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

[richieb1971]

I brought up the freight thing, because I want Hitachi/Bombardier and any other factory outlet of trains to be able to set up base here in the UK and be able to build EU style gauge trains that can be transported by rail. If we build a 110ton locomotive I think the cost of flying it overseas will still be more than by rail?

Talking of DD trains, I didn't notice too much difference in the platforms in Switzerland compared to here in the UK. I did notice that the lower deck was lower than the platform and you had to effectively step down into the train. What you must realize that even in Switzerland a lot of people would have been standing at rush hour if the trains were single deck. As it was, everyone was seated comfortably. I found it strange that the ride was better than a 700 class and its made by the same company. If you don't double decker the trains you can't have the nicer seating, the nicer layout, the nicer anything, because your effectively building people packers again because a train at our current gauge means everything is subsequently compromised.

Since none of this is built yet, i'm surprised of all this short sightedness. A programme I watched about crossrail said that it would alleviate capacity on other underground lines only for a few years before even more expansion work is needed. All these extremely expensive projects are seemingly delivering alleviation into the next decade at best. Here we are finding a good 6 or 7 things that Hs2 could do better.

 

[Ianno87]

Since none of this is built yet, i'm surprised of all this short sightedness. A programme I watched about crossrail said that it would alleviate capacity on other underground lines only for a few years before even more expansion work is needed. All these extremely expensive projects are seemingly delivering alleviation into the next decade at best. Here we are finding a good 6 or 7 things that Hs2 could do better.

But would could HS2 do better at what cost? It's all very well saying there might be a market for a once a week rolling stock delivery via HS2 in thirty years' time. Equally well there might not be - does that justify engineering of additional expensive connections in the London area on pure speculation?

 

[NSEFAN]

But would could HS2 do better at what cost? It's all very well saying there might be a market for a once a week rolling stock delivery via HS2 in thirty years' time. Equally well there might not be - does that justify engineering of additional expensive connections in the London area on pure speculation?

If it was that important to build stock on a line with HS1 connectivity, then you'd surely just build the factory alongside HS1? Materials can be transported to the factory using normal UK gauge freight trains. Problem solved!

 

[Domh245]

I brought up the freight thing, because I want Hitachi/Bombardier and any other factory outlet of trains to be able to set up base here in the UK and be able to build EU style gauge trains that can be transported by rail. If we build a 110ton locomotive I think the cost of flying it overseas will still be more than by rail?

I don't know what your thought process is, but it's a weird one. Why would the manufacturing have to be done in the UK? Unless the European operators are going to buy stuff from Vivarail, the manufacturers have all got large, existing manufacturing bases on the continent which if necessary could build stock that had been engineered in Derby/Newton Aycliffe/wherever. That's before you begin to think about tariff considerations and the other details.

 

[richieb1971]

My thought process is to have an end to end railway that can -

1) Share rolling stock and traction with HS1
2) Have the largest gauge possible so there is little to no standards differences between us and the EU
3) Allow trains that will have the absolute maximum capacity of seating possible on said gauge of railway
4) Allow the transportation of goods ( I find it surprising that an operator of sorts actually charges rail access fees, but oh well)


My main peeve is that London is the terminus. Its always London and does it have to be a terminus? If London was where Norwich is I would say ok, but its the freakin middle of the mainland. EMU's used to terminate at STP and now they go from Bedford to Brighton, its a much more flexible service than what it was. Because if I want to go to the sea side its the easiest to get to by train even though its probably the 10th farthest place that has a sea side. Trains that go through London are better than ones that terminate at London imho.

In a nutshell I want a HS1b, not a HS2. It sounds like I have some like minded folks on here that think the same. And lets be honest, this railway is not cheap, so it should not be compromising either.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

In a nutshell I want a HS1b, not a HS2. It sounds like I have some like minded folks on here that think the same. And lets be honest, this railway is not cheap, so it should not be compromising either.

