Should HS2 have fewer tunnels?

[moggie]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/possible-hs2-euston-station-de-scoping.213574/

Lots of valid opinion so here's mine! We all know that the proposal to remove a platform from the core design of Euston HS2 is to save money. Fine if that's the publicly declared and the intent and consequence is published. But pretending the current operational specification (in so far as it exists for the planning and design of the station up to now) will not be compromised is clearly nonsense. The current design for 11 platforms meets the required performance specification and the projected timetable to ensure a specified level of reliability, including the capability to absorb a specified degree of perturbation. There won't be any 'padding' within the spec, or the design which satisfies it as this will already have gone through a fine toothcomb to remove unnecessary bloat.

Therefore if 10 platforms is now the build target to save on cost then it follows that the operational specification including the capability to absorb a degree of service perturbation will have to be changed (reduced) to cater for either a reduced service, less ability to absorb service disruption of more services subject to cancellation or terminating short of destination (Euston). No wrapping the subject around lots of technical and commercial complexity changes that. What boils my <> is the attitude that a project costing £BN's etc is already being saddled with permanent operational compromise before they've even started and which ultimately stands to fail it's customers more often than would otherwise be the case. As if the critics of the project didn't already have enough bile to spray!

Personally I'd save some of the the planet, literally, and dig less tunnels!

 

[HSTEd]

Personally I'd save some of the the planet, literally, and dig less tunnels!

Dig less tunnels and then get bogged down in even more arguments with god knows who from god knows where.
If anything the experience of HS2 is we probably need more tunnels.

 

[quantinghome]

Lots of valid opinion so here's mine! We all know that the proposal to remove a platform from the core design of Euston HS2 is to save money. Fine if that's the publicly declared and the intent and consequence is published. But pretending the current operational specification (in so far as it exists for the planning and design of the station up to now) will not be compromised is clearly nonsense. The current design for 11 platforms meets the required performance specification and the projected timetable to ensure a specified level of reliability, including the capability to absorb a specified degree of perturbation. There won't be any 'padding' within the spec, or the design which satisfies it as this will already have gone through a fine toothcomb to remove unnecessary bloat.

Therefore if 10 platforms is now the build target to save on cost then it follows that the operational specification including the capability to absorb a degree of service perturbation will have to be changed (reduced) to cater for either a reduced service, less ability to absorb service disruption of more services subject to cancellation or terminating short of destination (Euston). No wrapping the subject around lots of technical and commercial complexity changes that. What boils my <> is the attitude that a project costing £BN's etc is already being saddled with permanent operational compromise before they've even started and which ultimately stands to fail it's customers more often than would otherwise be the case. As if the critics of the project didn't already have enough bile to spray!

Then the question is, by how much is the performance spec compromised? Does the reduction in platforms reduce performance marginally, pushing it just over the specification, or does it result in a massive, disproportionate increase in delays? It's impossible to judge the wisdom of the reduction without knowing this.

Considering the situation as a whole I think I'm more concerned about the delays in opening Euston as a result of building in one go. It will further delay the benefits of HS2. Like others have said, penny-wise, pound-foolish.

 

[Class 170101]

Personally I'd save some of the the planet, literally, and dig less tunnels!

Do we actually have enough space underground to build tunnels without knocking out gas, water, electric amongst other services anyway.

 

[SynthD]

Do we actually have enough space underground to build tunnels without knocking out gas, water, electric amongst other services anyway.

They already decided it was simpler to tunnel under the OOC-Northolt section, in the city. Choosing to do that out in the green belt is going to be entirely unhindered.

 

[quantinghome]

They already decided it was simpler to tunnel under the OOC-Northolt section, in the city. Choosing to do that out in the green belt is going to be entirely unhindered.

What no one thinks about is the impact of extensive tunnels on the travelling public. One of the joys of train travel is being able to look out of the window at the views of the countryside going past. It makes a significant contribution to our own sense of nationhood. I don't want to be shoved in a tunnel unless it's really necessary. Of course there needs to be a balance between that and the effect on people living near the line. But over the past 200 years railways have become an integral part of the British landscape and I think there needs to be some acknowledgement that HS2 will blend into the landscape pretty quickly.

 

[Bald Rick]

What no one thinks about is the impact of extensive tunnels on the travelling public. One of the joys of train travel is being able to look out of the window at the views of the countryside going past. It makes a significant contribution to our own sense of nationhood. I don't want to be shoved in a tunnel unless it's really necessary. Of course there needs to be a balance between that and the effect on people living near the line. But over the past 200 years railways have become an integral part of the British landscape and I think there needs to be some acknowledgement that HS2 will blend into the landscape pretty quickly.

I read somewhere that a typical trip from London to Birmingham via HS2will have less than 30% of the journey with a ‘view’ - the rest is in tunnel or cutting.

 

[BrianW]

What no one thinks about is the impact of extensive tunnels on the travelling public. One of the joys of train travel is being able to look out of the window at the views of the countryside going past. It makes a significant contribution to our own sense of nationhood. I don't want to be shoved in a tunnel unless it's really necessary. Of course there needs to be a balance between that and the effect on people living near the line. But over the past 200 years railways have become an integral part of the British landscape and I think there needs to be some acknowledgement that HS2 will blend into the landscape pretty quickly.

