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

[Tetchytyke]

That's a political decision and nothing to do with HS2

HS2 is also a political decision and therefore it is absolutely everything to do with HS2.

HS2 doesn't exist in a vacuum. Just as Crossrail means TfL have no money to spend on anything else, HS2 means the rail industry will have no money to spend on anything else.

Unless you think it's pure coincidence that more urban electrification schemes get cut every time HS2's budget rises?

 

[underbank]

Smaller hospitals are fine for basic stuff (minor injuries, physio, etc) but we know they don’t provide the best specialist treatment.

Most patients and staff will be dealing with the basic stuff, so get it back to being provided locally. Have a small number of centralised units with more highly trained staff and best equipment for the much smaller number of specialised/complicated issues. I'd imagine it's the old 80:20 rule, so get 80% of it (basic run of the mill stuff) done at small hospital/surgery units, and the remaining 20% (hard stuff) can be done in special/centralised centres.

My son recently had to travel 30 miles to the next town to get a toe nail removed as it was the nearest podiatry unit. When I needed a toe nail removed 40 years ago, my GP did it with the help of a nurse at our doctors surgery within walking distance.

 

[underbank]

Closing all the shops and supermarkets in the country and making everyone shop online would certainly solve this problem. It would remove commuting, massively reduce congestion, and all the former shops and supermarkets could be developed as housing so helping with issues there too. So yes this would be an option but I’d don’t think it would be a vote winner as it would lead to also lead massive unemployment, and aren’t we supposed to be regenerating our towns, not destroying them?

But there's a trend for the "big boys" such as Tesco, Sainsbury, Co-Op, etc to open smaller local stores, such as Tesco's "One Stop" chain. Our village is getting a new Co Op - we've not had a convenience store for a couple of decades as a huge Tesco opened just outside our nearest town, 3 miles away which obliterated our village shops. We're all looking forward to our local Co Op as it will mean we don't need to drive to Tesco all the time. Even though we know it won't be as cheap as Tesco, it will be a hell of a lot better than what we used to have which was an expensive Spar with very limited product range (hence why it didn't survive).

A weekly online grocery shop, augmented by a local trip to a "local" supermarket every couple of days seems to becoming the norm these days which removes a lot of traffic from the roads, which is a reversal back towards how it used to be when we shopped local by default rather than driving to the nearest out of town superstore.

 

[HSTEd]

A weekly online grocery shop, augmented by a local trip to a "local" supermarket every couple of days seems to becoming the norm these days which removes a lot of traffic from the roads, which is a reversal back towards how it used to be when we shopped local by default rather than driving to the nearest out of town superstore.

If Amazon Prime Now (2 hour) delivery takes off, will be interesting to see if the convenience stores survive either.

 

[underbank]

If Amazon Prime Now (2 hour) delivery takes off, will be interesting to see if the convenience stores survive either.

There'll be plenty of places where Amazon can't do the 2 hour delivery.

But what is interesting is that around here, we've now got a "milk man" again, who is also delivering eggs, bread, orange juice, etc., and thankfully, we never lost our newspaper home deliveries, so perhaps, again Localism, may be the way forward. The likes of Amazon for the densely populated city centres and more traditional home delivery options for towns and rural areas, all of which are good if they reduce private driving. (Assuming the prime delivery is one of many on the same run - obviously not good if the van goes out for just one delivery!).

 

[Roast Veg]

HS2 is also a political decision and therefore it is absolutely everything to do with HS2.

HS2 doesn't exist in a vacuum. Just as Crossrail means TfL have no money to spend on anything else, HS2 means the rail industry will have no money to spend on anything else.

Unless you think it's pure coincidence that more urban electrification schemes get cut every time HS2's budget rises?

HS2 funding has come direct from the treasury. If HS2 is canned, that money never gets spent on the railways. There is no correlation between electrification cancellations and HS2 budget increases - most schemes cancelled by Grayling happened before HS2 even had royal assent.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Still such a shame this is going ahead in its current form.