And that, with respect, is where you are going wrong. HS1 is a purpose-built international link that happens to carry some domestic traffic. If there was no Channel Tunnel there would certainly be no HS1! Your argument is all about connecting the regions more directly to Europe but the potential market is just not large enough to justify through trains, and that has become even more true with the rise of the low-cost airlines. It has already been determined that the cost of a proper HS1-HS2 link is not justified and we have voted for Brexit since that conclusion was reached. And cross-Channel freight is severely constrained by the very real inefficiency of SNCF Fret. It might have been better if the tunnel had surfaced in Belgium!

 

[DavidGrain]

We are already seeing arguments about platform heights on the Elizabeth Line in the central London stations. I remember during the Brexit campaign Boris Johnson saying that Cross Rail was delayed for a year because of arguments with Brussels over whether the tunnels should be able to take continental gauge trains although there was no likelihood that continental trains would ever run over this line.

 

[si404]

they will need to change trains at London using a very over congested underground system to change trains

Nope. Just as now, it's quicker to walk. And it's only just over 2 platform lengths on the current route.

that puts an extra hour on the clock of the journey time.

Nope - I think you could do the change in half that today no pressure (and in 15 minutes is theoretically possible), without any of the stuff that a Euston rebuild will do to make that change easier (before we start talking moving walkways).

Add in that utilising the prestige of North-Mainland journeys to improve the pedestrian links between the Euston Road stations would also improve the much more useful, but much less shiny, interchange with Thameslink. For a small fraction of the price of through tracks, a tunnelled moving walkway to make it pleasant and easy to change Euston-St Pancras can be built. Theoretical journeys from Birmingham to Brussels, Liverpool to Lille, Preston to Paris (none of which would be direct with a physical HS1-HS2 track link) that few would do can be utilised as catalysts for much more popular, but not as prestigious, Manchester to Maidstone, Glasgow to Gatwick and Leeds to Luton journeys to be made easier.

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".

Sure, but you need to spend £1bn to get from HS2 to those tracks, and another few hundred million creating a single track GC-gauge track on that alignment (and even that meant demolition of stuff) - controversially killing both freight capacity, and potential local passenger alignment.

And for what? Apparently about a third of HS2 passengers from the north - but then half of those would walk a similar distance to Euston-Pancakes through Westfield and then get a train from Stratford, despite the presence of the Elizabeth line at OOC that would save them walking (even if they have to change twice). Figures from Greengauge's "we need to build an HS1-HS2 link" report - which did, indeed, assume that not only would people walk through Westfield, but not along the Euston Road, but also that people would go from Canary Wharf to the North via that walk, rather than changing at OOC...

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.

That's in the plan, though dwell times at OOC with double-deck trains (as well as DDA requirements) will likely mean that the capacity benefit of double-deck trains is near-zero, due to more capacious trains, with less capacious exits/entrances reducing track capacity.

 

[si404]

I doubt very much hs2 will need 18tph. That sounds hectic.

Which cities' services are you proposing to remove? Other than a doubling of Liverpool trains (one of which will share a path with the Warrington-Wigan-Preston train), HS2 service levels are about the same as now on the WCML, ECML and MML.

Same goes with services avoiding Central London to go to the Mainland - which cities will have fewer London trains to serve this? And it's worse with an avoid inner London route via Heathrow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that 18tph in one direction, or in both?

Presently there are 9tph IC from Euston:
- 3 Manchester
- 3 Brum (one of which carries on to Scotland)
- 1 Chester/Holyhead
- 1 Scotland fast
- 1 Liverpool

If it's 18tph total, that's no increase. If it's 18tph each way, that's a doubling.

 

[Ianno87]

Is that 18tph in one direction, or in both?

Presently there are 9tph IC from Euston:
- 3 Manchester
- 3 Brum (one of which carries on to Scotland)
- 1 Chester/Holyhead
- 1 Scotland fast
- 1 Liverpool

If it's 18tph total, that's no increase. If it's 18tph each way, that's a doubling.

