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

[HSTEd]

Key issue though is that unlike services tunnels / conveyor tunnels etc, railway tunnels carry trains and people. And people need to be able to get out in the event if an incident. Whilst trains push around large amounts of air, particularly at high speeds. Therefore for long rail tunnels you either need regular shafts to allow people to escape (and rescue staff to get in), or a third tunnel to perform the same function. Plenty of people will fight Bills laid before Parliament where surface access is required, and further surface access to build said surface access.

Yeah, but even access shafts every kilometer have less land take than a linear railway line of the widths that the standards require (especially with noise abatement and things to maek them even slightly palatable to the public).
And individual "blockhouse" type structures are considerably easier to conceal in the topography than a railway line that has gradient limitations and thus tends to be on embankments, in cuttings or on viaducts a substantial amount of the time.

It would be interesting to see what the footprint of an access shaft is in the era where we now have safety-rated evacuation travellator/escalators.

EDIT:

And I decided to find some long single bore twin track rail tunnels in Germany and try and locate the ventilation/escape shafts, despite having coordinates for several I can't find the damn things!

EDIT #2:

I have now found several access shafts for the Silberberg tunnel.

The ones that appear to be access shafts are short buildings ~10m to a side.
They have open ground near them but the TSIs allow people to use the access track for things like that.
And the access track doesn't appear to be metalled on several of them.

Probably not hard to make them dissapear into the countryside.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Probably some here will call it 'fake news'.

putting some of the anti propaganda to bed

It's an opinion, a moderately interesting one, but it's a rehash of all the usual pro-HS2 arguments.

I rather lost patience with the bit on "modal shift", baselessly claiming HS2 will get people out of their cars. Apparently people drive because of "capacity" and not because a return from Manchester to London costs over £300.

As for "fake news", I note that bloke says HS2 will cost £200m/mile. It won't. Using HS2's own latest figures it'll actually cost £255m/mile. Using Oakervee's higher figure it'll be £307m/mile. If HS2 is such great value, why lie about the cost?

 

[miami]

Apparently people drive because of "capacity" and not because a return from Manchester to London costs over £300

A return from Manchester to London costs £300 because the trains are full. Charge less than that and you end up with more customers than seats.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's an opinion, a moderately interesting one, but it's a rehash of all the usual pro-HS2 arguments.

I rather lost patience with the bit on "modal shift", baselessly claiming HS2 will get people out of their cars. Apparently people drive because of "capacity" and not because a return from Manchester to London costs over £300.

I get the train for free, and usually drive to the West Midlands, because from where I’m starting from, it’s quicker. With HS2, it will be quicker by train, so I will use that instead. Whilst I am but one example, there will be lots of people in a similar position.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If everything has the same stopping pattern, you could run 15tph.

Why does the current WCML timetable in the peaks have so much flighting of trains on the slow lines? If having consistent stopping patterns is more efficient, where does the benefit of flighting come in on the slows?

(I understand it on the fasts, running a 110mph LNR directly behind a 125mph Avanti is efficient).

 

[Bald Rick]

A return from Manchester to London costs £300 because the trains are full. Charge less than that and you end up with more customers than seats.

And also, very few passengers pay £300. I found out an hour ago that I need to go to Manchester, tomorrow, peak time both ways. It’s £226. Granted not cheap, but it’s only just a little more than half the price of flying tomorrow, and the train is quicker. Driving would cost a little less (including parking and the M6 toll to make it as quick as possible), but take at least an hour longer.

Train wins no contest.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does the current WCML timetable in the peaks have so much flighting of trains on the slow lines? If having consistent stopping patterns is more efficient, where does the benefit of flighting come in on the slows?

(I understand it on the fasts, running a 110mph LNR directly behind a 125mph Avanti is efficient).

Because freight trains don’t stop, and journey times for some ‘slow line’ destinations (Hemel, Berko, Bletchley) are very important.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A return from Manchester to London costs £300 because the trains are full. Charge less than that and you end up with more customers than seats.

Nope. Peak time prices have nothing to do with capacity. A look at any peak Avanti train, with all the empty seats, tells you that.

In addition, HS1 caused regulated fares to go up by RPI+3% (as opposed to RPI+1%) for SouthEastern priced flows, ostensibly to pay for it. HS1 cost £7bn. HS2 will cost £107bn.

I'll buy you a beer if HS2 brings peak fares down.

I get the train for free

That's the key part of your quote. HS2 for your journey will be 20 mins or so faster, but would you pay £184+ of your own money for a 10-15mins improvement?