The reality is that we are going to keep stuffing trains onto existing routes, some of which will have little to no investment and it will just be a load of pony. If you're going to do it, you have to do it properly. Two London terminals, two routes out towards the North West and North East freeing up the ECML and WCML for commuter and more stopping Intercity traffic. Shoddy.

I'd sooner pay 4 times the price as a taxpayer towards a national network and massive infrastructure spending than £100bn on this.

 

[Meerkat]

All of those are solved by turning away from centralisation and back to localism. Instead of a huge hospital serving an entire county, get back to a hospital in each town, get back to smaller/local GP surgeries and more local community nurses/midwifes, etc. Schools are already pretty localised, so teachers could just opt to work in a school local to them instead of an hour away. Social work is already pretty local I'd have thought, so get back to social workers "working" a territory local to where they live. We're already seeing the major supermarkets returning to smaller local stores and of course, internet shopping means you don't need to go to a physical shop anymore. Lots of professions can be done online - there are now huge numbers of internet based estate agents, solicitors, accountants, etc without the old fashioned High Street office. Call centres is an easy one as lots of telephone workers (sales, holiday booking etc) are people working from home with a broadband link for incoming phone calls and to the systems - that's no different to hundreds of people in an office block.

Big hospitals are safer and provide better care than local ones
Are you forcing teachers to move to find work?
Not keen on the mental health aspect of keeping everyone tucked away at home on their own.....

 

[quantinghome]

HS2 is also a political decision and therefore it is absolutely everything to do with HS2.

HS2 doesn't exist in a vacuum. Just as Crossrail means TfL have no money to spend on anything else, HS2 means the rail industry will have no money to spend on anything else.

Unless you think it's pure coincidence that more urban electrification schemes get cut every time HS2's budget rises?

It's nothing to do with HS2. Electrification schemes were cancelled due to Network Rail's failure to control budgets on the electrification schemes in progress - witness the budget tripling on the GWML - and a consequent loss of trust in NR to deliver by government (although the government are at least partly to blame by launching a massive electrification programme without waiting for the necessary engineering skills and experience to be re-established). It also shows that upgrading existing railways is really difficult and liable to see budgets blown. Any alternative upgrade schemes in lieu of HS2 will be subject to the same problems we have seen on the WCML, GWML and the north west electrification schemes.

Comparing HS2 and Crossrail doesn't hold water. Crossrail comes out of TfL's budget. By contrast HS2's budget is completely separate from Network Rail. Unless you want to make some point about general government spending, in which case you might as well argue that overspend on road schemes, brexit, or defence projects affect the rail budget.

 

[quantinghome]

Still such a shame this is going ahead in its current form.

The reality is that we are going to keep stuffing trains onto existing routes, some of which will have little to no investment and it will just be a load of pony. If you're going to do it, you have to do it properly. Two London terminals, two routes out towards the North West and North East freeing up the ECML and WCML for commuter and more stopping Intercity traffic. Shoddy.

I'd sooner pay 4 times the price as a taxpayer towards a national network and massive infrastructure spending than £100bn on this.

You understand that HS2 is designed to free up capacity on the WCML and MML and ECML? The strategy is to build HS2 with very high capacity to provide this relief precisely to avoid having to build two new London terminals, two routes out of London and so on.

 

[nidave]

HS2 means the rail industry will have no money to spend on anything else.

Rubbish - where is your source for this?
Edit: there is a graph that proves you wrong with spending on the railways so far, I just can't find it at the moment.

 

[HSTEd]

. Two London terminals, two routes out towards the North West and North East freeing up the ECML and WCML for commuter and more stopping Intercity traffic. Shoddy..

We are having to resort to deliberately constraining capacity through classic compatibles and high platforms in an attempt to fill HS2.

Do you really think we could find reasonable loadings for 28+ paths an hour?
I would like low fares but even then I think you would struggle.

 

[TrafficEng]

The money is borrowed for HS2 and HS2 only - it is not sitting there waiting to be spent - it can't and the agreement by the treasury won't get used for anything else other than HS2 - any other projects would need separate funding released by the treasury.

