We need High speed Rail, but Is HS2 really Needed?

[The Planner]

Only to Birmingham until Phase 2 opens!HS2 opening is the wrong way round. I'm not a local but I bet you that the WCML is more congested between Birmingham and Manchester and onwards

No, it isn't. The rest of your comments have been covered before elsewhere, especially the GCR ones.

 

[route101]

About an hour saved to both Edinburgh and Glasgow compared to the current 'standard' journey time. Interestingly, HS2 use 4:08 as the current London-Glasgow journey time, only one train manages this!

Which is quite a lot !

 

[6Gman]

Only to Birmingham until Phase 2 opens!HS2 opening is the wrong way round. I'm not a local but I bet you that the WCML is more congested between Birmingham and Manchester and onwards ,so it would make sense for the Chiltern lines to be heavily upgraded to 140mph for services to the West Midlands,Merseyside and North Wales , all the closed sections of the GCR Main Line including the Grendon Underwood link to be reopened as 140 mph railway(tunnels/bridges will be necessary of course pushing the price up but not as much as HS2 is going to cost)(this also helps the MML and the WCML further up by allowing some of the Sheffield/Manchester/Chesterfield/Leicester express traffic to be directed via the reopened line and the WCML south of Birmingham by allowing some long distance Birmingham traffic to terminate in Birmingham.) Then you build a high speed line between Birmingham-Manchester-Liverpool/Newcastle via Leeds and the Pennines with a branch to Hull and the Humber Ports at Leeds, essentially merging NPR or HS3 with Phase 2 of HS2. There is now no need for HS2 routing and stations at/near Nottingham/Derby and Sheffield because both of those places could be reached within 1-1.5 hours from London (assuming the reopened length of the GCR main line would be 112 miles and the line speed would be 140 mph with as many express trains fit on as possible-it would be a solely express line from Rugby to Beighton Jcn.)
While you're at it, you may as well reopen the missing part of the Borders Railway and you could run a 3rd London-Scotland link, if you still have capacity at Marylebone (or Paddington,possibly after Crossrail)

You are, I assume, aware that Marylebone only has 6 platforms?
That they are awkwardly laid out?
That they already have to cater for the Aylesbury, Oxford and Banbury/Birmingham services?
That bufferstops to St Johns Wood Tunnel is barely half a mile?
That the tunnel is only double track?
That your "high speed" trains will have to be slotted between local services and even the Metropolitan Line of the Underground?

That travelling to Manchester via Leicester and Sheffield is a bit "round the houses"?

 

[jyte]

Which is quite a lot !

I'm not belittling an hour!

Now we need to improve the northern ECML and WCML - I want London-Scotland in 3 hours!

 

[snowball]

Now we need to improve the northern ECML and WCML - I want London-Scotland in 3 hours!

Scotland begins at Gretna and Berwick.

 

[AlastairFraser]

You are, I assume, aware that Marylebone only has 6 platforms?
That they are awkwardly laid out?
That they already have to cater for the Aylesbury, Oxford and Banbury/Birmingham services?
That bufferstops to St Johns Wood Tunnel is barely half a mile?
That the tunnel is only double track?
That your "high speed" trains will have to be slotted between local services and even the Metropolitan Line of the Underground?

That travelling to Manchester via Leicester and Sheffield is a bit "round the houses"?

