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

[johnnychips]

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.

Only if they can do about 200mph plus. One of the main reasons for HS2 is to eliminate the mixture of trains on the WCML doing various speeds. However, more paths for freight on the WCML should be freed up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

HS2 is about capacity on the south WCML and very little else. All of those things are fortunate side effects that cost little or nothing extra when building new.

 

[CLH]

Bigger freight trains could use it overnight from the continent

Haven't they said that unlike HS1, freight won't be going anywhere near HS2 as it's a wholly passenger railway?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Haven't they said that unlike HS1, freight won't be going anywhere near HS2 as it's a wholly passenger railway?

The only connections with the classic railway in Phase 1 are going to be at Calvert (where HS2 crosses E-W Rail), and at Armitage on the WCML (later also at Crewe).
The Calvert connection is for construction and maintenance.
I'm sure the plan is for freight to continue to use the WCML, which has all the necessary connections in the London area (and via Bletchley for E-WR).
There won't even be a connection between HS1 and HS2, so through GC-gauge freight from the continent will not be possible.
Double-deck stock is also out as HS2 intends to order only classic-compatible stock, at least until Phase 2b comes in.

 

[richieb1971]

Wcml doesn't have the same gauge clearance as hs2. You need to think outside of the box. Wcml even with 100 extra freight paths a day will still not be able to take a single euro gauge train. And I don't believe in the lifespan of hs2 it will not see freight.

Once finished hs2 could be our ticket to exporting British built trains at euro gauge from Hitachi and bombardier.

 

[DarloRich]

Once finished hs2 could be our ticket to exporting British built trains at euro gauge from Hitachi and bombardier.

how do we get them form Euston to Europe?

 

[si404]

Once finished hs2 could be our ticket to exporting British built trains at euro gauge from Hitachi and bombardier.

Only at night. There's zero paths during the day (including the evening).

The reason why freight won't run on HS2 is that there isn't room for it. This isn't much of a problem (note that your suggestion of what needs the bigger gauge is freighting trains themselves) as the bypassed lines will have more space for increased freight, and are less essential, so can close for gauge-widening works should they fall short of what's needed to move regular standardised freight (as opposed to larger loads like GC-sized trains)

 

[Ianno87]

Only at night. There's zero paths during the day (including the evening).

The reason why freight won't run on HS2 is that there isn't room for it. This isn't much of a problem (note that your suggestion of what needs the bigger gauge is freighting trains themselves) as the bypassed lines will have more space for increased freight, and are less essential, so can close for gauge-widening works should they fall short of what's needed to move regular standardised freight (as opposed to larger loads like GC-sized trains)

HS2 will need to be maintained overnight (not much chance daytime with 18 trains per hour each way).

 

[The Planner]

And as Darlo says, where are they going once they get to Euston! I also don't see the WCML getting to W12 or bigger even after 2026.

 

[si404]

HS2 will need to be maintained overnight (not much chance daytime with 18 trains per hour each way).

Very true, but a extra train last thing (should said train get through London) every now and again would be possible.

 

[Ianno87]

Very true, but a extra train last thing (should said train get through London) every now and again would be possible.

So how does that work (putting the lack of physical connection aside for a second)? I think HS2 infrastructure will close around midnight (lets say) - that means effectively cancelling the last hour or more of potential HS2 service to give space to path a much, much slower freight.

Euston-Birmingham Interchange is around 40 minutes. A 75 mph freight going full pelt throughout (if that were even possible) would take best part of an hour and a half to cover the same distance (more if going futher), and would have to start sufficiently early to clear HS2 infrastructure in time - cancelling every possible HS2 passenger service following it.

 

[talltim]

how do we get them form Euston to Europe?

Euston is in Europe

 

[richieb1971]

If in 20 years time we suddenly make the best trains suitable for Europe and would get billions in yearly revenue from it does anyone think a link from hs1 and hs2 won't happen. Last I checked the best way to transport a train is by rail. It seems short sighted to say only high speed trains can use the railway. I also cannot believe that progress on anything stops at the development stage.

 

[si404]

So how does that work (putting the lack of physical connection aside for a second)? I think HS2 infrastructure will close around midnight (lets say) - that means effectively cancelling the last hour or more of potential HS2 service to give space to path a much, much slower freight.