I totally agree but the impression by some is the money is there and can be used to fund other things. It cant - it's for HS2 only - that does not stop the UK from agreeing for a new loan to be used for other projects. In fact, we should be doing as much as we can while interest rates are so low.

HS2 funding has come direct from the treasury. If HS2 is canned, that money never gets spent on the railways. There is no correlation between electrification cancellations and HS2 budget increases - most schemes cancelled by Grayling happened before HS2 even had royal assent.

Trying to bring some clarity to this point - the funding for HS2 isn't some kind of 'special' money that can only be spent on HS2.

The Government hasn't taken out a loan specifically to build HS2, so doesn't need anyone's permission* to use that money for something else instead. (*other than the usual democratic norms)

The 'treasury' is part of the Government. Decisions get made by the Government and the treasury ensures the funding is in place to deliver the Government's spending priorities. However, I would concede the way G Brown and G Osborne ran the treasury in recent times it would be easy to make the mistake of thinking the treasury is omnipotent.

Money for HS2 will not be borrowed at some kind of super-special low interest rate just because it is for HS2.

Borrowing the money for HS2 will not be without consequences for other projects as the total Government debt impacts on the ability to borrow more money, and crucially it increases the cost of borrowing, and in turn increases the costs of other schemes.

If HS2 is canned (it won't be) the Government can spend the money on anything it wants to instead, or not spend the money at all.

The only reason for money not to be spent on other railway projects if HS2 is canned is if nobody has made a decent case for investment in these other projects. That might happen, for example, if everyone is so busy talking up HS2 they have failed to make the case even for the additional investment required to convert the potential benefits of HS2 into real benefits.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Electrification schemes were cancelled due to Network Rail's failure to control budgets on the electrification schemes in progress

Yet HS2's budget balloons from £38bn to £110bn and that's a-OK.

Should we scrap HS2 because HS2 can't control their budget?

As I said, HS2 is a political decision, just as the decision to scrap electrification schemes in the regions was.

 

[TrafficEng]

It's nothing to do with HS2. Electrification schemes were cancelled due to Network Rail's failure to control budgets on the electrification schemes in progress -

By that logic, HS2 should be cancelled due to HS2 Ltd's failure to control budgets..... Just saying.

Comparing HS2 and Crossrail doesn't hold water. Crossrail comes out of TfL's budget. By contrast HS2's budget is completely separate from Network Rail.

The comparison between HS2 and Crossrail is entirely valid. The organisation funding the project point is largely irrelevant.

Crossrail was sold to the public and businesses in London on the basis it would deliver a step-change in transport provision and connectivity in London. The public and businesses agreed this was a good idea and invested very large amounts of money in the project. Despite some of the best brains in the industry project managing the scheme, it somehow got to the point of being a few months from the official opening date before it was revealed the project was some unknown number of years away from actually opening.

The harm that has done to the public and business perception of major rail projects should not be underestimated. The way HS2 is heading it will simply reinforce the perception that UK railways are expensive and inefficiently built and that funding railway projects is no different to tipping wheelbarrows of cash onto a bonfire.

The importance of getting HS2 'right' is far greater than getting the money spent as quickly as possible before anybody changes their mind.

Unless you want to make some point about general government spending, in which case you might as well argue that overspend on road schemes, brexit, or defence projects affect the rail budget.

All Government spending overspends affect all other budgets. The bigger the overspend, the more notice people take.

Can you identify any road or defence projects that have had their budget increased (aka overspent) by approx £50bn in a single announcement?

 

[Tetchytyke]

HS2 funding has come direct from the treasury. If HS2 is canned, that money never gets spent on the railways.

HS2 funding comes out of general taxation, just as ALL government expenditure does. Whether that money gets spent on HS2, on 110,000,000,000 scratchcards, or on nothing at all is a purely political decision. All this talk of cost/benefit analyses is really a massive red herring, just as it was when a complex electrification scheme, using brand new technology, got canned for budget overruns. All decisions like this are political.

