Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link

[edwin_m]

One running line is 20% of the station capacity!

 

[HSTEd]

One running line is 20% of the station capacity!

So not much at all considering that two of those lines will carry 18tph (for HS2), leaving you with two lines for the classic services which is not really that bad since there are only 16tph of Virgin/LM services now, let alone after the railway is less heavily used once HS2 arrives.

 

[edwin_m]

The whole point of HS2 is to create more capacity on the WCML, so the last think you'd want is a bottleneck on the busiest section. However a connection to send some of the WCML semi-fasts through Crossrail would relieve pressure here.

 

[HSTEd]

The whole point of HS2 is to create more capacity on the WCML, so the last think you'd want is a bottleneck on the busiest section. However a connection to send some of the WCML semi-fasts through Crossrail would relieve pressure here.

Since the approach roads aren't very long the bottleneck could be ameliorated by keeping the speed limit relatively low, and remember there would be no Glasgow trains using the classic lines, probably only one Manchester train and probably no ICWC Birmingham trains.

It becomes an LM double track line with a smattering of ICWC trains on it.
Thameslink is going to manage ~24tph so I don't think 16tph is going to be much of a problem.

 

[edwin_m]

...but apparently a lot more trains to places like Milton Keynes, and the likes of Coventry and Stoke will still want a reasonable through service so probably quite a few medium-distance trains too.

I suspect the approach speed to Euston is already at or below what would maximise capacity.

 

[tbtc]

So, after a couple of hundred posts, nobody has given any evidence of demand for frequent links between HS1 and HS2 (i.e. over and above what a single track chord could cope with), apart from the usual "if you build it they will come" stuff?

Might as well end the thread in that case.

 

[si404]

The thread is titled "Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link" and I agree, it is absurd. It does the requisite viaduct widening works at a big bottleneck on the Overground/freight network, and then doesn't increase (does it even reduce?) capacity, instead putting in place a single track that can take 6 trains each hour, but will be unlikely to see that many trains per day (or year, unless High-Speed sleeper services run).

A rethink is needed - the link is absurd, and I disagree with tbtc that we should kill the thread. Sure, the original discussion point that it was absurd because 3tph each way wasn't going to be good enough is well and truly dead, however...

...I declare that the link is absurd and there should be a rethink, because it serves little purpose than a political sop, at the expense of the people of Camden and the NLL corridor. I therefore propose not building a dedicated link at all. Discuss.

 

[HSTEd]

Having a dedicated link does have some advantages in that it allows the ISIS-320 measurement train to potentially cover HS2 as well as the French network, avoiding the costs of purchasing an additional measuring train for the Captive Network.

Additionally it allows new rolling stock to be delivered by rail, permits trains to return to the continent for heavy maintenance and does allow us to plan for the possibility that some international services will be wanted in the future.

It is a hedge against a possible future demand and also provides various operational advantages.

 

[JamesRowden]

Having a dedicated link does have some advantages in that it allows the ISIS-320 measurement train to potentially cover HS2 as well as the French network, avoiding the costs of purchasing an additional measuring train for the Captive Network.

Additionally it allows new rolling stock to be delivered by rail, permits trains to return to the continent for heavy maintenance and does allow us to plan for the possibility that some international services will be wanted in the future.

It is a hedge against a possible future demand and also provides various operational advantages.

Could the route that is presently used for freight between the Channel Tunnel and the West Coast Mainline (the Maidstone East line and the West London line) be used for such purposes as a HS1-HS2 link (not passenger services)?

 

[edwin_m]

Could the route that is presently used for freight between the Channel Tunnel and the West Coast Mainline (the Maidstone East line and the West London line) be used for such purposes as a HS1-HS2 link (not passenger services)?

Quite apart from the problems of connecting it to HS2 in west London somewhere, this would only be useable by UK gauge trains operating on third rail, so wouldn't be any use for swapping Euro-standard trains between the UK and the continent.

 

[Holly]

So, after a couple of hundred posts, nobody has given any evidence of demand for frequent links between HS1 and HS2 ...

Well, the thread started with this:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/...rd-hs2hs1.html

Greengauge21 director Jim Steer said: We have identified a substantial demand for domestic high-speed rail services over the proposed link connecting HS1 and HS2. ...

The rest is baseless speculation as to what it was that Jim Steer found. Or didn't find.

 

[JamesRowden]

Quite apart from the problems of connecting it to HS2 in west London somewhere, this would only be useable by UK gauge trains operating on third rail, so wouldn't be any use for swapping Euro-standard trains between the UK and the continent.

Haul it using a class 92 from Ashford to Watford Junction and then send it back down to Euston and then on to HS2?

 

[Chris125]

Haul it using a class 92 from Ashford to Watford Junction and then send it back down to Euston and then on to HS2?

That does not address the difference in loading gauge.

Chris

 

[JamesRowden]

That does not address the difference in loading gauge.

Chris

The gauge of the route is W9.

