Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[The Ham]

Conversely, some posters seem to believe that once government projects are started they're impossible to cancel.

There's no telling what will happen until the review concludes. Don't discount how politically popular cancelling or drastically reducing it would be.

Although there's a risk that if growth continues that such a decision could be something which harms the party which makes it.

Currently, based on London North West the annual passenger numbers are about 1 million higher than growth forecasts predicted, not the prediction for 2018 (the year of the data). Not even for the opening of Phase 1, but rather 1 million more than the opening of Phase 2a.

It would only take 625,000 extra passengers movements (5.6% growth) to hit the growth expected for the full opening of HS2.

Although growth rates have been falling off in percentage term if you apply a 6% growth to 300 passengers on a train in 2009 you add 18 passengers, however add 70% to that 300 passengers to get to to the 2017 figures you'd have 510 passengers, when you then add a figure of 3.5% growth you add 18 passengers.

You also have seen a train which was 50% full grow to be 85% full (in reality chances are the loads have spread throughout the day rather than ask on one train, but that's still eating up capacity and will be making those trains which were 25% full a lot fuller than the 42.5% that they would otherwise be. There's only so far that's going to get you before you need more trains.

Of course there's suggestions that the WCML could, with the longer platforms at Euston, see 12 coach 80x trains so as to carry 900 passengers. However that ignores that such a train would be about 50m longer than the current 11 coach class 390. Which would hardly work out well for Liverpool.

Even with trains being able to spilt, to serve places like Liverpool, so as to be a 6 coach 80x that'd not going to go down well:
- 9 coach 390 - 469
- 11 coach 390 - 589
- HS2 half train - 550
- 6 coach class 80x (assuming +90 to the TPE configuration) - 432

I doubt that would go down well in Liverpool, nor many other places, whilst to rebuild the stations to accommodate the longer 80x's would be interesting (read expensive) at many places, including New Street.

It would also do nothing to improve capacity on the ECML.

 

[Andrew*Debbie]

It is fairly reasonable to assume that phase 1 would get built,

I wish I could believe that. I'd be a strong supporter if HS2 was going to be on-time and in budget.

There's no telling what will happen until the review concludes.

I'm aware of two, the DfT review and the PM's review.

Last month, the FT reported HS2 could be as much as £30bn over budget.

https://www.ft.com/content/27ab2f5c-a976-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04

 

[Andrew*Debbie]

Why 12? Phase 1 only takes two platforms, 17 and 18 which are already closed.

Because I'm more than mildly pessimistic. 12 might have been excessive. I'll revise to 14 working platforms after a subcontractor downs tools.

On a more "positive" note, maybe the DfT will decide to terminate Phase 1 at Old Oak Common, leaving the Euston tunnel for some later date.

 

[jfowkes]

I wish I could believe that. I'd be a strong supporter if HS2 was going to be on-time and in budget.

The thing is, large projects going over-time and over-budget is normal. HS2 isn't a special case. GWML electrification, Crossrail, Berlin Airport to name just a few. And it's not unique to transport projects. Defence, health, IT... Humans are bad at planning and estimating. If we killed off every project that went over the estimates, we'd have a lot fewer nice things.

 

[The Planner]

Because I'm more than mildly pessimistic. 12 might have been excessive. I'll revise to 14 working platforms after a subcontractor downs tools.

On a more "positive" note, maybe the DfT will decide to terminate Phase 1 at Old Oak Common, leaving the Euston tunnel for some later date.

But that still makes no sense, phase 1 doesn't require any more than platform 17 and 18 to close, they won't be taking out any more platforms until phase 2 happens.

 

[Railguy1]

Where can I find the plans, if they exist, for what changes are proposed to the WCML from London to Birmingham, once HS2 is in operation?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But that still makes no sense, phase 1 doesn't require any more than platform 17 and 18 to close, they won't be taking out any more platforms until phase 2 happens.

Errr... now I'm confused. Why would they take out platforms at Euston to build phase 2? Won't all the building work at the London end be complete with phase 1?

 

[The Planner]

Errr... now I'm confused. Why would they take out platforms at Euston to build phase 2? Won't all the building work at the London end be complete with phase 1?

No, they are only building enough platforms for phase 1, phase 2 will take more platforms.

 

[MarkyT]

No, they are only building enough platforms for phase 1, phase 2 will take more platforms.

That's what I understand. There is a central spine of buildings in the new station design which separates the phase 1 platforms from the phase 2 platforms and contains various staff and passenger facilities as well as new tube access arrangements. The phase 1 part is mostly on the new land acquired for the project and will be built first up to and including the spine, requiring just two existing platform to be removed. The phase 2 works will remove some further existing platforms.

 

[mmh]

Two platforms? So much for the much repeated 18tph then. How many tph can two platforms support? Six?

 

[6Gman]

Two platforms? So much for the much repeated 18tph then. How many tph can two platforms support? Six?

Two is the number of platforms being removed from the "traditional" Euston; not the number being built for HS2.

AIUI

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, they are only building enough platforms for phase 1, phase 2 will take more platforms.