A £60bn budget overrun has an impact. Either that's £60bn not available for something else, a £60bn tax rise, or £60bn quantitative easing.

On a smaller scale, look at the Blyth and Tyne. For 40 years its been "uneconomical" to reopen the line to passenger traffic, but now Blyth is a Tory marginal suddenly it's worth every penny. Haway. Pure politics (and I think it should be reopened).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Rubbish - where is your source for this?

Net subsidy for the railways has hovered around £5bn a year for a while before HS2. It's now £6bn a year- but that includes £2bn a year for HS2.

So, unless my maths are very much out, that's a 20% cut in subsidy for non-HS2 rail.

Source:
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-does-government-subsidise-railways/

 

[4-SUB 4732]

You understand that HS2 is designed to free up capacity on the WCML and MML and ECML? The strategy is to build HS2 with very high capacity to provide this relief precisely to avoid having to build two new London terminals, two routes out of London and so on.

We need to be somewhat ‘french’ about this. We need two routes (at least) out of London to the North, featuring lengthy ‘deceleration and acceleration lanes’ with platforms on loop lines at places like Winslow and, on the East Coast, somewhere around the A14 designed to have 16-car equivalent stuff picking up thousands of people on commuter routes with new towns and cities. We also need to consider just how congested HS2 will be at its Southern end. It’s just not going to be as good as people think.

 

[Howardh]

Think it's worth digging this up from 2012 http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/39261/heathrow-connection-included-in-hs2-plans

A connection to Heathrow is included in future plans for the controversial £32.7 billion UK high speed rail network.
Transport secretary Justine Greening, confirming the go-ahead for the High Speed 2 (HS2) project between London and Birmingham, said further extensions were planned.

So the cost is, what, triple the first estimate??
How much could half the current estimate improve what we already have (and add new lines) and scrap HS2 altogether? Example, I believe (sorry, no link) the the National Grid will be decommissioning the Woodhead Tunnel (has anyone further details??) so that line could be re-opened linking the NW to S.Yorks, east midlands etc?
I was all in favour of HS2 in 2012 - might still be in favour if it linked directly to Heathrow/Gatwick/Eurotunnel but it won't so now dead against. Just too expensive and considering we have millions of elderly needing care.....

 

[nidave]

have millions of elderly needing care.....

SIGH - Social care is perfectly within the reach if we are willing to pay for it - the fact we have voted in a government which is all about tax cuts and selling off the NHS shows the general public don't really care about social care especially for the elderly. This is not an either or situation. If we were prepared to pay a few more % in Tax or NI and it was ringfenced then it would not be a problem.

 

[si404]

We are having to resort to deliberately constraining capacity through classic compatibles and high platforms in an attempt to fill HS2

I'm sorry, what?

High platforms doesn't reduce capacity. Classic compatibles don't either. If they do, we'd be talking about a couple of dozen seats out of thousands on a train.

You don't gain more capacity by lowering the entrances. Double-deck trains hold just as many with mezzanine vestibules as with entrances onto the bottom deck. Single-deck trains don't magically gain capacity by having higher ceilings.

You don't gain more capacity by widening a few inches. You aren't going to have 3+2 seating on intercity trains.

High platforms and Classic compatible are about making the line maximise its passengers - easier to use (step free as the law requires) and serving more places without making HS2 too large a scheme that it doesn't happen (and even phase 1 on its own is too large for many people). As time goes on and the 21st century network expands via NPR, via HS2 phase 3, or whatever we call them - to Liverpool, to Newcastle, to Scotland - then the need would lessen (though not be removed - Midlands Connect, Sheffield, Stafford and Stoke, etc).

And it's not like trains out of Euston will typically run half-length due to being classic-compatible. The most recent service diagram is for join and divides both Sheffields (at Toton with a Leeds and the York), both Liverpools (at Crewe with the Preston and a Crewe that is pencilled in as a Lancaster), both Scotlands (at Carstairs with trains going to both big cities). The 14tph pattern will presumably mean the Newcastles and Leeds will split (with the Crewe/Lancaster unit being dropped and the linked Liverpool splitting at Birmingham Interchange with the Stafford-Stoke train).