I found out an hour ago that I need to go to Manchester, tomorrow, peak time both ways. It’s £226.

From Manchester to Euston on Thursday morning it is £360 return, however. Which is a scandalous fare and one that isn't likely to be reduced with the cost of HS2 added to it.

 

[The Ham]

You can run 4 at 100mph for every 3 at 125mph, if memory serves me right (happy to be corrected). So assuming you slow the classic trains down (not a great selling point for Rugby, Coventry, etc) you'll squeeze a couple more through, three at a push. This might allow one semi-fast on to the fasts, bringing in one freight path an hour.

It is an improvement but hardly world-changing stuff, which is why the snowballing cost is such an issue. HS2 have spent £7bn- the entire cost of HS1- and managed to pull down a derelict carriage shed and a decent pub and, er, that's it.

Whilst you gain one extra path you also can change the rolling stock.

For example if you changed the 11 coach 390's for 12 coach 444 class type trains you could increase the capacity from 589 seats to circa 800 seats.

That alone, on the 4tph, would add 36% capacity. Add in the extra path and you've increased capacity by 70%.

That's a significant uplift in capacity before you consider that all 5 of those services are new services, as the existing long distance services which would be then on HS2 and running with many more seats.

 

[The Ham]

From Manchester to Euston on Thursday morning it is £360 return, however. Which is a scandalous fare and one that isn't likely to be reduced with the cost of HS2 added to it.

Even at £103bn, given the ~100 million passengers a year that's circa £17/passenger.

If we assume all the costs on the North West to London flow (currently 11 million passengers a year) would only cost £155 per passenger. Therefore even if your £300 figure was a return the cost of building it is hardly going to add much to the cost of the train tickets.

However that's only one flow of 5 out of London, and even that's only a part of those between the other regions which will benefit from HS2 and the local capacity which would be created by the removal of the long distance services.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's the key part of your quote. HS2 for your journey will be 20 mins or so faster, but would you pay £184+ of your own money for a 10-15mins improvement?

Flawed logic, as I have to pay for driving, clearly, which costs about £40. And the tickets to where I go, at the time I go, won’t be anywhere near £184. Indeed for my next trip they are currently £28.50 (were I to pay). I am choosing to pay the £40 (or, if you like, the £11.50 difference were I to pay) to save the time.

With HS2, the journey time will be about the same as driving. So even if the ticket went up to £40, and I’ll bet you that beer it won’t, I’d still do the train. Indeed even if it was £60 I’d still do the train, as with equal speed the train wins on comfort and drink-ability.

From Manchester to Euston on Thursday morning it is £360 return, however.

Not so. Actually, it’s £203. 0735 out, choice of trains on the way back.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Getting back to the freight point, it is important to consider freight flows (and potential) on the main North-South routes that will be complemented by HS2.

Over the past five years (2013-14 to 2018-19 and using ORR 'official statistics') there has been an 86% fall in coal. As already noted this tended to use unrelated routes and its disappearance has released little useful capacity for other commodities.
Metals traffic also fell, by around 19% but again this was on routes generally removed from HS2.
Petroleum traffic fell by around 16%, once more not on main North-South routes
Nobody expects these carbon-intensive transport requirements to rebound.

Construction traffic boomed by 27%. Much of this was on flows like Peak District-London or into Manchester and Leeds, partly on routes that HS2 will relieve.
Intermodal increased by 10%, very much on North-South routes as already demonstrated by the booming picture in Yorkshire, for example.

There is no need to dwell on the 39% increase in Other traffic as this is largely biomass, which is unlikely to last in its current manifestation until HS2 is completed.

It is completely disingenuous to suggest that rail freight is 'stalled' or even 'disappearing' in relation to HS2. This is before issues like driver shortages in the short term and the lack of an apparent road 'electrification' option for HGVs by 2040 are taken into account.

 

[HSTEd]

It is completely disingenuous to suggest that rail freight is 'stalled' or even 'disappearing' in relation to HS2. This is before issues like driver shortages in the short term and the lack of an apparent road 'electrification' option for HGVs by 2040 are taken into account.

There is certainly a road electrifications scheme, its this thing.

Fifty percent of lorry miles are done on the SRN, which is a tiny fraction of all roads.
Meanwhile rail freight is still trying to pretend it's the 50s and has done nothing to improve it's competitiveness.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that's a reasonable answer, although railways only stay in existence if they serve a purpose and make money.

The latter is demonstrably false. If it was true, we would basically have the GWML, the WCML, the ECML and nowt else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A return from Manchester to London costs £300 because the trains are full.

