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

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by ABB125, 24 Jan 2019.

  1. The Ham

    The Ham Established Member

    Messages:
    6,328
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2012
    Let's assume that we did build HS2 with a through station in London where would it go to?

    Even if it did do somewhere else could we even be sure that it wouldn't still lead to 100,000 passengers being discharged at Euston station. In fact it could well be that it would be higher than this if it means that you end up with a lot of people coming in from the opposite direction as well and/or travel between two London stations.
     
  2. si404

    si404 Member

    Messages:
    652
    Joined:
    28 Dec 2012
    The increase in demand for National Rail to LUL at Euston is obviously a lot to do with HS2*. However, it could be absorbed by the Northern and SSL upgrades (which would add capacity on a par with what one Northern line branch currently has) if it was just that. The issue requiring Crossrail 2 at Euston is that London is getting more people living there, that tube usage is almost certainly going to up at a reasonable rate of growth (maybe not the 2000-2016 trend) and that the capacity created by the upgrades would have been used up before the trains reach Euston to pick up HS2 passengers** due to growth elsewhere...

    As for stagnation, tube travel at Euston did indeed go down 2017 vs 2016 - but by a tiny statistically insignificant amount (43.07m vs 43.10m): 0.07%. One year of stagnation does not a trend make and over the 7 years since 2010 it grew by over 20% (from 35.32m), with the trend going further back than that.

    *Though with 8 million increase at the LU station, backed with a bigger increase at the NR station (34.073m in 10/11, 44.746m in 17/18 despite a methodology change that reduces the figure) in the 2010-2017 period, I think we can safely say we've had more than 20% of that 35k increase/day (ie 7000) - 8 million more people using the station each year averages to about 11000 additional return journeys per day every day (so there would be more on weekdays).
    **Many of which, as I've pointed out would merely have moved from KXSP and so would be joining the Victoria line a stop later, or the Northern (City branch)/SSLs a stop earlier.
     
  3. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    7,382
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    Yes it was but read it again, in context of course:
    "I don't know how EVs manage heating and ventilation/cooling but I assume that heating relies in part of heat given off by the battery when working. Maybe that will drive better insulated vehicles and better ventilated cooling systems as well.
    Even if four passengers with their phones with fully flat batteries all charged then at the same time, that would be no more than 10W x 4 for less than an hour, - a drop in the ocean given that even now, EV batteries are upwards of 30kW* so the phones would only deplete them by less than 1/750th of the total.

    * I wouldn't count the current range of sub-100mile range cars as being relevant as we are talking about the future."
    The post was about ancillary (hotelservices in response to Meerkat's post #3301 about cold nights.
    There a number of city and other small cars currently on the market with battery capacities in the area of 30kW with practical ranges significantly under 100 miles, see:
    https://ev-database.uk/cheatsheet/useable-battery-capacity-electric-car
    These include vehicles like the e-Golf (and derivatives, Mini-electric, Mazda MX30 and Honda e), that might get used on longer trips. Note, I did discount the more limited vehicles (sub 100 miles range) as being of transitory interest in this discussion, (see bolded text above).
     
  4. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,562
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Terminal stations are not failures if they are provided with the correct functional capability for the Train Service they are designed for. In fact, terminal stations are efficient.
     
  5. ohgoditsjames

    ohgoditsjames Member

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    16 Jun 2019
    Leeds as a terminal station that’s perpendicular to the existing station is a failure in my eyes.
     
  6. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,562
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    ....because....?
     
  7. ohgoditsjames

    ohgoditsjames Member

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    16 Jun 2019
    It leaves no possibility for future development that would allow the trains to carry on further north?
     
  8. DynamicSpirit

    DynamicSpirit Established Member

    Messages:
    4,124
    Joined:
    12 Apr 2012
    You might want to check out the proposed Toton station site on Google maps. You'll discover a fair bit of housing around it, and not a lot of fields.
     
  9. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,562
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Why is that useful, when there's an HS2 main line to the East of Leeds for that very purpose?

    Why would (say) Newcastle/York-Birmingham/Euston passengers want to be slowed down by going via Leeds?

    Why would Leeds passengers want trains turning up already full of Newcastle passengers? It makes no strategic sense.
     