It's not really 'an attempt' to fill HS2 - with only either 3 of 17, or 0 of 14 trains each hour leaving Euston as half-length trains, its very much filling HS2. Add in the complaints that HS2 isn't serving Chester, etc and it was rather easy to do despite only upping Liverpool and Leeds to London frequencies over now. Achieving 28tph out of London isn't that hard when we're looking at 23tph (albeit with all but 6 or 8 as half-length trains) now. I'd imagine we'd be looking at a London-Toton line when we have expanded the 21st century network a bit more and want to make room on HS2 through OOC to allow more non-splitting full length trains. It's not for now though.

 

[MarkyT]

I was all in favour of HS2 in 2012 - might still be in favour if it linked directly to Heathrow/Gatwick/Eurotunnel but it won't so now dead against

The direct airport links and through continental train service concepts are a sideshow at best if not an irrelevance. All terminals at Heathrow will be quick and easy to reach anyway via interchange at Old Oak Common. Euston to St Pancras, for Continental, Kent and Thameslink connections, is no more than 10 minutes on foot, although personally I think the pedestrian link between those terminals needs dramatic improvement.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm sorry, what?

High platforms doesn't reduce capacity. Classic compatibles don't either. If they do, we'd be talking about a couple of dozen seats out of thousands on a train.

Classic Compatibles most certainly do reduce capacity.

A Class 395 at 120m long has 352 seats including tip ups.
Add 4 extra vehicles at 68 seats each and you get 624 seats in 200m.

You might get a bit more with 25m vehicles but it won't be that significant, you also have the problem you now have a train containing 624 people with only two toilets. Good luck with that.

An Avelia Horizon in a one class configuration will hold 740 people.

So that is a 15% reduction in capacity.

You don't gain more capacity by lowering the entrances. Double-deck trains hold just as many with mezzanine vestibules as with entrances onto the bottom deck.

That simply isn't true.
The staircase to the bottom deck takes up room on the bottom deck that can't have seats or standing room in it.
There is a reason that the only succesful highspeed double deck uses this configuration.

Also it will kill your dwell times because everyone boarding the train has to immediately use a staircase.
And how will step free access work on this service?
Will people who struggle with stairs be required to sit in the vestibule?

People moving along the train looking for a seat or otherwise will be required to endlessly climb and descend staircases.

Single-deck trains don't magically gain capacity by having higher ceilings.

We should do everything possible to avoid single deck trains.

You don't gain more capacity by widening a few inches. You aren't going to have 3+2 seating on intercity trains.

Why shouldn't we?
The journey time to Birmingham will be 49 minutes.
Most places where the train goes less than hour out of London have 3+2 seating, why don't we do that here too?
Its would cut ticket prices by 20%.

High platforms and Classic compatible are about making the line maximise its passengers - easier to use (step free as the law requires)

Even if the law required step free, a platform height of 1200mm is certainly counterproductive as it is used absolutely nowhere else.
If that is what they wanted they should have used a platform height of 915mm so that the classic compatibles would be step free at both ends (and Talgo and stadler have emphatically demonstrated that that would be achievable)

With GC loading gauge 760mm would be best, 915mm would be acceptable but 1200mm is a disaster.

EDIT:
The GB+ TGV Duplex has a floor height at about 308mm above rail.
With GC we gain 330mm of additional height.

Which means we can achieve a floor height in the double deck train of 638mm.
Even 915mm would be reasonable boarding into that.
But from 1200mm like HS2 wants? No chance.

A platform height of 760mm would have enabled some of the most level boarding in the UK into both double decks and classic compatibles (915mm floor height Talgo/Stadler CCs)

But nooo, we have to pick a platform height that isn't even in the damn TSIs.

 

[Howardh]

The direct airport links and through continental train service concepts are a sideshow at best if not an irrelevance.

You've asked every passenger, especially those who prefer to fly into Heathrow and out again rather than take the train and trail across London? Or those who fly to the near-continent rather than have a split train journey? Fair enough if you have!!