They're not in the peaks, they're half-empty as people won't pay that.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There is certainly a road electrifications scheme, its this thing.

Fifty percent of lorry miles are done on the SRN, which is a tiny fraction of all roads.
Meanwhile rail freight is still trying to pretend it's the 50s and has done nothing to improve it's competitiveness.

Sorry HSTEd, but the Siemens e-highway in the link (essentially an HGV 'trolleybus-esque' parallel on motorways for the uninitiated) cannot be dignified with the description of a 'scheme' IMHO.

At least HS2 (and upgrades, including 25kV electrification, of existing lines) use proven technology.

Does anyone else really think that rail freight in GB is still stuck with Type 1 Modernisation Plan diesels trundling vacuum braked, short wheelbase wagons on triple-staffed trips from yards like Brewery, Rotherwood, Brent, etc.?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Duplicate post

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Memory doesn’t serve you right. Between 50mph and 125mph linespeed doesn’t really affect capacity if you have trains stopping at stations on the section, assuming the most effective signalling possible.

The technical headway on the WCML on the approaches at Euston (linespeed 50mph) is 90 seconds, and on the WCML anywhere between Watford and Rugby (linespeed 125mph) is also 90 seconds. If everything ran non stop from Euston to beyond Rugby, you could get 20tph, comfortably. If everything has the same stopping pattern, you could run 15tph.

Out of interest, wouldn't higher speeds reduce capacity because of braking time? The faster a train is going, the longer it will take to do an emergency stop if something bad happens to the train in front, so I would assume that there must be some speed at which it therefore becomes unsafe to path a train just 90s behind the one in front. Would that not impact the theoretical capacity?

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry HSTEd, but the Siemens e-highway in the link (essentially an HGV 'trolleybus-esque' parallel on motorways for the uninitiated) cannot be dignified with the description of a 'scheme' IMHO.

Why not?
There is a test installation, it exists.
And trolleybuses themselves are obviously proven technology.

At least HS2 (and upgrades, including 25kV electrification, of existing lines) use proven technology.

Proven to always blow their budget?

Does anyone else really think that rail freight in GB is still stuck with Type 1 Modernisation Plan diesels trundling vacuum braked, short wheelbase wagons on triple-staffed trips from yards like Brewery, Rotherwood, Brent, etc.?

They still move block trains using obsolescent working practices involving detachable locomotives that run-round.
They still make use of obsolescent air braked stock (in many cases not even two-pipe!) that gives appalling braking performance, especially in comparison to the stock they share the rails with.

The trains remain laughably short and laughably light, and they still embrace the fiction of the mixed traffic loco.
They still use obsolete buffer-and-chain couplings.

They refuse to get rid of ancient Modernisation Plan diesels.....
Why the hell is a Class 37 allowed to do anything in revenue service?

And when did the last Type 1 Modernisation Plan diesel leave revenue service?
Rather recently wasn't it (Class 20)?

Even a "modern" diesel locomotive (Class 66, which makes up basically the newest large scale locomotive fleet) are built to 20+ year old designs with terrible emissions performance.
I see them on electric main lines spewing poison into the sky in a way that would never be acceptable from road operators.

And they have the gall to hide behind their parliamentary protection when anyone complains about them running ridiculously loud engines day and night.

Out of interest, wouldn't higher speeds reduce capacity because of braking time? The faster a train is going, the longer it will take to do an emergency stop if something bad happens to the train in front, so I would assume that there must be some speed at which it therefore becomes unsafe to path a train just 90s behind the one in front. Would that not impact the theoretical capacity?

Modern units are capable of truly staggering performance.
In Japan they have controlled wheelslip systems that permit stopping from 320km/h in 4000m.
Which is about 45 seconds of full speed travel time.

 

[The Planner]

Also with some platform rejigging at MKC it may be possible to call more services there but they choose not to, and as an extra effect this would stop the WFJ stop on the xx:23 Birmingham being possible as the Glasgow would catch it up

Don't see how, a stop in the down knocks you for 4, 4½ minutes. Taking the standard off peak hour you have
xx.08½ Manchester
xx.13 Edinburgh/Glasgow which stops
xx.28½ Manchester, cannot stop because
xx.31½ Birmingham would catch up,which cannot stop because
xx.35½ Liverpool would catch up
xx.41 Chester which stops
xx.50 Manchester, cannot stop because
xx.55½ Birmmingham/Shrewsbury would catch up, which cannot stop because
xx.59 Glasgow would catch up, which cannot stop every hour because the
xx.04½ Blackpool would catch up, which cannot stop because and so on....
In the other hours where the xx.59 could stop, it is caught by the Birmingham - Scotland at Stafford.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, wouldn't higher speeds reduce capacity because of braking time? The faster a train is going, the longer it will take to do an emergency stop if something bad happens to the train in front, so I would assume that there must be some speed at which it therefore becomes unsafe to path a train just 90s behind the one in front. Would that not impact the theoretical capacity?