Ah, thanks. But that brings up another worry in my mind: One of the main arguments for HS2 is that it's about capacity: By removing the fast trains from the WCML, that frees up space to run more slower trains for commuters, plus links from Watford, Milton Keynes, etc. to the North. But if WCML platforms are being removed from Euston, won't that reduce the capacity of Euston to handle WCML trains, and so scupper any plans to run more slower trains along it?

 

[Yindee8191]

Ah, thanks. But that brings up another worry in my mind: One of the main arguments for HS2 is that it's about capacity: By removing the fast trains from the WCML, that frees up space to run more slower trains for commuters, plus links from Watford, Milton Keynes, etc. to the North. But if WCML platforms are being removed from Euston, won't that reduce the capacity of Euston to handle WCML trains, and so scupper any plans to run more slower trains along it?

If trains are being taken off the WCML and put on HS2, presumably they’re also being taken out of the conventional Euston Station and put into the HS2 section of Euston as well, freeing up about the same amount of capacity in Euston as on the WCML itself.

 

[MarkyT]

Ah, thanks. But that brings up another worry in my mind: One of the main arguments for HS2 is that it's about capacity: By removing the fast trains from the WCML, that frees up space to run more slower trains for commuters, plus links from Watford, Milton Keynes, etc. to the North. But if WCML platforms are being removed from Euston, won't that reduce the capacity of Euston to handle WCML trains, and so scupper any plans to run more slower trains along it?

I'd say that a fair number of the fastest current Pendolino services will be replaced by HS2 routed trains immediately on opening of Phase 1. The overall number of platforms will increase. It may be tight during construction however, both for Phase 1 and for Phase 2.

 

[hwl]

Ah, thanks. But that brings up another worry in my mind: One of the main arguments for HS2 is that it's about capacity: By removing the fast trains from the WCML, that frees up space to run more slower trains for commuters, plus links from Watford, Milton Keynes, etc. to the North. But if WCML platforms are being removed from Euston, won't that reduce the capacity of Euston to handle WCML trains, and so scupper any plans to run more slower trains along it?

The lay over time for trains at Euston is much longer on average for fast (Virgin) compared to semi fast or stopping, hence fewer platforms needed if the are fewer non- HS2 fast services.

 

[The Ham]

The lay over time for trains at Euston is much longer on average for fast (Virgin) compared to semi fast or stopping, hence fewer platforms needed if the are fewer non- HS2 fast services.

Fairly typically a Long Distance train would need platform space for 30-40 minutes whilst local services are more likely to be on a 20 minute turn around.

If we assume a 30/20 minutes platform usage, then you can have 2tph/3tph.

Therefore by shortening turn arounds (by using it for a regional/local services) you can increase the number of services using any platform.

If you remove 3tph*2 (Manchester & Birmingham services) then you could replace 6 services with 9 services, even before there's any savings from standardising speeds.

 

[Andrew*Debbie]

The thing is, large projects going over-time and over-budget is normal. HS2 isn't a special case. GWML electrification, Crossrail, Berlin Airport to name just a few.

The Berlin Airport and Crossrail are both monumental screw ups. The airport goes well beyond. Even NSFW language doesn't start to describe that airport.

Putting out misleading completion times and unrealistic costs doesn't help. From here (I'm not in the rail industry at all) it looks like people at Crossrail and HS2 deliberately lied to us.


It is possible to do better. I've seen better. As a start DfT and HS2 should come back with a realistic estimated cost range. One that actually could come in on budget. They need to look at what went wrong with Crossrail and Elecrification and learn from the management errors.

 

[Andrew*Debbie]

But that still makes no sense, phase 1 doesn't require any more than platform 17 and 18 to close, they won't be taking out any more platforms until phase 2 happens.

I was being somewhat sarcastic.

Sarcasm aside, I think some future government will cancel the program due to cost overruns leaving us with half completed projects. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[RLBH]

It is possible to do better. I've seen better. As a start DfT and HS2 should come back with a realistic estimated cost range. One that actually could come in on budget. They need to look at what went wrong with Crossrail and Elecrification and learn from the management errors.

It's a recurring problem with public spending. If you come up with an accurate cost estimate, the project will never get approved. If the contractors submit realistic bids, they lose to contractors who don't have the competence to realise why their bids are unrealistic.

 

[The Ham]

It's a recurring problem with public spending. If you come up with an accurate cost estimate, the project will never get approved. If the contractors submit realistic bids, they lose to contractors who don't have the competence to realise why their bids are unrealistic.

Generally those contractors who provide a cheap tender process then look to charge for any change request made, which is where they then make up the cost difference.

Obviously design and build contracts are different, but again there are ways which contractors can use the system to their advantage.

Unfortunately those who may well know which contractors are known for bring worse at doing this (i.e. getting more money) have little control over who gets Government Contracts.

 

[The Ham]

Where can I find the plans, if they exist, for what changes are proposed to the WCML from London to Birmingham, once HS2 is in operation?

There's only ever assumptions which are put into the model for determining if the project goes ahead. However it's worth looking at Midlands Connect's proposal as that gives some more details as to what they would like to see.