18tph also includes HS2 services to Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle.

 

[Bald Rick]

There will be capacity for 18tph each way, which is proposed to be used when phase 2b opens.

The service spec as detaile din the 2016 Econoomic Case (part of the business case) is 16:

3 Birmingham
3 Manchester
2 Liverpool
2 Glasgow / Edinburgh (splitting Carstairs)
1 Preston
2 Leeds
2 Newcastle
1 Leeds / York splitting at Meadowhall.

This is likely to have changed a bit with the inclusion of Sheffield Midland.

 

[richieb1971]

I was not thinking about taking away services per se. More along the lines of less people using the services meaning an eventual rethink. Is Euston getting more platforms for these services or are they sharing with the WCML? Man, that is going to be one busy station.

 

[jyte]

I know I'm late to the respective party but tfl have made it very clear multiple times that any solution that leads to a reduction in overground services across the NLL is an absolute non starter for them, and widening that viaduct is not really doable.

Any HS1/HS2 link would have to be tunnelled, and that was ruled out on cost. This particular issue has been covered before here, I suggest a read.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-happened-to-the-proposed-hs1-hs2-link.159325/

 

[gsnedders]

18tph also includes HS2 services to Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle.

i.e., post-Phase 2. And obviously very few business cases can be made on the basis of HS2 between the opening of Phase 1 and Phase 2.

I was not thinking about taking away services per se. More along the lines of less people using the services meaning an eventual rethink. Is Euston getting more platforms for these services or are they sharing with the WCML? Man, that is going to be one busy station.

More platforms to the west.

 

[NSEFAN]

I was not thinking about taking away services per se. More along the lines of less people using the services meaning an eventual rethink.

That was the attitude that facilitated BR's decline. "We only carry X many passengers, so will run fewer trains that can fit them all, at times that suit us, and people will just adjust their schedules to the new times!" In reality you want the schedule to be attractive to users, by providing lots of options and get them to consider train travel in the first place. Otherwise they will just drive or take a plane, depending what the options are.

 

[richieb1971]

I think it's great there are 18 tph. I just don't think day 1 will require it. If each train carries 1000 people, that's 9000 people each way every hour. What if day 1 there are 200 ppl on average on each train? Tickets go up or trains get dropped
Pity about camden.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's great there are 18 tph. I just don't think day 1 will require it. If each train carries 1000 people, that's 9000 people each way every hour. What if day 1 there are 200 ppl on average on each train? Tickets go up or trains get dropped
Pity about camden.

There are a *lot* of people on the M1 and M6...

 

[richieb1971]

Tickets would have to be 15 quid then to get those ppl off the roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tickets would have to be 15 quid then to get those ppl off the roads.

That is a gross oversimplification of the situation.

 

[richieb1971]

I still think the railway pricing model is aimed at the privileged. All the talk of taking people off the road is nonsense if half empty trains are passing congested motorways.

 

[PR1Berske]

Ticket costs have always been part of my HS2 scepticism. Nobody can say with any guarantees that tickets *won't* cost three figure sums. A bright new mega-expensive high-speed railway into Euston with all the shining new modcons will need to justify being so costly to build . There's nothing stopping the industry deciding that the downgraded WCML can chuck away tickets at a tenner a pop while the suited and booted sip free coffee on £250 advances.

Do we need a new railway which reduces the status of some mainline stations *and* potentially prices out ordinary people?

 

[AM9]

Ticket costs have always been part of my HS2 scepticism. Nobody can say with any guarantees that tickets *won't* cost three figure sums. A bright new mega-expensive high-speed railway into Euston with all the shining new modcons will need to justify being so costly to build . There's nothing stopping the industry deciding that the downgraded WCML can chuck away tickets at a tenner a pop while the suited and booted sip free coffee on £250 advances.