 

[HSTEd]

The gauge of the route is W9.

So nowhere near enough?

We are talking about GC gauged rolling stock here, W9 is about a meter too short.

 

[cle]

Is the cucrently plan a single track/bore tunnel all the way from OOC to HS1?

That seems ridiculous - and the longer the single stretch, the less flexible. Could they not build a quick tunnel spur from the HS2 line in the Camden area, and link in directly to HS1, meaning the single bit is very short and thus could handle more tph? Cheaper too.

 

[HSTEd]

The vicinity of Euston Road north of the stations is a mass of tunnelling already.
There might not be a viable route.

 

[si404]

Is the cucrently plan a single track/bore tunnel all the way from OOC to HS1?

no - it will surface to use the Primrose Hill - Camden Road - HS1 pre-existing link, though would alter it.

That seems ridiculous - and the longer the single stretch, the less flexible.

Read upthread that the 3tph each way is way way more than enough.

Could they not build a quick tunnel spur from the HS2 line in the Camden area, and link in directly to HS1, meaning the single bit is very short and thus could handle more tph? Cheaper too.

No - maybe they could move the junction underground (at, say Queen's Park, rather than OOC), but I'm not sure that would reduce the cost. It must surface to go through Camden, or it would be very difficult to plug it into HS1 after passing under the Northern line.

---

Having a dedicated link does have some advantages in that it allows the ISIS-320 measurement train to potentially cover HS2 as well as the French network, avoiding the costs of purchasing an additional measuring train for the Captive Network.

But one would imagine that the link - especially when the costs to the local/freight network through Camden is considered - would cost more than a measuring train. And anyway, the additional mileage of the measuring train's route would cause issues. And loaning the train from the French would cost money.

Additionally it allows new rolling stock to be delivered by rail, permits trains to return to the continent for heavy maintenance and does allow us to plan for the possibility that some international services will be wanted in the future.

Oh, absolutely, however the reopening of the Primrose Hill link to passenger service, increasing frequency on the Overground (and thus needing a wider alignment through Camden) seem a much more sensible bet.

It is a hedge against a possible future demand and also provides various operational advantages.

Though is also a hedge against the need to finish the Overground expansion/upgrade planned and mostly carried out a couple of years ago, with the final bit ditched due to the cost of widening Camden in the middle of a recession with lots of spending cuts...

The operational advantages are a much better way of selling it than potential trains bypassing zone-1, but do the benefits of the link outweigh the dis-benefits to the local rail network through Camden? do they outweigh the cost of building the link? Put simply: is this waste-of-money merely hidden by the usefulness of spending on the rest or does it justify itself, unlike a short link near Warrington for faster Liverpool trains, or a Heathrow branch?

Sure, I'm playing a bit Devil's Advocate, but a costly (and not just financially) scheme merely for (rare) stock transfers and the (bi-weekly?) measuring train, seems rather a white elephant. Add to it scuppering local services in one of the local areas most angry about the scheme - Camden (though that is more due to Euston) and it surely struggles to justify itself as an isolated portion.

 

[HSTEd]

But one would imagine that the link - especially when the costs to the local/freight network through Camden is considered - would cost more than a measuring train. And anyway, the additional mileage of the measuring train's route would cause issues. And loaning the train from the French would cost money.

The British high speed network will be so short that the measuring train could traverse all the high speed track in the country in a few hours, compared to the amount of work it does currently that is almost nothing.


Especially as it apparently does classique lines in France because it does not have a particularly heavy high speed workload.

Oh, absolutely, however the reopening of the Primrose Hill link to passenger service, increasing frequency on the Overground (and thus needing a wider alignment through Camden) seem a much more sensible bet.

But there is no reason to have passenger services through Primrose Hill unless you plan to force Overground out of Euston and replace it with a connection to... nowhere in Particular.
Has anyone done any analysis on the possible effects on rider-ship of such a change?

Though is also a hedge against the need to finish the Overground expansion/upgrade planned and mostly carried out a couple of years ago, with the final bit ditched due to the cost of widening Camden in the middle of a recession with lots of spending cuts...

Then I am not sure how you plan on justifying the quad tracking of the route through Camden, since you can't expect HS2 to pay for it when it won't effect it at all.
Either HS2 uses it or it stays like it is now.

The operational advantages are a much better way of selling it than potential trains bypassing zone-1, but do the benefits of the link outweigh the dis-benefits to the local rail network through Camden? do they outweigh the cost of building the link? Put simply: is this waste-of-money merely hidden by the usefulness of spending on the rest or does it justify itself, unlike a short link near Warrington for faster Liverpool trains, or a Heathrow branch?

If nothing else, a full scale connection to HS1 is a political requirement for the project to proceed, otherwise the NIMBYs will just scream that it is just an evil plot for London to gain dominion over everything else to an even greater degree than already.
The promise of some trains through the continent at some point is a powerful counterargument.