 

[HSTEd]

How on earth are they spending £56 billion?

At this rate it would have been cheaper to put the entire thing in a continuous set of TBM drives all the way from Euston to Birmingham.
And that would have crushed 90% of the opposition to the scheme. There would have been essentially no screaming about land in the Chilterns, there would have not been thousands of pointless petitions to the inquiry, there would have been almost no compulsory purchases except at station locations..... the list goes on.

Also my FOI request came back from HS2 about platform heights.

They are still hoping the EU Commission will let them have ~1200mm ARL.
Which is why the train specification demands that platform height even though the EU Commission has shown absolutely no inclination to let them.

I think they are just hoping for No-Deal Brexit so they can slap that on, even though that certainly makes the scheme pointless IMO. (It means practical double decker trains become impossible so the business case just collapses).

Essentially it seems HS2 Management was or is still living in a fantasy land where there way is definitely better because of "common sense".

EDIT:

Old Oak Common to Birmingham International is about 160km on foot.
And since the line would be entirely underground it can proceed in an essentially straight line, which means arbitrarily high speeds could be accomodated for zero additional cost. (With Shinkansen style aerodynamic noses)

Just set the TBMs to work and wait.

This is analogous to offshore HVDC schemes being preferable to new overhead lines now due to the idiotic public inquiry process and the cost of dealing with NIMBYs.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How on earth are they spending £56 billion?

I believe the £56bn is the combined estimate for phases 1 and 2. London-Birmingham won't cost anything like that.

 

[HSTEd]

I believe the £56bn is the combined estimate for phases 1 and 2. London-Birmingham won't cost anything like that.

It now appears the scheme is going to cost rather more than £56bn, as the government has stopped defending that figure in public.

In an attempt to select the cheapest-to-build option they have created an unmanagable behemoth of a project with far too many moving parts and far too many levels of contractor and subcontractor.

A tunnel has comparatively fewer moving parts, because you deal with far fewer people.

 

[Adsy125]

(It means practical double decker trains become impossible so the business case just collapses)

Sorry to nitpick, but the business case has no reliance on Double deck trains at all, and from a passenger perspective single deck trains are far better.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry to nitpick, but the business case has no reliance on Double deck trains at all,

And with the constant cost escalations, the business case as published is complete junk.

and from a passenger perspective single deck trains are far better.

Until you cant afford to travel as much as you want because the fares are 40+% higher to pay for this?

Remember we are talking about GC gauge, which means we have rather more height to play with than the TGV Duplex, which means we can have level boarding onto the lower deck of a pseudo-TGV.

 

[Adsy125]

And with the constant cost escalations, the business case as published is complete junk.

Until you cant afford to travel as much as you want because the fares are 40+% higher to pay for this?

As has been demonstrated many times on here, HS2 will have huge amounts of extra capacity, m weaning there will be little need for pricing people off the trains. Don't forget that double deck trains are very awkward for disabled people, and don't have anywhere near twice as many seats.

 

[HSTEd]

As has been demonstrated many times on here, HS2 will have huge amounts of extra capacity, m weaning there will be little need for pricing people off the trains.

It sounds like a lot of capacity, until the magic of the geometric progression makes it all go away.
As has been demonstrated on here many times, the existing passenger growth is already trending far higher than predictions, and imagine when the elimination of attempts to price people off the trains drop the fares through the floor?

Don't forget that double deck trains are very awkward for disabled people,

Why are they?
We can have level boarding and double decks thanks to the huge loading gauge, assuming we are sensible and adopt a standardised platform height.

and don't have anywhere near twice as many seats.

No, only about 40% more.
Which still reduces specific costs of capacity by ~30%. Which reduces breakeven fares by 30%, which causes yet further traffic growth.

EDIT:
TGV Duplex lower deck is 314mm above rail according to the California HSR administration. GC gauge gains us a total height of 4650mm rather than 4320mm used on the TGV Duplex.
That means we can have a floor height anywhere up to 644mm without reducing headroom compared to the TGV.

The lower TSI height is 560mm, so we can certainly have total flat boarding there, and the step from a 760mm platform would be less than five inches to the flat part of the floor, even without any kind ramp in the doorway or whatnot. And that assumes we do nothing to tweak the tolerances of the constructed platform in our favour (we reduce the tolerances and drop the platform height as the tolerances are quite generous).

And classic compatibles operate every day on 760mm platform without issue (Class 395)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Double decker trains would be captive to the HS2 routes only - no running onto the classic routes possible. For phase 1/2a, that would basically mean London-Birmingham only, although phase 2 would open up Leeds and Manchester. Still pretty restrictive though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We can have level boarding and double decks thanks to the huge loading gauge, assuming we are sensible and adopt a standardised platform height.

If you want HS2 trains to be able to run onto the existing tracks and stop at existing platforms (which is pretty much essential) then the standardised platform height HAS to be roughly the same height as existing UK platforms. I'm struggling to see how you could have level boarding and double-decks with that platform height, unless you're planning on making the trains about 2m taller than all existing UK trains to accommodate the upper level.