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

[Ianno87]

But what's the point of improving the station if you can't improve the services?

Plenty of point, if that station suffers from passenger circulation issues at busy times of day.

 

[Aictos]

One interesting thing about HS2 is the paths that Virgin Trains currently use, now as I understand it HS2 means some IC services being diverted/converted to HS2 operation however if Virgin Trains did go ahead and ran HS2 would they be willing to give up those former IC paths on the WCML to another operator such as LNR?

I say this because although it would mean the return of regular IC services to stations not served on a frequent basis since the VHF timetable came into play, would those services be better off with 9 or 11 car Class 390s as a IC service or would they be better off with 10 or 12 car EMUs as a Regio service but with a Class 444 type refurb?

Just wondering because although I think HS2 will benefit the country on a whole, the future use of those current IC paths is interesting.

Equally I have a question about the LNR timetable when HS2 opens, would it be possible for the existing Tring stoppers to be extended to Bletchley/Milton Keynes and the Northampton terminators to be extended to Rugby if and when the paths to do this become available via the introduction of HS2.

 

[Geezertronic]

But what's the point of improving the station if you can't improve the services?

Plenty of point, if that station suffers from passenger circulation issues at busy times of day.

I would suggest Birmingham New Street as a good example of a station that has improved although the services have not/cannot be improved

 

[The Ham]

One interesting thing about HS2 is the paths that Virgin Trains currently use, now as I understand it HS2 means some IC services being diverted/converted to HS2 operation however if Virgin Trains did go ahead and ran HS2 would they be willing to give up those former IC paths on the WCML to another operator such as LNR?

I say this because although it would mean the return of regular IC services to stations not served on a frequent basis since the VHF timetable came into play, would those services be better off with 9 or 11 car Class 390s as a IC service or would they be better off with 10 or 12 car EMUs as a Regio service but with a Class 444 type refurb?

Just wondering because although I think HS2 will benefit the country on a whole, the future use of those current IC paths is interesting.

Equally I have a question about the LNR timetable when HS2 opens, would it be possible for the existing Tring stoppers to be extended to Bletchley/Milton Keynes and the Northampton terminators to be extended to Rugby if and when the paths to do this become available via the introduction of HS2.

Given that a 10 coach train formed of two 444's has 79 more seats than an 11 coach 390, is be surprised if the 390's were used a lot on the remaining WCML services.

Then of course there's scope that there could be scope to have 6 coach 444's, which could increase capacity further, whilst giving the flexibility to run short trains on quieter services or being able to run to serve two locations from one path.

 

[Aictos]

Given that a 10 coach train formed of two 444's has 79 more seats than an 11 coach 390, is be surprised if the 390's were used a lot on the remaining WCML services.

Then of course there's scope that there could be scope to have 6 coach 444's, which could increase capacity further, whilst giving the flexibility to run short trains on quieter services or being able to run to serve two locations from one path.

That's what I'm wondering as could LNR for example run more IC type services aka services with limited stops for example could we see a Birmingham service on a hourly basis run fast between London Euston and Milton Keynes then call Rugby and all stops to Birmingham or even give the 3rd path that Virgin Trains currently enjoys to LNR so LNR calls (Watford Jcn, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham Int then Birmingham New Street) and return the remaining IC services to a half hourly service seeing as HS2 will take a lot of IC traffic.

The existing LNR services could keep their existing stops but the 3rd service could be a express?

 

[hwl]

Given that a 10 coach train formed of two 444's has 79 more seats than an 11 coach 390, is be surprised if the 390's were used a lot on the remaining WCML services.

Then of course there's scope that there could be scope to have 6 coach 444's, which could increase capacity further, whilst giving the flexibility to run short trains on quieter services or being able to run to serve two locations from one path.

Agreed 110mph max units don't wast lots of crumple zone space too and dwell times will become more important with more stops.

 

[swt_passenger]

One interesting thing about HS2 is the paths that Virgin Trains currently use, now as I understand it HS2 means some IC services being diverted/converted to HS2 operation however if Virgin Trains did go ahead and ran HS2 would they be willing to give up those former IC paths on the WCML to another operator such as LNR?

