Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link

[tbtc]

Thus repeating the folly of only considering current travel patterns...

Fair enough if you can't think of any potential flows that justify more than a single track connection between HS1 and HS2.

 

[transmanche]

Fair enough if you can't think of any potential flows that justify more than a single track connection between HS1 and HS2.

It's pointless asking people to define something which does not exist today. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you; it's not about travel patterns which may or not exist today - it's about the travel patterns that will become possible in the future.

The M25 planners did not foresee the travel patterns that exist today - and I don't just mean the number of motorists, I mean the sheer variety of new journey opportunities it enabled. Thus we now have the never-ending and exceedingly expensive game of catch-up as they try to add extra capacity.

Don't make the same mistake with the HS2-HS1 link.

 

[Oswyntail]

Sadly, Transmanche, that is the way we do things in this country. We do not look at where people might want to go (difficult) but look at where they do go (easy) and assume they always will.
It is laughable to fight over the Manchester-Brighton flow - that was a prime example of someone looking at a map and taking insufficient data. probably along the lines of "I (Londoner) like to go to Brighton and find Gatwick a convenient airport so people from the North will want to as well". Did anyone actually ask? Similarly, has anyone asked the travellers from Manchester if they find getting from Euston to St Pancras sufficient disincentive to put them on the plane? When travelling to the continent, I always prefer rail, but I find the interchange from King's Cross is off-putting, and adds quite a bit of time, sometimes enough to tip the balance. A through train from Leeds would encourage me to travel more. But that takes a leap of faith, and the rail industry in the UK has long since given those up.

 

[tbtc]

It's pointless asking people to define something which does not exist today. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you; it's not about travel patterns which may or not exist today - it's about the travel patterns that will become possible in the future.

The M25 planners did not foresee the travel patterns that exist today - and I don't just mean the number of motorists, I mean the sheer variety of new journey opportunities it enabled. Thus we now have the never-ending and exceedingly expensive game of catch-up as they try to add extra capacity.

Don't make the same mistake with the HS2-HS1 link.

You're trying to justify building a double track line between HS2 and HS1, so I expected you to have some suggestions for what services may justify that.

The big difference between a new motorway and a new railway is that a new motorway can cater for hundreds/thousands of different journeys - each car on the M25 may have a different start and end point to all of the others. There may be only one person using the M25 to get from Wallsend to Gravesend (and one from Rotherham to Gillingham and one from Bury to Canterbury...), but it doesn't matter - a motorway works fine with all of these different travel patterns.

However, 400 metre long trains are only going to work on certain core routes between two places with a lot of demand. Manchester to London. Birmingham to London. Leeds to London. Heavy rail can't deal with things as flexibly.

There are bound to be people in Kent wanting to get to "the midlands/ north", and vice versa, but how do you supply that demand with a train? Run services that stop at every major place from Newcastle to Dover to tick every box (and therefore fail to be anywhere near "HS")?

Easy to criticise me for my old-fashioned approach to things, sure, but apparently hard to find services to justify a double track line.

 

[jon0844]

It's pointless asking people to define something which does not exist today. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you; it's not about travel patterns which may or not exist today - it's about the travel patterns that will become possible in the future.

The M25 planners did not foresee the travel patterns that exist today - and I don't just mean the number of motorists, I mean the sheer variety of new journey opportunities it enabled. Thus we now have the never-ending and exceedingly expensive game of catch-up as they try to add extra capacity.

Don't make the same mistake with the HS2-HS1 link.

The M25 actually made it possible for many more people to travel to work east-west or north-south where it was previously impractical, by having to go through central London or using very slow roads not well linked up (going in/out of London, much like our mainline railway routes).

The railway was slow to catch up (and buses to a degree) with the car now being the only way for some people to travel effectively.

Now we have things like Crossrail and the upgraded Thameslink to solve some of the problems, plus the outer 'circle line' with London Overground, but it has taken some time to offer an alternative to the M25 that did make huge changes to the way people travelled, or could travel.