  10. DynamicSpirit

    DynamicSpirit Established Member

    Messages:
    4,124
    Joined:
    12 Apr 2012
    While I strongly support HS2, I think there is a valid point about the through station. If trains between Newcastle and Birmingham/London stopped at Leeds, it may well slow the journeys down by 10 minutes or so, but it means that all places would receive more frequent services. By splitting the line to terminate at Leeds, it means Northbound trains can EITHER go to Leeds OR they can go to Newcastle/York - so, whichever destination you want, you can only use half the services. If on the other hand (hypothetically) you built the line to Newcastle to go via Leeds, so you could send most or all services to Newcastle via Leeds, that means that not only would both places receive twice as many Southbound trains, but you'd also have an HS2 service between Newcastle and Leeds, almost 'for free'. That seems like a big win overall to me.

    It's a bit like saying, why do London-Norwich trains have to stop at Ipswich, couldn't you make them faster by running them non-stop through Ipswich, and providing a separate London-Ipswich service. Obviously, you could, but the cost of those faster London-Norwich journeys would overall be a far inferior service overall. (And you could do basically the same argument anywhere else on the network where trains have intermediate stops).
     
  11. kevin_roche

    kevin_roche Member

    Messages:
    343
    Joined:
    26 Feb 2019
    What is the status of those phase 2 sections right now? Isn't there still a chance to change it?

    I'm hoping that the Northern Powerhouse Rail will have some influence over the final plans. At the other end of the line TfL have had some influence.
     
  12. quantinghome

    quantinghome Member

    Messages:
    840
    Joined:
    1 Jun 2013
    At present HS2 infrastructure is planned to stop just south of York, with no high speed infrastructure between Leeds and Garforth. Your plan, assuming all HS2 services would go through Leeds, with none terminating, would therefore require 6 tph on the Leeds-York-Newcastle route. The existing lines have little or no spare capacity, so rather than being 'almost for free' you would have to build a new tracks through Leeds city centre and then a new high speed alignment from east Leeds to York and then up to Newcastle.

    A through station at Leeds will also be very expensive compared to the current plans, which are based around an alignment through land scheduled for redevelopment, rather than blasting a route through the centre of Leeds alongside existing live railway. I'm sure it could be done, technically, but £££.

    Would your plan be to run 400m 'captive' trains to Newcastle, as could be done for the Leeds service under current HS2 plans? In which case what are you going to do at Newcastle?
     
  13. jayah

    jayah Established Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Joined:
    18 Apr 2011
    Euston National Rail to LUL is not going to be higher if there was another National Rail to LUL interchange, anywhere in Zone 1.

    With hindsight most people realise that ringing central London with main line termini during the 19th Century was less than ideal, in 2019 we should not be repeating the same mistakes.
     
  14. jayah

    jayah Established Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Joined:
    18 Apr 2011
    It is all too clear from the HS2 'Y' service plan.

    Birmingham to NE is currently 2 tph. HS2 provides the desired second Leeds train and a third Scotland via NE. Without severing SW-NE opportunities with a walk through Birmingham you will be lucky to lose one existing service (Reading to Newcastle). You end up with 6tph north from Birmingham three to each spine, none crossing Birmingham in addition to the three London terminations. That is a huge outlay in duplicate paths and rolling stock where London, Bristol, Reading and Bournemouth all have cross Birmingham trains today.
     
  15. jayah

    jayah Established Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Joined:
    18 Apr 2011
    Terminal stations are not efficient. They limit cross Birmingham and Leeds services as clearly evident from the HS2 service plans and they waste time as well as capacity.

    That is after all why they build the tunnel under Zurich to bypass them. At Oban or Penzance, yes but not somewhere like Birmingham Curzon Street.
     
  16. jayah

    jayah Established Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Joined:
    18 Apr 2011
    You cannot absorb the sort of increases I have highlighted into an SSL and Northern upgrade, which are needed to deal with the crowding that already exists today.

    The stagnation in tube travel is at a London level, note the crowding on LUL isn't just being caused by Euston interchange.

    KGX/STP have a lot of other LUL lines, it is not simply a case of joining a stop earlier.
     
  17. MarkyT

    MarkyT Established Member

    Messages:
    3,790
    Joined:
    20 May 2012
    Location:
    Torbay
    Also, it is under a mile from the centre of Long Eaton, to which an extension of the NET tram system via the HS2 hub is very likely I reckon. There will also be conventional network platforms at the hub via which a number of services might be diverted. Its favourable position is also likely to attract calls by local buses in the west Nottingham / Long Eaton area. With the proposed additional 'Midlands Engine' connections to the conventional network provided in the area, it's also possible portions for Nottingham and Derby might be detached from London trains heading to the north east at Toton.
     