I say this because although it would mean the return of regular IC services to stations not served on a frequent basis since the VHF timetable came into play, would those services be better off with 9 or 11 car Class 390s as a IC service or would they be better off with 10 or 12 car EMUs as a Regio service but with a Class 444 type refurb?

Just wondering because although I think HS2 will benefit the country on a whole, the future use of those current IC paths is interesting.

Equally I have a question about the LNR timetable when HS2 opens, would it be possible for the existing Tring stoppers to be extended to Bletchley/Milton Keynes and the Northampton terminators to be extended to Rugby if and when the paths to do this become available via the introduction of HS2.

DfT will almost certainly decide which TOC gets the paths and rolling stock, if any are thought to be spareable. Assuming it is Virgin’s sole decision to make is quite wrong. The reason the West Midlands franchise had to separate out into two business units is all about their being a probable post-HS2 rearrangement of WCML responsibilities.

 

[The Ham]

That's what I'm wondering as could LNR for example run more IC type services aka services with limited stops for example could we see a Birmingham service on a hourly basis run fast between London Euston and Milton Keynes then call Rugby and all stops to Birmingham or even give the 3rd path that Virgin Trains currently enjoys to LNR so LNR calls (Watford Jcn, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham Int then Birmingham New Street) and return the remaining IC services to a half hourly service seeing as HS2 will take a lot of IC traffic.

The existing LNR services could keep their existing stops but the 3rd service could be a express?

Almost certainly. It is highly likely that there's going to be almost no "Virgin" trains on the Southern WCML once phase 2 is open. Probably just one or two an hour to provide services like the via Birmingham to Scotland services (which would mostly exist to provide connections across Birmingham rather than to be a useful long distance service).

If you look at some of the Midlands Hub documents it shows London to northwards via Coventry and the Trent Valley. Which would most likely be a LNR service. It would also likely provide Coventry with a journey time not that much slower than the current services.

 

[kevin_roche]

For those who don't believe the extra capacity that HS2 will provide is required. This article shows what happens when you run more trains.

https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/main-line/virgin-trains-sets-ridership-record/

 

[Aictos]

For those who don't believe the extra capacity that HS2 will provide is required. This article shows what happens when you run more trains.

https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/main-line/virgin-trains-sets-ridership-record/

Thank you, the figures make interesting reading especially as it blows the case for not doing HS2 out of the water!

 

[PR1Berske]

For those who don't believe the extra capacity that HS2 will provide is required. This article shows what happens when you run more trains.

https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/main-line/virgin-trains-sets-ridership-record/

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

 

[PR1Berske]

Thank you, the figures make interesting reading especially as it blows the case for not doing HS2 out of the water!

It does no such thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

Much more to go to make the M6 redundant as was their stated aim.

 

[Ianno87]

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

It has been possible because of the extra capacity provided by the West Coast Upgrade in 2008, with the line virtually full in train planning terms since then. The article shows that train capacity is filling up and now running out, so time to plan and deliver the next step change - HS2.

 

[The Ham]

It does no such thing.

Why do you think that it doesn't?

Just because you make a statement it doesn't make it so.

The report shows that passenger numbers have doubled in ~12 years, remind me again how long do we have until phase 2 is due to open?

Much is made about the ~50% full trains in 2012, however what's the growth been since then?

IIRC it's ~37% between London and the West Midlands, if that's consistent across all services those services which were 50% full would be getting on for 70% full. How much longer will they be able to cope with passenger growth before the trains are too full to be usable?

Add in an extra coach and you could add 10% to the capacity, but that's only going to buy you a few years before simmering bigger needs to be done. The way things are going things like that may need to happen anyway to cope with the extra demand before phase 2 is built.

 

[Aictos]

It does no such thing.

Yet you bring no evidence to the table to suggest otherwise...