It won't just be HS2, but any other rail upgrade work. And let's think of the rush for people to buy property in places like Ashford because of the construction of the CTRL/HS1. It will happen with HS2 for sure.

 

[transmanche]

The M25 actually made it possible for many more people to travel to work east-west or north-south where it was previously impractical

A point I have made to tbtc many times now - but one he seems unable to grasp...

 

[DW54]

The problem remains that anyone boarding an international train north/west of London would have to go through border controls and especially security, which means these trains could not also act as domestic trains. As well as the huge cost of these facilities at other stations, this makes it impossible to combine international and domestic on the same train, which may be the onliy way of getting a worthwhile frequency.

Trains terminating at Stratford can't go to Temple Mills as the depot junction is at the London end of the station. In any case to turn back most of the HS2 services were turning back you'd need something bigger than Temple Mills with a double track access. I'm sure space could be found somewhere such as around Dagenham.

1) You've read the HS2 reports, which explain how they propose to go about handling through International services in conjunction with the Border Protection Agency, I take it?

2) I'd expect a fair percentage to run through to reverse at Ebbsfleet, especially if the Estuary airport with a landside terminal at Ebbsfleet goes ahead. We await the Airports report with bated breath. Other trains could continue to Ashford to reverse - Classic Compatible might also run to major destinations in Kent (eg Canterbury, Dover). The demand for these without a HS London Central @ Euston/St/Cross would be modest. But as part of a through service calling at the London terminal, probably would be that much higher (it's a strange psychological phenomenum, like trams being more popular than buses on the same route).

3) I understand access at Stratford to the depot is via a ramp through the station exiting at the eastern end. Some works would be required to allow passengers to board/alight from trains moving to the depot for reversal servicing. Additional depot access trackage would be a modest price to pay compared to what is planned.

Apart from these points of detail, does the HS London Central concept resonate with you, or is perpetuating the traditional dead-end terminus at the fringe of London's Commercial centre the way to go?

 

[tbtc]

A point I have made to tbtc many times now - but one he seems unable to grasp...

I've tried to explain the fundamental difference between a road and a railway to you - for a (400m long) train service to work you need hundreds of people making similar journeys. Things are different on the road.

 

[transmanche]

I've tried to explain the fundamental difference between a road and a railway to you - for a (400m long) train service to work you need hundreds of people making similar journeys.

But not identical. Units could split/join at Birmingham Junction - or other locations as future HS lines are developed. And (as has been pointed out to you before) Stratford Intl will be a busy HS station - if the direct HS2-HS1 services are provided.

 

[edwin_m]

3) I understand access at Stratford to the depot is via a ramp through the station exiting at the eastern end. Some works would be required to allow passengers to board/alight from trains moving to the depot for reversal servicing. Additional depot access trackage would be a modest price to pay compared to what is planned.

Apart from these points of detail, does the HS London Central concept resonate with you, or is perpetuating the traditional dead-end terminus at the fringe of London's Commercial centre the way to go?

The ramp ascends through the station box. Adding another platform to it might be possible but even fewer trains could use it to get to/from Temple Mills if each one had to stop on the single line in both directions.

I think in principle a Euston Cross type idea has a lot to commend it, and through HS2/HS1 domestic trains will work a lot better if they can call here or at some other central London station to help justify their existence. I'm less convinced that we can make an international service beyond London work under the current security rules.

There are numerous HS2 documents and I've probably skimmed all of them at one time or another. If you're referring to starting International trains at Old Oak then I see little point in doing so as a better transfer between Euston (or Euston Cross) and St Pancras would only take a little longer than changing at Old Oak, and would give a much wider choice of services because they would also be serving the much larger market that doesn't want to go via Old Oak.

 

[Chris125]

As you can tell, I very firmly believe the current, slightly modified plan will leave a very unhappy legacy to future generations to sort out. The most critical will be the NLL which scarcely needs more constriction of capacity!