Sure, I'm playing a bit Devil's Advocate, but a costly (and not just financially) scheme merely for (rare) stock transfers and the (bi-weekly?) measuring train, seems rather a white elephant. Add to it scuppering local services in one of the local areas most angry about the scheme - Camden (though that is more due to Euston) and it surely struggles to justify itself as an isolated portion.

Local services that are of questionable usefulness since they wouldn't actually go anywhere?
Most of the alignment through Camden looks wide enough for 4 tracks, which means that you could have one high speed, one for freight and one for overground, which should be able to handle all the reasonable traffic.
Especially once the freight diversion schemes are all in hand.

 

[Chris125]

Is the cucrently plan a single track/bore tunnel all the way from OOC to HS1?

The plan has always been to use a combination of new tunnel, from OOC to Primrose Hill, and then existing track over the freight only Primrose Hill line and the NLL through Camden Road - however the single track link line will now be dedicated to High Speed services, by adding a third track to Camden Road Jct and so segregating it from the NLL. The latter will also gain a third track through the station east to the freight loops.

There's a summary of the current proposal and the latest changes in Consultation Document - pages 21-24

Chris

 

[rebmcr]

The plan has always been to use a combination of new tunnel, from OOC to Primrose Hill, and then existing track over the freight only Primrose Hill line and the NLL through Camden Road - however the single track link line will now be dedicated to High Speed services, by adding a third track to Camden Road Jct and so segregating it from the NLL. The latter will also gain a third track through the station east to the freight loops.

There's a summary of the current proposal and the latest changes in Consultation Document - pages 21-24

Chris

By the time HS2 is built, the NLL could well be using ETCS (certainly if we really wanted it to) — in which case perhaps it doesn't need to be segregated at all.

 

[edwin_m]

By the time HS2 is built, the NLL could well be using ETCS (certainly if we really wanted it to) — in which case perhaps it doesn't need to be segregated at all.

All stations would have to be segregated as a Euro-gauge train can't pass a platform that a UK-gauge train can stop at.

 

[starrymarkb]

Indeed platforms are the biggest issue as other structures can be altered progressively.

Long term it might be worth fitting new UK stock with retractable steps to allow both types of platform to be used. The new Talents in Germany have a step that gives an almost flat bridge to Regional Platforms (there is a step up from the train to ICE platforms at major stations)

 

[pablo]

There is a way UK gauge and GC+ can use the same platform if a little extra width is available. (as forseen by IKB ) It involves parrellel rails and points. How do trams and trains use the same platform?

 

[Chris125]

By the time HS2 is built, the NLL could well be using ETCS (certainly if we really wanted it to) — in which case perhaps it doesn't need to be segregated at all.

It's not an issue of signalling, indeed the original proposal had conventional services sharing the link line through Primrose Hill and Camden Road Jct, but due to objections from TfL and Network Rail the latter has gained a third track to allow segregation and so avoid the reliability issues that would arise from mixing conventional services with those using a single track bi-directional link line.

Chris

 

[SansPareil]

Perhaps some sort of retractable platform edge could be developed to solve the problem.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a way UK gauge and GC+ can use the same platform if a little extra width is available. (as forseen by IKB ) It involves parrellel rails and points. How do trams and trains use the same platform?

By and large they don't. Tram-trains normally have extending steps.

If you're alluding to interlaced tracks I've looked into this professionally and the extra width is likely to be about 0.3m, a width that many existing platforms wouldn't be able to lose. This is dictated by the need to have two independent rails with fixings between them, and the switches to lead into an interlaced section would need about 80m each end. So not as simple as it first appears.

 

[rebmcr]

It's not an issue of signalling, indeed the original proposal had conventional services sharing the link line through Primrose Hill and Camden Road Jct, but due to objections from TfL and Network Rail the latter has gained a third track to allow segregation and so avoid the reliability issues that would arise from mixing conventional services with those using a single track bi-directional link line.

Chris

If they were mixed, there wouldn't be any bidirectional!

All stations would have to be segregated as a Euro-gauge train can't pass a platform that a UK-gauge train can stop at.

So just Camden Road then? I guess it could always be converted to have a retractable platform edge, should demand ever require a higher HS2-HS1 throughput — which makes the current single-line plans a lot less concerning.

 

[Chris125]

If they were mixed, there wouldn't be any bidirectional!

Only one line could be gauge cleared, so services between HS1 and HS2 would use the southernmost line bi-directionally alongside conventional services heading west on the NLL and Primrose Hill Line - far from ideal, which led to the current plan for a dedicated track.

So just Camden Road then? I guess it could always be converted to have a retractable platform edge, should demand ever require a higher HS2-HS1 throughput — which makes the current single-line plans a lot less concerning.

The platforms at Camden Road aren't the determining factor, the NLL could likely suffice with the northern pair if need be - what limits capacity is the single gauge-cleared track, the single bore tunnel into OOC, and the need to segregate it's operation from the NLL.

Chris