 

[Chester1]

I am relatively pro HS2 but I am concerned that the London end is OTT. Specifically the section between Old Oak Common and Euston and the size of the rebuilt station. It does seem unnecessary to keep Watford DC line services and Tring stoppers running into the station when the former could become an extension of the Bakerloo Line and the latter an extension of Crossrail. The choice to put the tunnel portal near Mornington Crescent rather than south east of Camden Junction does seem to be motivated by keeping 6 NR tracks on the approach to Euston. If there were only 15tph of NR services instead of 20tph then 4 tracks would be adequate and fewer than 13 NR platforms necessary. That might push costs elsewhere but would be a more realistic station size considering the capacity of the underground lines. It does appear that there is an assumption that Crossrail 2 will be built and if its not then the merged Euston and Euston Square underground station will become a mess.

 

[The Ham]

I am relatively pro HS2 but I am concerned that the London end is OTT. Specifically the section between Old Oak Common and Euston and the size of the rebuilt station. It does seem unnecessary to keep Watford DC line services and Tring stoppers running into the station when the former could become an extension of the Bakerloo Line and the latter an extension of Crossrail. The choice to put the tunnel portal near Mornington Crescent rather than south east of Camden Junction does seem to be motivated by keeping 6 NR tracks on the approach to Euston. If there were only 15tph of NR services instead of 20tph then 4 tracks would be adequate and fewer than 13 NR platforms necessary. That might push costs elsewhere but would be a more realistic station size considering the capacity of the underground lines. It does appear that there is an assumption that Crossrail 2 will be built and if its not then the merged Euston and Euston Square underground station will become a mess.

Two points, the first is would making such changes save very much in the way of costs?

As of it doesn't but allows the flexibility to make those changes or not make those changes then the extra cost could be worthwhile. As if you put all your eggs in the basket of extending Crossrail/Bakerloo and then find that they are busier then expected you have no plan B.

Conversely, it could be that such a change is needed in addition to the extra services into Euston and by spending (say) £200 million in the extra provision that it saves having to spend a lot more later. It could of course be cheaper, in that by going underground for longer you save a whole load of land costs.

The second point is, by providing the extra approach capacity what extra services would it be possible to run? Could it allow an extra 5tph, so as to provide 25tph vs 20tph?

This is the point that is often overlooked, in that the building of HS2 is more useful in providing local service capacity than it is about long distance capacity. By removing the likes of the Liverpool services from the WCML and the services which don't call South of York from the ECML there's then capacity to provide more metro/regional services.

 

[The Planner]

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

<<SMART TIMETABLING KLAXON>> Take cover...

I am relatively pro HS2 but I am concerned that the London end is OTT. Specifically the section between Old Oak Common and Euston and the size of the rebuilt station. It does seem unnecessary to keep Watford DC line services and Tring stoppers running into the station when the former could become an extension of the Bakerloo Line and the latter an extension of Crossrail. The choice to put the tunnel portal near Mornington Crescent rather than south east of Camden Junction does seem to be motivated by keeping 6 NR tracks on the approach to Euston. If there were only 15tph of NR services instead of 20tph then 4 tracks would be adequate and fewer than 13 NR platforms necessary. That might push costs elsewhere but would be a more realistic station size considering the capacity of the underground lines. It does appear that there is an assumption that Crossrail 2 will be built and if its not then the merged Euston and Euston Square underground station will become a mess.

The tunnel portal is more about the gradient coming out of it and in to and out of the platforms, Id like to see some proof that you could do 15tph with 4 tracks, especially if you chose to remove line X. Crossrail to Tring has been discussed before, that is more Old Oak Common related than Euston. Why will Euston and Euston Sq become a mess?

 

[quantinghome]

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

There is literally no evidence that will convince you HS2 is necessary, is there?
WCML traffic up? Shows it can cope with growth, so no need for HS2.
WCML traffic static or down? No demand for more travel, so no need for HS2.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I note John Bishop a massive critic of the scheme has managed to sell his mansion.fot a 4.5 million pound profit to HS2. Bought in 2013 for just over 2 million sold this year.
Still a critic of the scheme of course, but good that he managed to make such a healthy return! Apparently though not enough as his estate agents said it was worth more.

From a BBC article today which my phone won't let me quote. Apologies...