What constriction of capacity? By adding a third line to Camden Road Jct the NLL and link line will be operationally separate.

3) I understand access at Stratford to the depot is via a ramp through the station exiting at the eastern end. Some works would be required to allow passengers to board/alight from trains moving to the depot for reversal servicing. Additional depot access trackage would be a modest price to pay compared to what is planned.

This assumes a pair of extra tunnels can be bored into the station box at Stratford International which was never AFAIA designed with this mind - seeing as the practicality of even one has been questioned in the past, and in the latest refinements consultation a tunnelled option was described as having to reach Barking, this doesn't appear to be achievable.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

But not identical. Units could split/join at Birmingham Junction - or other locations as future HS lines are developed. And (as has been pointed out to you before) Stratford Intl will be a busy HS station - if the direct HS2-HS1 services are provided.

Split units are not currently permitted in the Chunnel, thanks to the fact there is no gangway between them and thus one half can't be easily evacuated into the other in case of an emergency in the tunnel.

You might be able to work something out swapping half sets around at Birmingham International or somewhere, but it would require massive additional infrastructure.

 

[transmanche]

Split units are not currently permitted in the Chunnel

Noted, but not relevant in the context of UK domestic services.

 

[mr_jrt]

What constriction of capacity? By adding a third line to Camden Road Jct the NLL and link line will be operationally separate

Not really - the constriction will be on future options. If the work is done on the viaduct to reinstate 4 tracks but is instead used to slew two northwards so 1 larger one can use the southern alignment, then it's still a constriction of capacity. To go though the expensive of widening the bottleneck for a measly 3 tpd when the same widening works would enable a projection of the ELL from H&I up the DC lines is madness. If the NLL can mange with just the two northern tracks, then by all means slew it and restrict it to them, but use the vacated space for two more ELL tracks!

 

[DW54]

{snip}
There are numerous HS2 documents and I've probably skimmed all of them at one time or another. If you're referring to starting International trains at Old Oak then I see little point in doing so as a better transfer between Euston (or Euston Cross) and St Pancras would only take a little longer than changing at Old Oak, and would give a much wider choice of services because they would also be serving the much larger market that doesn't want to go via Old Oak.

No, there was one which detailed how the International (UK Border Protection) facilities were to be provided at Birmingham and intermediate stations incl Stage 2. I don't think they had OOC in mind, nor do I.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

{snip}

This assumes a pair of extra tunnels can be bored into the station box at Stratford International which was never AFAIA designed with this mind - seeing as the practicality of even one has been questioned in the past, and in the latest refinements consultation a tunnelled option was described as having to reach Barking, this doesn't appear to be achievable.

Chris

I'm not assuming an extra pair of tunnels into Stratford. The junction for the HS London Central (Euston Cross, etc) would be near Dalston, and underground (Discussion on this point at District Dave's). There would be little residual traffic into St Pancras, which would be retained for overflow and emergency use. There could be freight on the link. I don't expect the Mildmay Park Junction to be a significant constraint to the free flow of services. Apart from the cutover (which would be one track at a time), I don't expect any disruption to Euro* or Fast Kent services.

At Stratford, I'd expect the line to divide at the top of the ramp, with an arrivals platform and a departures platform respectively.

 

[edwin_m]

No, there was one which detailed how the International (UK Border Protection) facilities were to be provided at Birmingham and intermediate stations incl Stage 2. I don't think they had OOC in mind, nor do I.

But that would mean that international trains from Birmingham etc would have to carry only international passengers, or any domestic passengers on these trains would have to go through security and passport controls. In my opinion the international traffic is not enough on its own to justify a train service, so would only work if combined with domestic traffic, hence these rules kill the idea.

 

[jopsuk]

international trains would be so much eeasier if we were a Schengen country. Pity the bampots will prevent this happening.

 

[jon0844]

I think it's fair to say that when we're doing well economically, we do become a place that every illegal immigrant wants to come to - passing through loads of EU countries quite easily.