 

[camflyer]

Think it's worth digging this up from 2012 http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/39261/heathrow-connection-included-in-hs2-plans

So the cost is, what, triple the first estimate??
How much could half the current estimate improve what we already have (and add new lines) and scrap HS2 altogether? Example, I believe (sorry, no link) the the National Grid will be decommissioning the Woodhead Tunnel (has anyone further details??) so that line could be re-opened linking the NW to S.Yorks, east midlands etc?
I was all in favour of HS2 in 2012 - might still be in favour if it linked directly to Heathrow/Gatwick/Eurotunnel but it won't so now dead against. Just too expensive and considering we have millions of elderly needing care.....

Didn't the original estimate "triple" because they didn't include minor costs such as the rolling stock and didn't plan for as much tunnelling until the Home Counties NIMBYs kicked off.

Maybe it would have been different if there had been an interchange station with EWR somewhere near Bicester.

 

[Howardh]

SIGH - Social care is perfectly within the reach if we are willing to pay for it - the fact we have voted in a government which is all about tax cuts and selling off the NHS shows the general public don't really care about social care especially for the elderly. This is not an either or situation. If we were prepared to pay a few more % in Tax or NI and it was ringfenced then it would not be a problem.

But we're not, are we? At the last election I don't recall any party demanding we vote for them and they will add 5p on our tax bill. Suicide if they did, yet everyone and their dog knows the NHS and social care is totally underfunded. I agree we should pay more and it should be ringfenced, but that won't win an election because we don't think of the situation we will be in if we reach old age.
So unless we decide that we pay for ourselves out of our own cash/house at that age then something has to give, and the increase of the HS2 costs should concentrate a few minds as to what is REALLY necessary. It's sad that we can't afford everything - but that's reality, and we will end up with a half-baked HS2 and a struggling care system and make the best of it.

 

[MarkyT]

You've asked every passenger, especially those who prefer to fly into Heathrow and out again rather than take the train and trail across London? Or those who fly to the near-continent rather than have a split train journey? Fair enough if you have!!

Of course not but others here have analysed numbers flying to the continent from northern airports and they are tiny in comparison to London traffic. The fact that Continental trains have to be totally closed within UK means they would have to be dedicated trains and very low frequency to not take up much capacity. One token train a day or so from Manchester and Birmingham Interchange to each of Paris and Brussels will not be economic and will be a poor use of capacity. 'Hubbing' at Euston- St Pancras represents a much better offer, especially for the less encumbered business or short break traveller. It's 10 minutes walk, hardly the 'trail' you imply, and as I said I think it justifies considerable improvement to the pedestrian route anyway especially as it also offers a convenient interchange to much of the South via Thameslink and Kent domestic HS1 routes. As to Heathrow, a simple change at Old Oak will give direct access to each of the terminals there. A Heathrow HS2 station would have to be a single central facility so would still require a transfer within the airport. Numbers between northern cities and Heathrow to catch onward flights are tiny compared to those going to London and it wouldn't be a good use of capacity to have frequent enough dedicated trains on HS2 to make them attractive.

 

[si404]

You might get a bit more with 25m vehicles but it won't be that significant, you also have the problem you now have a train containing 624 people with only two toilets. Good luck with that.

An Avelia Horizon in a one class configuration will hold 740 people.

So that is a 15% reduction in capacity.

Wow, a double deck 200m high speed train has 119% of the seats that a single deck 200m high speed train can supply. Oh, and we're looking at innovative double-deck trains that soundly beat the 630 low-cost seats of a Ouigo Duplex by finding additional ways to cram people in!

9-car Class 80x trains fit 600-650 people with a generous proportion of first class: 510 standard +101 first seats (LNER) or 580+70 (GWR). But they are just over a car longer than 200m. There's 92 seats to a standard class car on GWR, with luggage space in each car, and 10 toilets (2 disabled ones at the ends, 8 others) on the train. 6*90 is 540. There's 60 (including 2 wheelchair bays) in the front end with a disabled loo, but you need a kitchen/crew area too - there's 13 first class seats, the staff/cooking area and a loo in the back end. Let's call it so the end carriages average 30 seats each on a fully standard class train. It's probably more, but it makes the maths easier.