Why on earth would trains be cancelled? - the maintenance window is shorter for one night, so what. And we're talking about new-build trains being delivered, rather than some freight train running, in this hypothetical - I doubt it would do less than 90mph. But lets suppose its really slow and it still doesn't matter much.

They forgo routine maintenance in favour of train on tracks much more in need of nightly maintenance 2 out of every 7 days thanks to Night Tube. Why wouldn't less frequent nights where maintenance is harder (but not hindered hugely, unlike Night Tube) be possible on HS2?

would have to start sufficiently early to clear HS2 infrastructure in time - cancelling every possible HS2 passenger service following it.

Which surely are some time later, if there's a meaningful maintenance break each night?

If the train being delivered to the mainland leaves the Birmingham Interchange area one path (3 minutes) after the last in-service train, but takes 3 hours (really slow) instead of 40 minutes, then the gap between trains would have to be less than 3 hours. eg last southbound train leaving BHX at 0200, first arriving at Euston before 0503 (so leaving Birmingham at 0415). But you have HS2 closing about midnight (reasonably), so unless you are thinking the first trains in the morning would dump people in London in the very small hours, there's no conflicts with the regular passenger services...

There's also the thing that trains move: once a bonus nighttime train movement goes past somewhere, that location is free to be maintained until the first regular train appears. And places which the bonus train hasn't yet got to yet are going to have a window: they have from the last regular train to the (last - you might fit a few in if needed) bonus train (which can be as late as 3 minutes in front of the first train when it leaves HS2).

Theorectically, getting across London issues aside, having, on occasional nights, a delivery of GC-gauge trains from Derby to Dortmund (for example) using HS2 is perfectly possible.

 

[HSTEd]

There won't be particularily large amounts of maintenance to do on HS2 now that it has decided to go heavily in for slab track, with its simplified track layout and centralised signalling system, it will be able to make do with much less maintenance than other lines in the UK.
(Indeed Eurotunnel manages something like a 4 hour gap every day, based upon the Shuttle schedule, and that has far heavier trains pounding over it all day every day than the EMUs we are talking about here)

But then the extra operating time should just be used for more passenger trains.

EDIT:

Apparently HS2 is projecting a 5 hour break in rail operations.
So there isn't that much room for freight anyway because we already have 19 hours of high speed passenger operations.

 

[The Ham]

Knowing how busy trains are in the 8pm to 11pm window it is entirely possible that there could be less than 18tph during that time without interfering with people being able to travel.

For instance, and this currently happens on the current network, you could have fewer through services with people changing to get to their destination rather than having a direct service. Alternatively it could be that the services call at all the possible stops on route, including Curzon Street. Finally you could run services as pairs of trains so that over the southern part you could, just by doing that, cut the number of services by about half without needing to do anything else.

By doing so the number of services could be quite a few less in each hour. Maybe even few enough that you could path the services onto the wrong track to overtake a slow moving freight train.

However there's one thing that hasn't been said, which is to do with the type of freight. Why would you send slow heavy trains onto HS2? Chances are the sort of freight that it would see is trains which are much faster, carrying freight with a high value (i.e. that which time is critical in its delivery or that which the end customer is willing to pay for faster delivery). As such if there is any freight, it's much more likely to be in small quantities. Therefore any freight train on HS2 would likely be able to travel fairly fast, as that would be the main selling point of such a service.

Even if the volumes of freight was high, because of the high value to the train company, they could add in extra locos and fund extra paths so as to keep the speeds high.

For instance a 125mph freight train on a 250mph railway would require two paths compared to passenger services. Even at 100mph it would require 3 paths. Even if HS2 normally runs faster slowing down for an hour or two probably wouldn't make much difference.

 

[The Planner]

EDIT:

Apparently HS2 is projecting a 5 hour break in rail operations.
So there isn't that much room for freight anyway because we already have 19 hours of high speed passenger operations.

Indeed, 0000-0500 white period.

 

[NSEFAN]

Very true, but a extra train last thing (should said train get through London) every now and again would be possible.