Do we need a new railway which reduces the status of some mainline stations *and* potentially prices out ordinary people?

Or to put the other view, do we need a new railway that will remove the fastest end-to-end services that have been reducing the status of some mainline stations and reduce some of the pricing-out of ordinary people because of necessary demand management?

 

[si404]

This is likely to have changed a bit with the inclusion of Sheffield Midland.

It's changed a bit and current Euston service will be (putting together the Sheffield Midland and Crewe Hub changes - they haven't made a new diagram with both):

3 Birmingham
1 Liverpool
1 Liverpool/Preston (split/join at Crewe)
2 Glasgow/Edinburgh (split/join at Carstairs)
3 Manchester
1 Macclesfield
2 Leeds
1 Leeds/Sheffield (split/join at Toton)
1 Sheffield/York (split/join at Toton)
2 Newcastle

That only adds up to 17tph, but it's likely that either one of the split/join services will be two services unless another service (eg Chester/North Wales or Liverpool via NPR) comes about.

 

[The Ham]

Ticket costs have always been part of my HS2 scepticism. Nobody can say with any guarantees that tickets *won't* cost three figure sums. A bright new mega-expensive high-speed railway into Euston with all the shining new modcons will need to justify being so costly to build . There's nothing stopping the industry deciding that the downgraded WCML can chuck away tickets at a tenner a pop while the suited and booted sip free coffee on £250 advances.

Do we need a new railway which reduces the status of some mainline stations *and* potentially prices out ordinary people?

Let's assume that you have a train capable of carrying 1,000 people (compared to the current circa 600).

If you set ticket prices as they are at present you'll get 600 plus a few because there's more space.

However if you set the price of every ticket 10% less you'll probably get significantly more people using the service. Let's say 15% more.

However a lot of your staff costs have stayed the same, the cost to sell each ticket stays the same. This means that the amount of profit per ticket goes up.

That means, although the average ticket price may have fallen from say £100 to £90 and the number of passengers have gone from 600 to 690 resulting in an increased income of about an extra £2,000 most of that extra income would be profit.

Even if the new trains and infrastructure cost an extra so that is only an extra £50 profit per service

Scale that up by 10 trains an hour over 15 hours a day over 300 days a year and that extra £50 is an extra £2 million.

Yet at the same time the extra costs for the trains and paying back the infrastructure costs is £90 million. (Note that is extra over what is already paid)

 

[richieb1971]

Seems to me HS2 is just a modern made WCML. There isn't much that HS2 will deliver which is outside the remit of the current WCML. Its just faster. There is room to provision improvement on HS2 but it sounds like all expensive upgrades as most of what we spoke about isn't in the plan on day 1.

I would bet that sometime in the future a link between HS1 and HS2 will be made.

 

[The Planner]

It is 6 tracking of the WCML in effect, but I don't think anyone has really denied that. If it isn't faster then people trot out the lines as per Great Western "oh it isn't any faster than 1976".

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is 6 tracking of the WCML in effect, but I don't think anyone has really denied that

Indeed. As I have mentioned before, what it is for is to improve local and semifast passenger and freight capacity south of Northampton and at the Trent Valley local stations. That it will also speed up services and provide additional IC capacity is merely a happy coincidence.

 

[Senex]

Seems to me HS2 is just a modern made WCML. There isn't much that HS2 will deliver which is outside the remit of the current WCML. Its just faster.

And it even perpeturates the WCML accidental "policy" of putting the major English cities on branches in order to point as directly as possible to Glasgow and Edinburgh. At least the Birmingham branch will be a good fast one, and not too bad for trains heading north. Not so the Manchester branch or the connections to Liverpool.

 

[snowball]

2 Glasgow / Edinburgh (splitting Carstairs)

Haven't I read somewhere that the actual split is proposed to be at Carlisle, with one portion then following the other to Carstairs?