Let's say 600 standard-class seats on a classic-compatible and 750 on a double-deck captive train. Is it worth all the problems you list below (stairs and the like) when you can get 80% of the seats on a single-deck classic-compatible train with the seating and facilities of trains running intercity services?

The staircase to the bottom deck takes up room on the bottom deck that can't have seats or standing room in it.

But you can't put a seat under the bottom few steps of the staircase from the bottom deck to the top deck on a bottom-deck loading service - it's a problem with any train with stairs that you will lose seat space to put in stairs.

Also it will kill your dwell times because everyone boarding the train has to immediately use a staircase.

But you want people to do that from low 760mm platforms onto trains that won't run entirely on HS2, or not serve Liverpool, Preston York, Sheffield, Stafford, Stoke, Scotland and Newcastle and render the scheme politically impossible and no good at doing what it was built to do on the WCML...

I agree steps kill dwell time (a problem with all bi-level trains) - but if you are only running 9tph each way through Old Oak Common due to only having captive trains, who cares as they won't block the train behind! Plus, as an intercity service dwell times are going to be fairly long anyway, the steps issue is absorbed into that.

RER-A somehow (I still don't get how a high-frequency high-capacity line like that is able to run double deck trains at all due to the dwell time issue - perhaps it's overstated?) manages despite having the mezzanine boarding system. I therefore don't see why having a mezzanine is a deal killer on dwell times if double-deckers in general aren't.

And how will step free access work on this service?
Will people who struggle with stairs be required to sit in the vestibule?

Lifts, same as they would have to have on bi-level trains with bottom boarding to go up to the top deck.

We should do everything possible to avoid single deck trains.

Why? You've just strongly made the case that double-deck trains are not very good: an underwhelming capacity boost from the second level coupled with dwell time and accessibility issues from having two levels.

Most places where the train goes less than hour out of London have 3+2 seating, why don't we do that here too?
Its would cut ticket prices by 20%.

So 3+2 adds as much capacity as double-decking - 5 seats for every 4? Tell me why we need to avoid capacity-reducing single-deck trains again? We can surely just have outer suburban seating layouts rather than intercity layouts and get the same number of seats in as having two-floors?

I think, however, that doubling the number of seats by running 400m trains instead of ~200m trains to Birmingham is going to be enough extra capacity to be getting on with for the time being. It's worth considering captive sets for when phase 2b is built - we wouldn't be looking at a small fleet of 9 or 10 trains then (and the classic-compatibles can cascade from Birmingham and Manchester routes to serve Sheffield and Newcastle). These captive trains could all have high-capacity 3+2 to make things easier - Manchester's only 67 minutes (same as Marylebone-Aylesbury Vale Parkway with 165s), Leeds 81 minutes (less than Liverpool St-Clacton with 321s).

Clearly we ought to go with awkward middle seats rather than mucking about with awkward stairs to get the bonus capacity boost, when we go with captive trains. That is, if we want that additional bit of capacity on top of that already added, rather than use the captive trains' larger size to provide more comfort instead.

 

[si404]

Numbers between northern cities and Heathrow to catch onward flights are tiny compared to those going to London and it wouldn't be a good use of capacity to have frequent enough dedicated trains on HS2 to make them attractive.

When they modelled it, at least twice the number of people using the airport HS2 services used them to get to Central London than the small number using them to get a plane.

And large numbers of users were using it to get to places that had direct train services from Old Oak Common in the model (eg Southall, Slough, Staines, Wycombe, Watford, Woking) - with a significant modal share of those using their car or a taxi from the Heathrow station even though Western and Southern rail accesses were assumed by the model.

 

[HSTEd]

Wow, a double deck 200m high speed train has 119% of the seats that a single deck 200m high speed train can supply. Oh, and we're looking at innovative double-deck trains that soundly beat the 630 low-cost seats of a Ouigo Duplex by finding additional ways to cram people in!