Indeed you could do it, but would it be worth it? The only reason to allow full GC gauge freight on HS2 would be to take it through to Europe via HS1, because you're not going to get GC clearance on the British legacy infrastructure to serve other destinations with that freight (it's not worth the hassle and cost). So, when the freight gets to London it will need to make it onto HS1 somehow, so you'd need a sufficiently gauge-cleared connecting route between HS1 and HS2. Either above ground or under ground it will be very expensive to build this, and hardly worth it for a few freight trains per week.

 

[HSTEd]

Honestly the only freight I can think of that might actually pay for itself would be some sort of futuristic high speed motorrail service.
There was that US Army study on carrying tanks at 125mph, so maybe you could move cars at high speed.

But then again, it is likely the cars would be moved at a sufficiently high speed that they would not interfere with passenger operations.

 

[takno]

Knowing how busy trains are in the 8pm to 11pm window it is entirely possible that there could be less than 18tph during that time without interfering with people being able to travel.

For instance, and this currently happens on the current network, you could have fewer through services with people changing to get to their destination rather than having a direct service. Alternatively it could be that the services call at all the possible stops on route, including Curzon Street. Finally you could run services as pairs of trains so that over the southern part you could, just by doing that, cut the number of services by about half without needing to do anything else.

By doing so the number of services could be quite a few less in each hour. Maybe even few enough that you could path the services onto the wrong track to overtake a slow moving freight train.

However there's one thing that hasn't been said, which is to do with the type of freight. Why would you send slow heavy trains onto HS2? Chances are the sort of freight that it would see is trains which are much faster, carrying freight with a high value (i.e. that which time is critical in its delivery or that which the end customer is willing to pay for faster delivery). As such if there is any freight, it's much more likely to be in small quantities. Therefore any freight train on HS2 would likely be able to travel fairly fast, as that would be the main selling point of such a service.

Even if the volumes of freight was high, because of the high value to the train company, they could add in extra locos and fund extra paths so as to keep the speeds high.

For instance a 125mph freight train on a 250mph railway would require two paths compared to passenger services. Even at 100mph it would require 3 paths. Even if HS2 normally runs faster slowing down for an hour or two probably wouldn't make much difference.

A train traveling at 125mph and therefore taking 80 minutes instead of 40 between London and Birmingham would take up 12 paths not 2. At 100mph it would take up 15 or 16

 

[richieb1971]

I doubt very much hs2 will need 18tph. That sounds hectic. It's nice to have that capacity but if only one tenth of forecast passengers use it due to cost, parking, political views or just preferring the WCML then I would anticipate lower operating cost strategy.

This thread is highlighting to me that we cost high and are building something that could be much better future proofed. I'd rather have a railway from the north that terminates in Europe. I mistakingly thought that was a selling point to make us EU compliant in a Brexit new world. I've slapped my wishful thinking forehead hopefully it will never happen again.

 

[DarloRich]

I doubt very much hs2 will need 18tph. That sounds hectic. It's nice to have that capacity but if only one tenth of forecast passengers use it due to cost, parking, political views or just preferring the WCML then I would anticipate lower operating cost strategy.

This thread is highlighting to me that we cost high and are building something that could be much better future proofed. I'd rather have a railway from the north that terminates in Europe. I mistakingly thought that was a selling point to make us EU compliant in a Brexit new world. I've slapped my wishful thinking forehead hopefully it will never happen again.

without a link to HS1 ( which isn't in the HS2 scope but should be imo) HS2 is an isolated system. It may as well be in Sydney for all its connectivity with Europe.

 

[si404]

Indeed you could do it, but would it be worth it?

No it wouldn't, but I was dealing with the 'could', not the 'should'. I was engaging with a narrow objection that was nonsense, rather than the whole concept.

So, when the freight gets to London it will need to make it onto HS1 somehow, so you'd need a sufficiently gauge-cleared connecting route between HS1 and HS2.

This has been discussed by others. I've deliberately and explicit ignored that issue, and focused on the red herring objection raised and nonsense reasoning used to continue said objection.

A train traveling at 125mph and therefore taking 80 minutes instead of 40 between London and Birmingham would take up 12 paths not 2. At 100mph it would take up 15 or 16

Which is fine as a rare post-last train trip, but interweaving with regular passenger trains and/or running it regularly isn't going to happen.

