it as simple as just raising the non-EPS speed above 110 on those sections where the infrastructure is suitable, so that 397s and any other 125-capable trains can just run at that speed? TASS is only required to allow trains with a (working) tilt system to run at the higher EPS speed.

 

[MarkyT]

Isn't it as simple as just raising the non-EPS speed above 110 on those sections where the infrastructure is suitable, so that 397s and any other 125-capable trains can just run at that speed? TASS is only required to allow trains with a (working) tilt system to run at the higher EPS speed.

That would definitely be simplest. It was my suggestion earlier that TASS might be retained and developed for better and more complete supervision of permissible speed for all classes than TPWS can achieve in an area where there could be an appreciable increase in the quantity and complexity of speed signage to take maximum advantage of performance potential.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Of course I am not suggesting that HSE is not important, just that the application of it can get way out of proportion to the likely risk. No sensible person would work without adequate protection from overhead or third rail electrocution for example. It all depends on whether it is a tick box exercise rather than a proper examination of risk and sensible and affordable measures to minimise that risk. Note however, there is a risk of being killed or maimed in crossing a road (or indeed simply being on the pavement), but I doubt anybody does a risk assessment before crossing the road, despite the fact that it is probably more risky than some activities on the railway. If safety becomes disproportionate on one mode of transport (rail), then rail can price itself out of the market leading to use of a cheaper and fundamentally more dangerous mode of transport (car).

While I agree to an extent ofc you do a risk assessment whole crossing the road. Unless you walk out without looking or listening. You judge speed of cars etc. A risk assessment isn't just a tick the box exercise its something everyone does every day.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't it as simple as just raising the non-EPS speed above 110 on those sections where the infrastructure is suitable, so that 397s and any other 125-capable trains can just run at that speed? TASS is only required to allow trains with a (working) tilt system to run at the higher EPS speed.

It’s not quite that simple - it’s not just 110/125EPS, there’s loads of places with EPS differentials at lower speeds, and smaller differentials. North of Lancaster there’s not much track suitable for higher speeds than the existing ‘base’ linespeed.

 

[WatcherZero]

Andrew Stephenson the Pendle MP has today been appointed minister for HS2, Transpennine and Northern Powerhouse Rail.

He was previously a junior foreign office minister and before that a Government whip.

Paul Maynard who Andrew replaced in the reshuffle last week was previously Minister for Crossrail, Crossrail 2 and East West rail. Those portfolios have been transferred to Chris Heaton-Harris the Rail and Accessibility minister.

 

[daikilo]

Andrew Stephenson the Pendle MP has today been appointed minister for HS2, Transpennine and Northern Powerhouse Rail..

A little more precision on https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state--86, the transpennine part is described as "transpennine route upgrade" in the singular.