The extra capacity is primarily a result of improvements in design and the shrinking of the electronic sand mechanical fits.
The power cars on the Horizon are going to be substantially shorter than on a traditional TGV thanks to the advances in technology.

A TGV Duplex is a 90s design, 30 years is a long time in technology.

Even the Ouigo layout surrenders the lower deck below what would have traditionally have been the buffet car for "technical areas".
Those are apparently no longer required with the more modern design.
And the reduction in length of the power cars is a major deal

9-car Class 80x trains fit 600-650 people with a generous proportion of first class: 510 standard +101 first seats (LNER) or 580+70 (GWR). But they are just over a car longer than 200m. There's 92 seats to a standard class car on GWR, with luggage space in each car, and 10 toilets (2 disabled ones at the ends, 8 others) on the train. 6*90 is 540. There's 60 (including 2 wheelchair bays) in the front end with a disabled loo, but you need a kitchen/crew area too - there's 13 first class seats, the staff/cooking area and a loo in the back end. Let's call it so the end carriages average 30 seats each on a fully standard class train. It's probably more, but it makes the maths easier.

I'm rather confused about why we care what the end car carries?
The end car has to be present either way.

The better way to do this is to go to the seating plan provided by the LNER.

End car on the standard class end of the train has 56 seats.
The intermediate standard car has 88 seats.
6x88+2*56
The vestibule ends are not available for seating so they contain luggage racks/toilets etc.
So in an all second class configuration we end up at about 640 seats.
So about what I said to start with.

Let's say 600 standard-class seats on a classic-compatible and 750 on a double-deck captive train. Is it worth all the problems you list below (stairs and the like) when you can get 80% of the seats on a single-deck classic-compatible train with the seating and facilities of trains running intercity services?

'Facilities and Services' are entirely worthless.
The journeys are far too short, beyond toilets all that matters is seats seats seats seats.

But you can't put a seat under the bottom few steps of the staircase from the bottom deck to the top deck on a bottom-deck loading service - it's a problem with any train with stairs that you will lose seat space to put in stairs.

Luggage racks are a thing too you know, and electrical equipment cabinets and the likes tend to fill those spaces.

But you want people to do that from low 760mm platforms onto trains that won't run entirely on HS2, or not serve Liverpool, Preston York, Sheffield, Stafford, Stoke, Scotland and Newcastle and render the scheme politically impossible and no good at doing what it was built to do on the WCML...

And you want people to climb from their 915mm height platforms in these places into a 1200mm height train?

But suddenly climbing from 760mm into a 915mm floor height train is a catastrophic issue?

Plus, as an intercity service dwell times are going to be fairly long anyway, the steps issue is absorbed into that.

These are not going to be true intercity services any more.

Is a 49 minute journey really intercity?

RER-A somehow (I still don't get how a high-frequency high-capacity line like that is able to run double deck trains at all due to the dwell time issue - perhaps it's overstated?)

I think it's a case of a mad scrum every time one arrives.
I suppose its probably one of those things the passengers get used to.
It doesn't take too long to unload the train if everyone cooperates - for example on a double decker bus the delay is the walk past the driver not the staircase as the bottom deck can unload simultaneously potentially.

Lifts, same as they would have to have on bi-level trains with bottom boarding to go up to the top deck.

Why do people on the bottom deck have to go up to the top deck?
A bit fraction of the seating is on the bottom deck, if the disabled toilet is on the bottom deck then there is no need for them to go upstairs.

Why? You've just strongly made the case that double-deck trains are not very good: an underwhelming capacity boost from the second level coupled with dwell time and accessibility issues from having two levels.
So 3+2 adds as much capacity as double-decking - 5 seats for every 4? Tell me why we need to avoid capacity-reducing single-deck trains again? We can surely just have outer suburban seating layouts rather than intercity layouts and get the same number of seats in as having two-floors?

Because 3+2 and double deck are not mutually exclusive are they?
In Japan at one point they even used their additional width to have double deck 3+3 trains........