I'll address your questions by number.
1.) Yes, I am aware that Marylebone has only 6 platforms but this could be alleviated by extending the Tube to Aylesbury and upgrading the Princes Risborough-Aylesbury branch line to main line standard so that services that terminate at High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross are extended to Aylesbury Vale Parkway(fast between High Wycombe and Aylesbury), replacing the London Marylebone to Aylesbury directs and all Chiltern Railway Aylesbury line services.
This , I assume would also free up capacity on the Met for more semi-fast/fast Aylesbury/Metroland to Central London services.
2.) No I was not aware,please tell me how this could be rectified, if it could at all.
3.) Well I propose the Aylesbury Line services above to be removed to reclaim some capacity. I realise now that the reopening of the full GCR is totally irrational but there is no reason why Birmingham services can't be extended to Merseyside via Smethwick Galton Bridge + the WCML and the GCR still could be reopened to Rugby to take some fast shorter distance services off the WCML into Paddington if the capacity is available after Crossrail comes as you've told me Marylebone doesn't have the capacity.
I understand now that HS2 is needed but couldn't they at least put it in tunnel from Euston to Aylesbury to avoid destroying natural habitats. Yes it would cost a bomb, but it is already (possibly £100 billion) and I assume that they could offset a lot of householder compensation this way. I still believe in a Birmingham to Manchester HS2 Phase Two with branches to Newcastle via Leeds(and Hull) and Liverpool.Sheffield could also do with the reopening of the Woodhead line so some faster trains can avoid the stoppers on the Hope Valley Line and allow Sheffield residents to access HS2 that way. Railfuture says the Woodhead Line reopening would allow 30 minutes Sheffield to Manchester trains. That would allow Sheffield-London journey times of 1.38, better than the current MML times and potentially after HS2 Phase One opens, conventional fast service from Sheffield to London via Nottingham on the WCML. This would mean no NPR and savings from that can fund the tunnelling from Euston to Aylesbury

 

[The Ham]

I'm not belittling an hour!

Now we need to improve the northern ECML and WCML - I want London-Scotland in 3 hours!

Being pedantic Old Oak Common to Glasgow/ Edinburgh would likely be less than 3 hours. For parts of London that's a better boarding/alighting point than Euston.

That means a project that would shave 10 minutes of the journey (4:08 less 1 hour = 3:08, less 10 minutes would be 2:58).

In its simplest form that could be a train which skips a few stops.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'll address your questions by number.
1.) Yes, I am aware that Marylebone has only 6 platforms but this could be alleviated by extending the Tube to Aylesbury and upgrading the Princes Risborough-Aylesbury branch line to main line standard so that services that terminate at High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross are extended to Aylesbury Vale Parkway(fast between High Wycombe and Aylesbury), replacing the London Marylebone to Aylesbury directs and all Chiltern Railway Aylesbury line services.
This , I assume would also free up capacity on the Met for more semi-fast/fast Aylesbury/Metroland to Central London services.
2.) No I was not aware,please tell me how this could be rectified, if it could at all.
3.) Well I propose the Aylesbury Line services above to be removed to reclaim some capacity. I realise now that the reopening of the full GCR is totally irrational but there is no reason why Birmingham services can't be extended to Merseyside via Smethwick Galton Bridge + the WCML and the GCR still could be reopened to Rugby to take some fast shorter distance services off the WCML into Paddington if the capacity is available after Crossrail comes as you've told me Marylebone doesn't have the capacity.
I understand now that HS2 is needed but couldn't they at least put it in tunnel from Euston to Aylesbury to avoid destroying natural habitats. Yes it would cost a bomb, but it is already (possibly £100 billion) and I assume that they could offset a lot of householder compensation this way. I still believe in a Birmingham to Manchester HS2 Phase Two with branches to Newcastle via Leeds(and Hull) and Liverpool.Sheffield could also do with the reopening of the Woodhead line so some faster trains can avoid the stoppers on the Hope Valley Line and allow Sheffield residents to access HS2 that way. Railfuture says the Woodhead Line reopening would allow 30 minutes Sheffield to Manchester trains. That would allow Sheffield-London journey times of 1.38, better than the current MML times and potentially after HS2 Phase One opens, conventional fast service from Sheffield to London via Nottingham on the WCML. This would mean no NPR and savings from that can fund the tunnelling from Euston to Aylesbury

Regarding these points:

1) So you are planning to fit 140mph expresses in via Amersham amongst the 60mph Metropolitan line services that you've now extended to Aylesbury? Or are you instead saying that you'll send the expresses up the joint route via High Wycombe and mix them with the various stopping and semi-fast services which already exist?

2) To add more platforms at Marylebone would most likely involve demolishing a load of council flats and also an office block. Of course it's possible, but is both expensive (it's prime real estate in central London), and also met with resistance from the locals who will lose their homes.