Yes, on a section of line where everything is running without stopping. If any one train stops in that section, then capacity is reduced. The time taken for a stop in a 50mph train is broadly the same as that for a 125mph train (as dwell time is the same) and therefore capacity is to all intents and purposes the same.

 

[miami]

They're not in the peaks, they're half-empty as people won't pay that.

Maybe on the shoulders, but whenever I get a train from Crewe to London about 7AM, it's about 2/3rd full in standard, and noticeably more full than even 3 years ago.

On the way back, aside from the 1840 the peaks are well over 50% full.

The Wales trains have no peaks in the evening for passengers beyond Shotton, and are also full.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, on a section of line where everything is running without stopping. If any one train stops in that section, then capacity is reduced. The time taken for a stop in a 50mph train is broadly the same as that for a 125mph train (as dwell time is the same) and therefore capacity is to all intents and purposes the same.

Thanks, but that wasn't what I meant. I wasn't thinking about scheduled stops, I was thinking more about safety in the event of an emergency. I would assume that, if a train derails or has some accident causing it to come to a very sudden stop, then an absolute priority is that the train behind must be able to stop in time to avoid a collision. Since it's going to take a little time for the signalling system to inform the train behind that it needs to stop, then at 90s intervals, the train behind is presumably going to have less than 90s to actually stop. I can believe that a train going at 50mph could probably stop in time in those circumstances. I'm struggling to believe that a train going at 125mph could stop in time. But you seem to be saying that 90s headways would work up to that speed?

 

[al78]

They're not in the peaks, they're half-empty as people won't pay that.

When are you travelling to have to pay that? I can get from Horsham to Manchester and back for £100 (which includes a London to Manchester leg), as long as I avoid peak times and dont't buy first class.

 

[miami]

When are you travelling to have to pay that? I can get from Horsham to Manchester and back for £100 (which includes a London to Manchester leg), as long as I avoid peak times and dont't buy first class.

Arriving into London before 11:34 or leaving between 2pm and 7pm is counted as "peak", and walk up fares without creative tickets are expensive.

Those commuting daily however avoid these prices -- A Wilmslow to London season costs £73 a day, or 19p/mile, cheaper than a Milton Keynes to London season at 25p/mile.

 

[Ianno87]

Thanks, but that wasn't what I meant. I wasn't thinking about scheduled stops, I was thinking more about safety in the event of an emergency. I would assume that, if a train derails or has some accident causing it to come to a very sudden stop, then an absolute priority is that the train behind must be able to stop in time to avoid a collision. Since it's going to take a little time for the signalling system to inform the train behind that it needs to stop, then at 90s intervals, the train behind is presumably going to have less than 90s to actually stop. I can believe that a train going at 50mph could probably stop in time in those circumstances. I'm struggling to believe that a train going at 125mph could stop in time. But you seem to be saying that 90s headways would work up to that speed?

No, the signalling doesn't need 'time' to inform the following train of anything.

The following train simply retains it's movement authority up to the last known safe location. If the line ahead becomes 'unsafe' for whatever reason, the Movement Authority does not advance any further and the braking curve kicks in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe on the shoulders, but whenever I get a train from Crewe to London about 7AM, it's about 2/3rd full in standard, and noticeably more full than even 3 years ago.

On the way back, aside from the 1840 the peaks are well over 50% full.

The Wales trains have no peaks in the evening for passengers beyond Shotton, and are also full.

2/3 full isn't full, though. The high Anytime fare puts people off.

 

[Ianno87]

Arriving into London before 11:34 or leaving between 2pm and 7pm is counted as "peak", and walk up fares without creative tickets are expensive.

Walk up fares can often be avoided by buying an Advance for the morning train you know you are going to get a day or two beforehand.

 

[miami]

2/3 full isn't full, though. The high Anytime fare puts people off.

Traffic on this route has increased 70% in the last 10 years, annecdotally that matches my limited observations. At even half that rate of increase it will be full by the time phase 1A opens

 

[Ianno87]

2/3 full isn't full, though. The high Anytime fare puts people off.

Arguably "puts people off" is increasingly materialising as "travelling flexibly to arrive in time for the meeting, working on the way to make use of time in the morning".