  18. The Ham

    The Ham Established Member

    Messages:
    6,328
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2012
    I would suggest that it very much depends on where the other Zone 1 station is and where the HS line goes after that.

    Assuming that the other Zone 1 station isn't a terminus (otherwise you're just creating the problem you are trying to fix somewhere else within London at great cost) then you have the issue of where are those trains going to serve?

    If they are captive rolling stock then that means you'll need to build yet more HS lines out the other side of London, which pushes the costs up. Probably to the extent of making the £40bn for Crossrail 2 look very good value (even if it's not cheaper).

    Given that you are proposing it, where would you run the services to? Where would justify 14tph with between 550 and 1,100 seats per train?

    Given that Birmingham justifies 3tph, likewise Manchester, running that even to the larger cities (the likes of Portsmouth and Southampton) is going to result in a lot of empty seats.

    If you limit it to just somewhere within London then where and why stop it there and not at Euston?

    You also need to consider that a lot of people would still get off at Euston, unless you can be sure that enough are going to stay on and go to the next station the chances are that you'll still have to provide extra capacity, including Crossrail 2.

    However even if you don't need to improve capacity at Euston chances are that other station would need improve capacity, as such you've spent a lot (billions?) to create a through station yet will still need to spend more to improve capacity elsewhere.
     
  19. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,562
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Trains have to turn back somewhere. Turn them back where there is a natural changeover of demand patterns. Through working across Zurich works because Switzerland is a polycentric country where the major population centres are spread relatively evenly around the country.

    The UK however is not like that, the population is weighted heavily towards the Midlands and London & South East. Manchester and Leeds in particular are natural locations to turn back services to serve the population of the North West and North East and south thereof, whilst the through services on the York and Wigan connections serve the proportion of population north of West Yorkshire/Greater Manchester. It's wasteful to want to run a high proportion of trains north of Manchester and Leeds when that is not proportionate to the population and demand north of those points.
     
  20. underbank

    underbank Established Member

    Messages:
    1,075
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2013
    No they don't. I was incredibly impressed with Amsterdam which is a through station where there is a northern loop to bring the line around the city via Sloterdijk station. It means trains can travel North out of Amsterdam central and either end up travelling South or East through Sloterdijk. Trains which "should" terminate at Amsterdam (i.e. from the South, airport, etc) just carry on and effectively double back on themselves back towards where they came from and vice versa. When you see it in person and look at the track plan, it's quite ingenious and incredibly simple. Very little need for points/changeovers in the station approaches, especially the Sloterdijk interchange. I stayed in a hotel overlooking Sloterdijk and spent quite a few hours just watching it - it all allowed a far higher frequency - almost one train pulling in as the earlier one was departing.
     
  21. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    44,010
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    They do if you want things to be anything like punctual. Lopping layovers out is not sensible. And boarding at a terminus is nice and civilised (and no accessibility issues).
     
  22. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    44,010
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    There is no point in captive rolling stock. Build it all to UK gauge and maximise flexibility. I believe they have actually realised this one.
     
  23. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,562
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    What you're missing is that is a gigantic fudge because Amsterdam Centraal is space constrained. Running round trains in circles is inefficient and there'll be a cost in being unable to recover late running through absence of a turnround time.
     
  24. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,562
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    LNER, XC and TPE could do it at Newcastle, for example. They don't do it, for a very good reason.
     
  25. Mark B

    Mark B Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    9 Nov 2019
    Location:
    Hastings
    Just playing devil's advocate for a minute, once you get over, say, 4toh, is it worth bothering too much about punctuality, per se, as opposed to just getting service to recover?

    To take the extreme example, I know the underground has a timetable, but do any passengers care, or even know? They just know another train will be along soon. Up to 15 min wait is a bit different, but wouldn't they just want the next train ASAP?

    And this has the benefit of "sweating the assets" ie rolling stock and, particularly, platforms (very expensive real estate which can be occupied for as much as an hour rather than the 2 - 5 min of a stop...)

    I thought the future was terminating trains "in the sticks" ala Thameslink, where the space is cheap (and the trains fan out anyway, reducing utilisation of platforms).