I am all for reducing our tight controls to allow free and easy travel like our mainland European counterparts enjoy, but this is a serious problem and we need a workable solution.

If we ever accepted an ID card system, we might be able to open the borders, as well as having a system to deport illegals easier than we do now. Of course, that would mean giving the authorities more powers to check our IDs - or if not the police on the streets, certainly making it compulsory that your ID is shown/used for lots of things - jobs, bank accounts etc.

It seems we're slowly moving towards making certain people (such as employers) take more care to do checks (with heftier fines), and if we can address things like benefits, housing, illegal employers/gangmasters etc then we might become less of a desirable destination, protect our own workforce (British and legal EU members) and be in a better position to reconsider over the Schengen agreement.

 

[DW54]

But that would mean that international trains from Birmingham etc would have to carry only international passengers, or any domestic passengers on these trains would have to go through security and passport controls. In my opinion the international traffic is not enough on its own to justify a train service, so would only work if combined with domestic traffic, hence these rules kill the idea.

That may be your opinion. It seems it is not the opinion of HS2 Ltd.

You are right that the international trains would be just that, no domestic pax.

With HS London Central, HS2, LU, CR2 and other domestic passengers can exit to St Pancras International Border Control DIRECTLY, and formalities completed, proceed to the assigned international departures platform (or if early, to lounge facilities in St Pan.)

 

[pablo]

DW54, Can you give a link to the HS London Central proposal, please?

 

[edwin_m]

That may be your opinion. It seems it is not the opinion of HS2 Ltd.

I suspect HS2 Ltd is just making design provision for something that may be required, rather than saying it definitely will be. I agree with the view that it may become necessary at some stage, and that it would be sensible to make sure space is available if it does. In terms of abortive expenditure it's a lot less significant than the NoL Eurostars or NightStar!

With HS London Central, HS2, LU, CR2 and other domestic passengers can exit to St Pancras International Border Control DIRECTLY, and formalities completed, proceed to the assigned international departures platform (or if early, to lounge facilities in St Pan.)

Which is exactly what I think will happen, either with a Euston Cross type proposal or if HS2 terminates at Euston with a travolator or similar link to St Pancras.

 

[JohnB57]

international trains would be so much eeasier if we were a Schengen country. Pity the bampots will prevent this happening.

Why? Schengen wouldn't relax tunnel security requirements any more than it does for air travel. Passport checks alone take no time at all so as long as security checks are deemed necessary for tunnel transit, there are no meaningful advantages.

Schengen only really provides a real advantage in mainland Europe where goods can be carried across multiple borders without hindrance.

 

[jon0844]

I think that if we got rid of passport checks, you'd have a situation where you could run trains through to mainland Europe, but also stop at destinations along the way in the UK - and vice versa (without the current situation for trains that stop at Lille on the way back).

Of course you might still have to control the number of people on the train (so reserved seats would be compulsory), but I am sure that can be addressed.

You would probably still have security checks at stations for any train that is go through the tunnel, but perhaps one day that might be solved by other technologies to speed things up (like walking through a scanner that checks you and your luggage at once).

 

[HSTEd]

The security checks are the bigger problem to be honest, you could just do passport checks rolling en route to the Chunnel and stop the train at either Calais or Ashford International to make sure anyone without a passport got off.

 

[JohnB57]

Demand versus cost Jon, as we've discussed before. If there's a market, there will be a way to do it. But I still don't believe that eliminating passport checks alone will make any meaningful difference.

 

[transmanche]

Passport checks alone take no time at all

After spending over 45 mins queuing to get through passport control at the Port of Tyne the other day, I'm not inclined to believe you...

 

[HowardGWR]

After spending over 45 mins queuing to get through passport control at the Port of Tyne the other day, I'm not inclined to believe you...