I agree. I had envisaged HS2 on the 'London' section as being on the alignment of the Central Line either taking over the 'New North Main Line' or a broadening out, and not a tunnel. Not only are trains quieter than used to be (as with aircraft, so not the noise nuisance conjured up by some) but indeed the Central Line trains passing Greenford and visible across a huge chunk of West London are inaudible, esp when compared with eg the A40 on its Greenford flyover. Although I never much enjoyed driving on the M25, the addition of 'noise barriers', while it may indeed reduce noise nuisance (I hope it does!), reduces the 'visual amenity' hugely. Much could have been done perhaps by transparent barriers rather than timber. If however this is a 'price to be paid' to gain consent maybe it must be accepted. At least with the speed of trains the time spent 'in the dark' will be less than imagined and the joy of coming out into the light a joy similar to that of coming through Christmas Common on the M40 with Oxfordshire spread out ahead, even without the modern 'dreaming towers' of Didcot Power Station to the south. I have several old books that pointed the train traveller to the 'sights' along the way, an important adjunct to the joy of the journey. Maybe the mobile phone and laptop have seen those off anyway. I wonder how many will just 'enjoy the trip' as a journey?

 

[CW2]

As originally proposed, the HS2 line from Old Oak Common would have come to the surface a lot sooner, and run at surface level alongside the Central and Chiltern Lines along the Ruislip corridor. However to achieve the additional width for the extra tracks would have meant building a very high wall at the bottoms of the gardens of the residents of Ruislip, with high speed trains running along the top. Unsurprisingly they weren't too chuffed at this prospect, so the line got pushed underground through this area, extending the time spent in tunnel.

 

[Ianno87]

I read somewhere that a typical trip from London to Birmingham via HS2will have less than 30% of the journey with a ‘view’ - the rest is in tunnel or cutting.

Or noise barriers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I read somewhere that a typical trip from London to Birmingham via HS2will have less than 30% of the journey with a ‘view’ - the rest is in tunnel or cutting.

There's a reason to stick with the classic line - some parts of the south WCML are stunning, and none of it is boring!

 

[Bald Rick]

There's a reason to stick with the classic line - some parts of the south WCML are stunning, and none of it is boring!

Well quite a bit of it is bored.

(Coat >>>>>)

 

[quantinghome]

There's a reason to stick with the classic line - some parts of the south WCML are stunning, and none of it is boring!

I prefer the ECML, particularly on a sunny, frosty morning. But I fear we are deviating from the purpose of this thread.

 

[HSTEd]

What no one thinks about is the impact of extensive tunnels on the travelling public. One of the joys of train travel is being able to look out of the window at the views of the countryside going past. It makes a significant contribution to our own sense of nationhood. I don't want to be shoved in a tunnel unless it's really necessary. Of course there needs to be a balance between that and the effect on people living near the line. But over the past 200 years railways have become an integral part of the British landscape and I think there needs to be some acknowledgement that HS2 will blend into the landscape pretty quickly.

Well HS2 is rather noisier than a line where a single unit potters along at 60 miles per hour every half hour or quarter hour.

I suppose with advancing tech we could put screens in place of the windows, and use something like the Distributed Apperture System from the F-35 to generate an image from cameras along the route as if you were flying along just above the surface.

 

[camflyer]

Dig less tunnels and then get bogged down in even more arguments with god knows who from god knows where.
If anything the experience of HS2 is we probably need more tunnels.

I'm just waiting for the first passengers using HS2 from Euston to Birmingham to complain that the view is terrible as so much of the journey is in tunnels and deep cuttings.

 

[JamesT]

Well HS2 is rather noisier than a line where a single unit potters along at 60 miles per hour every half hour or quarter hour.

I suppose with advancing tech we could put screens in place of the windows, and use something like the Distributed Apperture System from the F-35 to generate an image from cameras along the route as if you were flying along just above the surface.

Or go low-tech, paint what you would see on the surface on the walls of the tunnels, then people can just look out the windows. If you wanted slightly posher, put live displays on the tunnel walls.

 

[HSTEd]

Or go low-tech, paint what you would see on the surface on the walls of the tunnels, then people can just look out the windows. If you wanted slightly posher, put live displays on the tunnel walls.

It would be difficult to paint it so that it wouldn't blur given the depth of field won't be correct!

Although I could go with screens playing different artistic impressions of the journey.
See what it looks like as a continuously scrolling watercolour!
Or a continuously scrolling fresco.

 

[Nottingham59]

Or a continuously scrolling fresco

Put strobe lighting on the outside of the carriages, synchronised to each frame, and you could show movies!

 

[jfowkes]

Put strobe lighting on the outside of the carriages, synchronised to each frame, and you could show movies!

They have that system showing adverts in the underground in Beijing/Shanghai/both and it's horrible.