    I guess none of this matters if line capacity is full anyway, but why are we planning it for new build? e.g. why not plumb HS2 through to HS1 so we can run continuously via the Kent rounder and said Newcastle loop (and others)?

    (Dons asbestos suit :))
     
  26. Mark B

    Mark B Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    9 Nov 2019
    Location:
    Hastings
    Oh, and I know many routes are well short of 4tph, but none of the ones I personally know couldn't absorb that capacity if it could be provided economically enough via reducing overcrowding, modal shift and generated traffic.

    How many genuinely empty/quiet trains are there these days except where the service is so infrequent people just drive or where the cost model has broken down - "misdefined" peak etc?
     
  27. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,562
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Because the whole system hangs off of having a robust operational plan. Train crew, drivers, stations - and besides many HS2 routes will be less than 4tph. There will only be 1tph between Birmingham and Newcastle, for example.

    Unlike managing a metro service, where trains are relatively contained geographically, HS2 trains stretch as far as Euston and Glasgow/Edinburgh, where punctuality will matter when it means getting trains back to the right places at the end of the day.

    As a further point, high speed means that the impact of a delay en route (thus slow running or stopping entirely) is proportionately much higher, thus more reason to build in more recovery, not less, at the end of the journey.

    Trains are expensive things to run around. In the long run, it is much better value to swallow the cost of the real estate if it save operational cost where it is not serving any particular demand just to clear platforms.

    Thameslink works because one can sensibly pair 24 trains per hour on one side of London with 24 trains per hour on the other side of London that are both:
    A) Of a similar opetational characteristic, and
    B) All fulfill a demand need

    That's not the case with HS2...where would one send *all* 18tph south or east of London that:
    -Is a suitable use of High Speed rolling stock (say one or two stops only a reasonable distance the other side) and
    -Could be filled to a reasonable level of loading?

    In HS2's case, it's nmch more efficient to swallow the extra land cost, than send lots of relatively lightly loaded trains the extra distance in Kent and Sussex, a cost that would continue indefiniteky.
     
  28. The Ham

    The Ham Established Member

    Messages:
    6,328
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2012
    Even if the loading gauge works, you've still got the issue of the length of the trains.

    In that you're still going to be dealing with 400m long trains. These aren't going to fit into the existing network and even if you did increase platform lengths to facilitate these trains they will they eat up capacity.
     
  29. underbank

    underbank Established Member

    Messages:
    1,075
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2013
    But they don't run continuously in a loop with passengers. There are still those that "terminate" at major station, but instead of parking/blocking a platform, they continue in the same direction to holding areas (for crew changes, cleaning etc) before they re-enter service so there is layover time built in, particularly on the longer routes. Of course, the shorter routes are very high frequency anyway so the timetable doesn't really matter, like the London underground. The points/changeovers are away from the main stations so cause less delay/disruption as they occur in less densely used areas of the network rather than at the mouth of a busy terminus station.

    It works with Eurostar which don't have terminus stations at each end but a loop at each end instead.

    Berlin also seems to operate with several "main line" through stations rather than any terminus stations, with mostly pretty small/simple lines & stations.
     
  30. si404

    si404 Member

    Messages:
    652
    Joined:
    28 Dec 2012
    Providing there's no increase elsewhere it can. The problem is that there is an increase elsewhere that will use the upgrade capacity, and require additional capacity in places beyond upgrade capacity.
    No, they too are based on future growth.
    Then the increase at Euston doesn't need CR2 as it can be absorbed by upgrades predicated on growth that isn't happening...
    That's my entire point!

    It's you seem to be arguing that any future crowding won't be caused by changes elsewhere in London due to 'London-level stagnation', and that the Euston interchange increase will be so big that the tube won't cope without new tracks across London.
    KXSP: Met/Circle/H&C, Northern (City), Victoria, Piccadilly
    Euston (inc Sq): Met/Circle/H&C, Northern (City), Victoria, Northern (West End)

    'Lot of other LUL Lines' is simply the Piccadilly instead of the Northern (West End). The other 3 routes serve both EUS and KGX/STP and so it is indeed a case of just moving people a stop earlier or later. There is, of course, Thameslink from STP (which can easily be added to Euston's sensible interchanges (it's already a valid Oyster one from Euston NR) via a high-quality pedestrian link, perhaps integrated into a CR2 station, perhaps with moving walkways, perhaps both), but you specifically said "LUL lines".
     

Share This Page