I've suffered at places like that where you get one overnight ferry coming in. It's the jobsworths' one big moment of the day so they make the most of it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The security checks are the bigger problem to be honest, you could just do passport checks rolling en route to the Chunnel and stop the train at either Calais or Ashford International to make sure anyone without a passport got off.

Indeed, we are back to the security cobblers again. Someone said earlier that this was off topic. Nonsense, it is the topic. Has anyone bothered to work out what will happen with HS2 - lots of long tunnels there and of course HS1 tunnels under the Thames so why don't we carry out baggage checks on Kent pax?

Surely it must be clear that this nonsense of checking baggage for the trips under the channel - only, and then only on rail pax, not car pax or HGVs, is totally illogical.

 

[JohnB57]

After spending over 45 mins queuing to get through passport control at the Port of Tyne the other day, I'm not inclined to believe you...

I've traveled numerous times on Eurostar and passport checks have never taken more than a few minutes. They can be long winded at airports, but only when a number of flights arrive at the same time.

Security checks on the other hand is a right pain in the 'arris and I can't really make my mind up about them.

As Howard says, there is a big discrepancy between Eurostar and Le Shuttle, although I have been checked quite a few times when taking my car over. As he also says, (smooth, fast) security is at the heart of the argument - it seems to me to be a major way in which HS2-ostar can add value and build some business for through services.

Not holding my breath though...

 

[Chris125]

Not really - the constriction will be on future options. If the work is done on the viaduct to reinstate 4 tracks but is instead used to slew two northwards so 1 larger one can use the southern alignment, then it's still a constriction of capacity.

As far as I'm aware the plan was and remains to reinstate the quadruple track viaduct with 4 tracks - three for the use of the NLL east of Camden Road Jct through the station, allowing for a turnback facility, with the fourth a dedicated HS2 link line.

To go though the expensive of widening the bottleneck for a measly 3 tpd when the same widening works would enable a projection of the ELL from H&I up the DC lines is madness. If the NLL can mange with just the two northern tracks, then by all means slew it and restrict it to them, but use the vacated space for two more ELL tracks!

Though it may be possible I can't see how the benefits would justify the massively higher cost of an alternative HS2 link line plus the reinstatement of the quadruple track viaduct through Camden Road and widening of Camden Road Junction to three tracks. The latter would still be a bottleneck of course, the ELL/DC having to share with both the NLL and freight traffic.

Such a scheme would constrict capacity too, removing the potential turnback facility for the NLL at Camden Road and the freight loops east of the station, while exposing the ELL to a higher risk of delays from other services.

I'm not assuming an extra pair of tunnels into Stratford. The junction for the HS London Central (Euston Cross, etc) would be near Dalston, and underground (Discussion on this point at District Dave's).

If that was a practical proposition why does HS2 Ltd assume a tunnelled link having to stretch to Barking? I really can't see that being cost effective, not just because of the construction but the disruption too.

Chris

 

[brianthegiant]

Has anyone bothered to work out what will happen with HS2 - lots of long tunnels there and of course HS1 tunnels under the Thames so why don't we carry out baggage checks on Kent pax?
Surely it must be clear that this nonsense of checking baggage for the trips under the channel - only, and then only on rail pax, not car pax or HGVs, is totally illogical.

Very good point, Le Shuttle gets ferry style security (or lack of) and Eurostar gets airport style security. Some very long tunnels in the alps too, which don't have all the security hassle.
I suppose the problem with relaxing E* security would be that you'd need English & French political agreement and the unions would make lots of noise about safety as a cover story for job loss worries. Furthermore I wonder to what degree current arrangements are about making customers 'feel' safe & secure. My personal impression is that Eurostar security are often quite pragmatic about what goes through.

But as the chunnel increasingly becomes just another tunnel section in the middle of a large fast train network with multiple operators (E*, DB, others?) wanting to operate routes to more destinations, there will be more pressure on regulators to relax things. After all we've already seen the rolling stock spec downgraded to suit DB running their shorter ICE variant.