Each end of the tunnel sections through St Johns Wood appear at each end to be double bored, but infact they are not. They were perhaps going to be but the GC ran out of money by the time it had got to London. I don't know what is in the way now but it would be cheap and probably disruptive to the running line next door to bore them out now. One benefit of building an entirely new line is to use trackbed formations which are actually suitable for the purpose, instead of the "Crayonista" view of joining dots that at first glance appear to work, but don't when you have the full details.

3) As earlier mentioned, you have essentially said that you plan to mix 140mph expresses with 60mph Metropolitan line services or 75mph stopping Chiltern services (it'll be one or the other). This is clearly not going to mix very well without separating the trains with a new pair of running lines. And so we get to one of the main points about HS2, which is to build a dedicated set of lines for these expresses. And since you're building it at great expense, it costs relatively little extra to make it a 250mph alignment compared to 140mph, so that way it's actually high speed.

Natural habitats will be lost by HS2, but it's a trade off between cost and habitat. The damage done by a railway is considerably less than a motorway. If you push the cost up too much, it will kill off political will to build the most needed part of the project in the first place. Phase one already has significant amounts of tunnelling and green cuttings to reduce blight and environmental harm; removing out later phases in the North to appease the Chiltern locals for blight to their properties won't go down well, politically.

The Woodhead route could be re-opened, but a lot of the capacity problems on the Hope Valley line can be solved with more goods loops and longer trains, which is cheaper than re-opening Woodhead (and finding a new home for the national grid cables which are using the tunnels). Compare this with the southern WCML which already can support maximum length trains and has no practical room for 6 tracking in many places.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

...Yes it would cost a bomb, but it is already (possibly £100 billion) and I assume that they could offset a lot of householder compensation this way...

The "100 billion" figure lacks credibility; HS2/DfT have been citing 56bn (in 2015 money - it must be due for another "inflation" revision soon, doubtless accompanied by howls of complaint by the anti's,) on a basis of "95% probability of coming under budget."

This "100bn" figure only exists in the fantasy world of various NIMBY's and nay-sayers who seemingly add a few billion to their (made up) budget every month or so, (the only place the budget is "spiraling.") I've seen 200bn and even 500bn cited as the "true" cost of HS2 in amongst the hysteria. It might be (er) "fun" to plot a graph of time versus cost claims and see if there's any interesting trends of pro-HS2 cited budget versus anti-HS2 claims.

But let's not get bogged down in the cost point too much - the rest of your discussion on alternate routes is rather more interesting (albeit moot since the route decision was taken long ago an it's now under construction.) There are a couple of Dft/HS2/NR documents assessing the estimated costs and benefits (in both capital and "disruption" terms) of alternate schemes, though I don't recall doing something with Chiltern amongst the options. Here's a link to one (for example)... https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/253456/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf

 

[DavidGrain]

I realise now that the reopening of the full GCR is totally irrational but there is no reason why Birmingham services can't be extended to Merseyside via Smethwick Galton Bridge

Marylebone-Smethwick Galton Bridge High Level-Smethwick Junction (Reverse)-Galton Junction (Reverse)-Smethwick Galton Bridge Low Level-Merseyside.

No Way Jose

 

[bussnapperwm]

Marylebone to Smethwick Galton Bridge High Level-Smethwick Junction (Reverse)-Galton Junction (Reverse)-Smethwick Galton Bridge Low level-Merseyside.

No Way Jose

Just bung a new curve in between The Hawthorns and Sandwell and Dudley.

Or for a more radical thought, convert the existing metro line into heavy rail...

 

[DavidGrain]

Just bung a new curve in between The Hawthorns and Sandwell and Dudley.

Or for a more radical thought, convert the existing metro line into heavy rail...

I did think of that answer. After all the bridge numbers on the West Midlands Metro (to use its new name) do have DCL numbers which I am guessing means Didcot Chester Line!