 

[richieb1971]

So lets get this straight!

In a potential future that someone wants to use the train from Ebbsfleet to Birmingham, they will need to change trains at London using a very over congested underground system to change trains that puts an extra hour on the clock of the journey time. Excellent. At least we have EWR, trying to do the opposite which is to divert crossover passengers from using London. Only one of these scenarios makes much sense given the arguments for both railways. Looking at Google Earth there is already a railway connecting HS1 to the Euston line through Camden Town.

Isn't using Euston for HS2 just an easy answer because it already services the North West? Whilst Euston is a good place to terminate, using the path through Camden to access HS1 and using Stratford International instead could be a viable option for 'London through trains".

If there is a shortage of trains on HS2 for any reason and HS1 has an abundance and we don't have politics involved, you could share a pool of trains across one long interconnecting track from Europe to Scotland. But no, we will have politics, territories, nonsense etc etc. Class 60's at Toton anyone?

No capacity for freight is just wow. Having a freight spine that goes right up to Scotlands capital in EU gauge would solve alot of potential issues going into the future. We just don't know what will happen in the future and to bottleneck the system at the development stage based on "what you know now!" is very short sighted.

A freight link/or any link using existing tracks that can be upgraded for the few miles between HS1 and HS2 can't be that bad. How expensive was it to get HS1 into STP and to upgrade STP?

Just went to Zurich, Switzerland. Zurich HB which is the terminus has quite a few underground tracks that use underground platforms much like Thameslink uses STP. All the trains using these platforms were double decker. Notice that some of the trains use locos and still do the old run around the train malarkey!!!!!! I found most enjoyable. The double decker train I went on had a playground upstairs and a little slide for toddlers. Lets remember that double decking is instant double human capacity. You should be able to see all you need to in the first 3 minutes -

This is something else HS2 should include, the capacity to run double decker trains. If people moving is in the name of the game, sometimes you might want to sacrifice a bit of speed for a bit more capacity.

 

[gsnedders]

No capacity for freight is just wow. Having a freight spine that goes right up to Scotlands capital in EU gauge would solve alot of potential issues going into the future. We just don't know what will happen in the future and to bottleneck the system at the development stage based on "what you know now!" is very short sighted.

A freight link/or any link using existing tracks that can be upgraded for the few miles between HS1 and HS2 can't be that bad. How expensive was it to get HS1 into STP and to upgrade STP?

Technically there will be capacity for freight, if any of the freight companies want to spend huge amounts on track access charges for a dozen paths for a single train of theirs.

AIUI, increasing the line through Camden Road to GC gauge would involve either single-tracking it (which isn't practical) or widening the viaducts (which becomes very expensive very quickly, and probably politically untenable given it would change Camden Market), and either option would involve huge amounts of disruption to the North London Line. It's almost certainly more practical to build a new link line, which is as expensive but doesn't include the direct disruption to existing commuter routes.

The problem, fundamentally, is there just isn't the demand to justify the expenditure. If someone believes there's a justification for the billions it would cost, I'm all for them doing it!

Just went to Zurich, Switzerland. Zurich HB which is the terminus has quite a few underground tracks that use underground platforms much like Thameslink uses STP. All the trains using these platforms were double decker. Notice that some of the trains use locos and still do the old run around the train malarkey!!!!!! I found most enjoyable. The double decker train I went on had a playground upstairs and a little slide for toddlers. Lets remember that double decking is instant double human capacity. You should be able to see all you need to in the first 3 minutes -

This is something else HS2 should include, the capacity to run double decker trains. If people moving is in the name of the game, sometimes you might want to sacrifice a bit of speed for a bit more capacity.

HS2 can run double decker trains per its current design. That said, the first order of rolling stock is going to be for "classic compatible" stock which obviously can't be given double-deckers can't run on the classic infrastructure. We're likely to only get double-deckers ordered once there's the demand for it, however, which there isn't currently (how many trains from London to the Midlands and beyond are standing from London today?).

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt very much hs2 will need 18tph. That sounds hectic. It's nice to have that capacity but if only one tenth of forecast passengers use it due to cost, parking, political views or just preferring the WCML then I would anticipate lower operating cost strategy.