 

[quantinghome]

Think we're missing a trick. Why not keep the line on the surface, then cover the outside of the trains with massive lcd screens linked to cameras on the opposite side of the train. Add in noise cancellation speakers along the line et voila! Problem solved. And probably cheaper than tunnelling.

 

[edwin_m]

Think we're missing a trick. Why not keep the line on the surface, then cover the outside of the trains with massive lcd screens linked to cameras on the opposite side of the train. Add in noise cancellation speakers along the line et voila! Problem solved. And probably cheaper than tunnelling.

You could put more screens on the inside showing the view out.

 

[AM9]

Given the reduced opportunity for viewing the scenery, the need for window alignment is reduced so capacity doesn't need to be sacrificed for a partcular searing layout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the reduced opportunity for viewing the scenery, the need for window alignment is reduced so capacity doesn't need to be sacrificed for a partcular searing layout.

Though if you're spending a huge amount on fancy high speed trains, it's not exactly going to cost hugely more to order them with windows spaced to your intended seating layout.

Yes, you, SNCF. Misaligned seating in First Class is unacceptable.

 

[Ianno87]

Given the reduced opportunity for viewing the scenery, the need for window alignment is reduced so capacity doesn't need to be sacrificed for a partcular searing layout.

HS2 trains will run onto the existing WCML, and the view will be very much better in the Lune Gorge...

 

[21C101]

Given the reduced opportunity for viewing the scenery, the need for window alignment is reduced so capacity doesn't need to be sacrificed for a partcular searing layout.

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but when specifying your train, specify the seats and then tell them to arrange the windows to align with them. They seem to somehow manage that with cars, buses and coaches.

 

[Class 170101]

As originally proposed, the HS2 line from Old Oak Common would have come to the surface a lot sooner, and run at surface level alongside the Central and Chiltern Lines along the Ruislip corridor. However to achieve the additional width for the extra tracks would have meant building a very high wall at the bottoms of the gardens of the residents of Ruislip, with high speed trains running along the top. Unsurprisingly they weren't too chuffed at this prospect, so the line got pushed underground through this area, extending the time spent in tunnel.

Hanger Lane Gyratory was also in the way. This made it cheaper and less disruptive to tunnel rather than be on the surface here.

I'm just waiting for the first passengers using HS2 from Euston to Birmingham to complain that the view is terrible as so much of the journey is in tunnels and deep cuttings.

Poor (or non-existent) mobile and or wifi reception complaints too I expect. HS1 has no reception in the London or Thames tunnels

 

[Ianno87]

Poor (or non-existent) mobile and or wifi reception complaints too I expect. HS1 has no reception in the London or Thames tunnels

Perfectly solvable - you get phone reception in the Channel Tunnel.

If anything, the above ground, rural sections are more likely to be the problem.

Assuming that is still a problem generally in 10+ years time.

 

[popeter45]

correct me if im wrong but wouldnt extra long tunnles lead to issues with the air piston affect that would either require even wider tunnels and hence higher cost or a reduced speed?

the Chunnel was designed for 200km/h but becuase the piston supression system caused lateral force issues they needed to reduce the speed futher to 160km/h max?

 

[Bald Rick]

How ever does Fenchurch Street manage to cope with 20x 12 car trains an hour on a two track line in the peaks with just four platforms

9 min turnarounds, no cleaning, no restocking, quick alighting / boarding, heavily peaked flow, entirely self contained railway, a good proportion go out empty to depot.

LUL manage to turn round 30 an hour at Brixton on a two track line with just two platforms?

As above, except sub 3 minute turnarounds, plus 133m trains with terrific acceleration, platform end linespeed crossovers, overruns instead of buffer stops, all trains going to exactly the same stations, double step back drivers.

correct me if im wrong but wouldnt extra long tunnles lead to issues with the air piston affect that would either require even wider tunnels and hence higher cost or a reduced speed?

Some of the HS2 tunnels are long. The ‘piston effect’ comes into effect with relatively short single track tunnels. I forget the distance but it’s less than a mile.

 

[21C101]

9 min turnarounds, no cleaning, no restocking, quick alighting / boarding, heavily peaked flow, entirely self contained railway, a good proportion go out empty to depot.



As above, except sub 3 minute turnarounds, plus 133m trains with terrific acceleration, platform end linespeed crossovers, overruns instead of buffer stops, all trains going to exactly the same stations, double step back drivers.

Yes, that is exactly why I wrote the rest of the post which stated:

"Yes of course intercity trains have longer turnround times, but come on, ten platforms for 18 an hour at Euston is still generous, especially as a future increase above 18 per hour is impracticable.

Also HS2 is in some regards a "high speed metro" with just two tracks and all trains having an identical stopping pattern of calling at Old Oak and Birmingham International. Not exactly the LCDR main line out of Victoria where a myriad of stopping patterns have to be fitted onto two tracks to from Victoria to Shortlands.

It's a nice to have but if planners and operators having a slightly harder job means that some cancer patients get extra funding or more lines elsewhere get investment, I'm all for cutting back to ten platforms, especially as it appears that it makes the whole station far easier to construct."

Ive also moved the post back to the Euston Station Platforms thread in infrastructure as it was nothing to do with this tunnel length thread.