 

[snowball]

Deleted

 

[tbtc]

Sheffield could also do with the reopening of the Woodhead line so some faster trains can avoid the stoppers on the Hope Valley Line and allow Sheffield residents to access HS2 that way. Railfuture says the Woodhead Line reopening would allow 30 minutes Sheffield to Manchester trains. That would allow Sheffield-London journey times of 1.38, better than the current MML times and potentially after HS2 Phase One opens, conventional fast service from Sheffield to London via Nottingham on the WCML. This would mean no NPR and savings from that can fund the tunnelling from Euston to Aylesbury

Thirty minutes from Sheffield to Manchester?

It already takes thirty minutes from *Dinting* into Manchester - a distance of twelve miles - how are you going to slot in 100mph+ trains onto that tediously slow line?

The Woodhead route could be re-opened, but a lot of the capacity problems on the Hope Valley line can be solved with more goods loops and longer trains, which is cheaper than re-opening Woodhead (and finding a new home for the national grid cables which are using the tunnels). Compare this with the southern WCML which already can support maximum length trains and has no practical room for 6 tracking in many places.

Agreed - rather than spending hundreds of millions of pounds on new tunnels under the Pennines, we could stick in a couple of Hope Valley passing loops/ an extra platform at Dore and extend the current two/three/four coach services on the Hope Valley line to something significantly longer. Much easier/ cheaper/ faster to do, and significantly fewer crayons required.

Woodhead keeps cropping up as the "solution" to things on here, but it's not the answer - it'd be a slow line at the Manchester end - at the Sheffield end the route would be entirely outside the ring road so wouldn't serve the city centre (Victoria doesn't co-ordinate with any trains or trams, is some distance from the heart of the city). Yet people will keep suggesting it as the answer to something or other - because it's a route that once closed we must (apparently) find a reason to rebuild it.

 

[HSTEd]

Or we could build a modern line that is fit for purpose, rather than trying to patch up the Hope Valley to turn into something it is not.
Or resurrecting Woodhead.

I do wonder if it would actually be necessary to tunnel under the Pennines at all if you are permitted 2.5% or 4% gradients.

 

[jyte]

Or we could build a modern line that is fit for purpose, rather than trying to patch up the Hope Valley to turn into something it is not.
Or resurrecting Woodhead.

I do wonder if it would actually be necessary to tunnel under the Pennines at all if you are permitted 2.5% or 4% gradients.

Hmm, but then you'd be sacrificing speed right? I've always understood that accepting 2.5% and 4% gradients is to permit alignments to be as straight - and thus fast - as possible where there is the available power (usually EMU) to do so.

 

[HSTEd]

Hmm, but then you'd be sacrificing speed right? I've always understood that accepting 2.5% and 4% gradients is to permit alignments to be as straight - and thus fast - as possible where there is the available power (usually EMU) to do so.

Well an AGV still has a balancing speed of ~140km/h at 4%, and something like ~200km/h at 2.5%

Even with relatively low speed running of 230km/h at the ends, the run-up would allow them to climb over any reasonable Pennine profile with ease. Even coming to a stop on a 4% slope would still allow them to complete the climb at something like 85mph.

You could just build an alignment straight over the top of Snake Pass (which after all is only 510m)

 

[AndrewE]

Just bung a new curve in between The Hawthorns and Sandwell and Dudley.
Or for a more radical thought, convert the existing metro line into heavy rail...

You forgot to say "...as well!"

 

[6Gman]

Woodhead keeps cropping up as the "solution" to things on here, but it's not the answer - it'd be a slow line at the Manchester end - at the Sheffield end the route would be entirely outside the ring road so wouldn't serve the city centre (Victoria doesn't co-ordinate with any trains or trams, is some distance from the heart of the city). Yet people will keep suggesting it as the answer to something or other - because it's a route that once closed we must (apparently) find a reason to rebuild it.

Quoted to agree with it. Sums up the Woodhead obsessives perfectly!

 

[6Gman]

Just bung a new curve in between The Hawthorns and Sandwell and Dudley.

Or for a more radical thought, convert the existing metro line into heavy rail...