Then HS2 fares will be reduced until it's full.
The marginal cost of a seat on HS2 is very small and lower than that on the WCML.
So as much traffic as possible wil be diverted onto HS2.

This thread is highlighting to me that we cost high and are building something that could be much better future proofed. I'd rather have a railway from the north that terminates in Europe. I mistakingly thought that was a selling point to make us EU compliant in a Brexit new world. I've slapped my wishful thinking forehead hopefully it will never happen again.

But there is very little market for rail travel to Europe.
And the GC loading gauge is not really very good for freight anyway.

It's better than the UK's - but if we wanted freight operations we should have built HS1 to something like the Chunnel gauge - or even taller as Chunnel gauge is not as tall as AAR Plate H.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As has been said, HS2 is UIC gauge (I forget which one) so will be able to take off the shelf UIC double deckers. However there's no point to start with, as only the Birmingham services will be wholly captive (i.e. not include any travel at all on the classic lines) and those are not exactly underprovided even now. So the flexibility of a single fleet wins out.

Once later phases are built there may well be an order for DD stock.

 

[HSTEd]

As has been said, HS2 is UIC gauge (I forget which one) so will be able to take off the shelf UIC double deckers. However there's no point to start with, as only the Birmingham services will be wholly captive (i.e. not include any travel at all on the classic lines) and those are not exactly underprovided even now. So the flexibility of a single fleet wins out.

Once later phases are built there may well be an order for DD stock.

It won't be able to take off the shell UIC double deckers.
HS2 is now demanding an 1100mm platform height which closes the door on a practical double decker fleet forever.

This is to allow for level boarding from the classic compatible fleet that would be carrying a small fraction of the passengers after the completion of phase 2. And who's proportion will only ever decrease in the future as any future high speed projects are pursued.

It's horrendously short sighted, but there we go.

EDIT:

The floor height of a TGV duplex is 314mm above top of rail.
However the TGV Duplex is only GB and not GC gauge, so we have an extra 33cm of height to play with.

That means the highest we can manage to make a floor height in a practical double deck vehicle is 644mm.

That means you will need a something like 450mm step down at minimum from the platform into the vehicle.
Which is never going be acceptable.

Talgo have demonstrated technology that would permit level boarding from a 760mm platform as permitted by TSIs, and would permit reasonable step down boarding on a classic compatible platform, but instead we get this insane new standard that serves little purpose. (And this doesn't even guarantee level boarding on classic compatible trains because the national standard is 915mm - why couldn't we use that? It would be bad but far better than this?)

If HS2 had additional height to play with, this wouldn't be such an issue, but the choice of an overly restrictive GC loading gauge connected with this insane platform height decision has effectively rendered double deckers impractical forever.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

So lets get this straight!

In a potential future that someone wants to use the train from Ebbsfleet to Birmingham, they will need to change trains at London using a very over congested underground system to change trains that puts an extra hour on the clock of the journey time. Excellent. At least we have EWR, trying to do the opposite which is to divert crossover passengers from using London. Only one of these scenarios makes much sense given the arguments for both railways. Looking at Google Earth there is already a railway connecting HS1 to the Euston line through Camden Town.

Isn't using Euston for HS2 just an easy answer because it already services the North West? Whilst Euston is a good place to terminate, using the path through Camden to access HS1 and using Stratford International instead could be a viable option for 'London through trains".

The route via Primrose Hill and the North London Line would not be adequate or suitable for sending HS2 trains onto HS1. This link, which I agree ought to have been a central element in the HS2 scheme, needs to have been catered for from the beginning.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

All this talk about the possibility of freight on HS2 seems to be missing the point. Namely that you use a high speed line to run at high speed. But what sort of freight actually needs to run at high speed? I would suggest that demand for such freight movements is sufficiently small that it will be more cost effective to send it by air. And there are plenty of UK airports with spare capacity to handle these movements at the times people have mentioned. The same applies to through freight to/from the continent. Look at the demand for through rail passenger journeys from the regions: it's tiny and most people would rather fly. It would appear one of this forum's weaknesses is showing through, ie the belief held by some that rail provides the solution for each and every transport requirement. It doesn't!