 

[6Gman]

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

Yes. Because it is still not at full capacity. But getting very close to it (which is why various "open access" efforts have been knocked back). And, by the time HS2 opens around 2027-2033, will it be over capacity? Currently growing at 2.5% pa. That would be 22% extra by 2027; 41% by 2033. Try fitting that in by "intelligent timetabling" !

 

[LOL The Irony]

One interesting thing about HS2 is the paths that Virgin Trains currently use, now as I understand it HS2 means some IC services being diverted/converted to HS2 operation however if Virgin Trains did go ahead and ran HS2 would they be willing to give up those former IC paths on the WCML to another operator such as LNR?

They'd have no choice but to give most of them up. Scotland & Liverpool services will still need their paths north of Crewe however.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Then of course there's scope that there could be scope to have 6 coach 444's, which could increase capacity further, whilst giving the flexibility to run short trains on quieter services or being able to run to serve two locations from one path.

Given that an 11 car Pendolino is 32 meters longer than a 10 car 444, 12 cars will be a squeeze. 2 express Desiro carriages are 46 meters long.

 

[The Ham]

Given that an 11 car Pendolino is 32 meters longer than a 10 car 444, 12 cars will be a squeeze. 2 express Desiro carriages are 46 meters long.

However, a 12 coach 444 is shorter than a 12 coach 390 which is often cited as the solution to not building HS2.

The important thing to note is that it would be 2*6 coaches so places like Liverpool which would be too costly to extend by 12m (Although cheaper, and in some cases possible, than extending by 23m) could be served by single units.

 

[kevin_roche]

For those who don't believe the extra capacity that HS2 will provide is required. This article shows what happens when you run more trains.

https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/main-line/virgin-trains-sets-ridership-record/

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

My point is that when you run more trains people will use them. In order to reduce the effects of climate change we should begin to get people to use trains rather than cars. Most of the reason I don't use trains much myself is the long wait when changing from one service to another. If there were shorter waits or fewer changes it would be easier to leave my car at home.

 

[Andrew1395]

Is there any data that has demonstrated a reduction in car journeys as rail journeys have increased? Or has the total number of journeys by car and rail both increased? Clearly if HS2 can demonstrate a link between train higher frequencies between major urban centres and reduced car usage in those corridors, it would be a further reason to speed up the later phases of HS2 and support extra capacity lines say a HS3 from London to Bristol/Penzance and a HS4 from Brighton/Gatwick

 

[al78]

Is there any data that has demonstrated a reduction in car journeys as rail journeys have increased? Or has the total number of journeys by car and rail both increased? Clearly if HS2 can demonstrate a link between train higher frequencies between major urban centres and reduced car usage in those corridors, it would be a further reason to speed up the later phases of HS2 and support extra capacity lines say a HS3 from London to Bristol/Penzance and a HS4 from Brighton/Gatwick

Probably both have increased, but there can be a common factor(s) in that case (e.g. rising population). A better question to ask is whether increased rail use has made increases in road transport lower that they otherwise would be without the investment and growth in rail. I would think logically it must have done, since it is extremely unlikely that all these extra rail journeys are being done for fun or because people are bored, rather than being standard essential utility journeys.

 

[al78]

And they've achieved all that on the so-called congested WCML.

Whatever strategies have been implemented to achieve this will not work forever. Assuming demand continues to increase in the future (not unreasonable given a rising population), there will come a point where it is impossible to increase supply on the WCML no matter how clever you try to be, because there is and always will be a finite space for services, which puts a hard upper limit on capacity. Once that limit is reached, the only way to cope with further increases in demand is to build new infrastructure.

 

[quantinghome]

Probably both have increased, but there can be a common factor(s) in that case (e.g. rising population). A better question to ask is whether increased rail use has made increases in road transport lower that they otherwise would be without the investment and growth in rail. I would think logically it must have done, since it is extremely unlikely that all these extra rail journeys are being done for fun or because people are bored, rather than being standard essential utility journeys.

There's certainly been a levelling-off in road traffic since the early 2000s. This has coincided with rail growth, but it's hard to demonstrate a direct link just from the two things happening at the same time.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/787488/tsgb-2018-report-summaries.pdf