Given the buildings, canals, railways and (Listed) bridge in the area that could be tricky! And it's not as though Sandwell & D to Wolverhampton is exactly underutilised.

 

[jyte]

Well an AGV still has a balancing speed of ~140km/h at 4%, and something like ~200km/h at 2.5%

Even with relatively low speed running of 230km/h at the ends, the run-up would allow them to climb over any reasonable Pennine profile with ease. Even coming to a stop on a 4% slope would still allow them to complete the climb at something like 85mph.

You could just build an alignment straight over the top of Snake Pass (which after all is only 510m)

Sorry, 'balancing speed' is not a term I'm familiar with. Is that the maximum speed a french AGV will reach at full power on a 4% and 2.5% gradient, respectively?

 

[DavidGrain]

Given the buildings, canals, railways and (Listed) bridge in the area that could be tricky! And it's not as though Sandwell & D to Wolverhampton is exactly underutilised.

If you look back to the posts you will see that Class172Fan was being sarcastic about the suggestion that you could run Marylebone to Merseyside trains via Smethwick Galton Bridge. You also have the obstacle of Smethwick Summit which canal engineers James Brindle, John Smeeton and Thomas Telford had trouble with. However I do agree with you that SAD to Wolverhampton is a busy line. Before the Tipton LC was replaced by an underpass the barriers could be down for 42 minutes in an hour. I personally have seen then down once for 7 trains, twice for 5 trains and regularly for 3 trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry, 'balancing speed' is not a term I'm familiar with. Is that the maximum speed a french AGV will reach at full power on a 4% and 2.5% gradient, respectively?

The 'balancing speed' in this context would be the speed a train would reach at the top of a very long gradient, assuming it ascended the slope at maximum power.
If it enters the slope going slower than that it will accelerate to asymptotically approach it, if it enters the slope going faster than that it will decelerate to asymptotically approach it.

 

[jyte]

The 'balancing speed' in this context would be the speed a train would reach at the top of a very long gradient, assuming it ascended the slope at maximum power.
If it enters the slope going slower than that it will accelerate to asymptotically approach it, if it enters the slope going faster than that it will decelerate to asymptotically approach it.

What's what I presumed. Cheers.

 

[gsnedders]

The 'balancing speed' in this context would be the speed a train would reach at the top of a very long gradient, assuming it ascended the slope at maximum power.
If it enters the slope going slower than that it will accelerate to asymptotically approach it, if it enters the slope going faster than that it will decelerate to asymptotically approach it.

And because it's asymptomatic behaviour, it doesn't necessarily matter in ordinary operation: you shouldn't have trains approaching a slope in the middle of nowhere (with no junctions anywhere nearby) on a high-speed line except at line-speed, and if the slope isn't long enough for the balancing speed to be reached what's more relevant is the acceleration on the slope (positive or negative!).

 

[snowball]

And because it's asymptomatic behaviour,

Looks like a bit of duff autocorrect there.

 

[HSTEd]

It is likely that a line through a national park would have to be covered in, but a very near surface cut and cover tunnel in open terrain is going to be much cheaper than a bored tunnel

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thanks for all the responses-I'm not familiar with West Midlands geography,however I do remember the Hope Valley Line being extremely slow, I once spent a week at a holiday rental near Edale station and remember the awful Pacer service. Remember those "Chiltern locals" are the ones living in seats that prop up the Government of the day with its thin majority and they may be persuaded to spend a little cash to shore up their majority, Wycombe is especially vulnerable for them electorally. Unfortunately, HS3 is not in their immediate sights and the best you'll get will be an upgrade of the Hope Valley Line.

 

[gsnedders]

Looks like a bit of duff autocorrect there.

Nah, just my dyslexia!

 

[richieb1971]

Didn't read everything before hand.

Hs2 is about gauge, longer trains and platforms, not just faster trains. We are an oddball country that has built everything too small thus far apart from hs1. Hs2 sets to remedy that . Bigger freight trains could use it overnight from the continent, you could build double decker trains. The list of advantages building new are vast.