Why can HS2 go faster?

[HSTEd]

If 3+2 is unacceptable to people, the best bet would be a 10 coach 395-esque train.
Or a suitable 25m-vehicle version of the same.

We can certainly so goodbye to the likes of restaurant vehicles and such - the vast majority of journeys will not require them.

 

[JamesT]

Shouldn’t this be what the two types of stock are for?
The classic compatibles are going long distances off the HS2 network, so have 2+2 seats and food provision.
Whereas the captive trains can be wide enough for 3+2 with decently sized seats and more optimised for capacity.
The classics are coming first, but there’s no reason that their limitations have to define the later orders, are there?

 

[transmanche]

Most trains operating on the Shinkansen in Japan are 3+2 in the standard class. There are some 2+2 in standard on less busy routes, and even 3+3 on some of the trains aimed at commuters. Because of the wider trains, 3+2 didn't fee cramped at all (but they do have pretty good leg-room which helps).

The only Shinkansen train I have been on is the one in the National Railway Museum. And that's over 3.38m wide as opposed to the 2.7m of a Class 80x or 2.75m of a CAF mark V carriage - so 63cm-68cm (or 2' 1"-2'3") wider than the latest UK designs.

It's probably also relevant that the average UK male is about 7cm-9cm taller than the average male in Japan.

 

[MarkyT]

Shouldn’t this be what the two types of stock are for?
The classic compatibles are going long distances off the HS2 network, so have 2+2 seats and food provision.
Whereas the captive trains can be wide enough for 3+2 with decently sized seats and more optimised for capacity.
The classics are coming first, but there’s no reason that their limitations have to define the later orders, are there?

And it's likely that demand will ramp up slowly over the years rather than there being a sudden jump (apart, of course, from the initial spike just for the novelty). Phase 2A will get better utilisation out of the initial fleet but won't add any new destinations I understand and the routes will all still run over conventional tracks for a proportion of their journeys, so I wouldn't expect a new stock order at that point unless demand has already outstripped supply, in which case a small new order for either type of train might be considered, if of the captive design to take over the Birmingham services to release compatibles to strengthen other routes or more likely just a few more compatibles as a pre- agreed add on option on the initial contract. At 2B trains for Manchester could be replaced as well as new Leeds services furnished with new captives if desired, the former releasing more of the original compatibles for Sheffield and Newcastle routes.

 

[MarkyT]

It's probably also relevant that the average UK male is about 7cm-9cm taller than the average male in Japan.

Probably a fair bit broader in the beam too!

 

[The Ham]

If 3+2 was limited to one coach giving 104 seats in 3+2 configuration, 65 in first class (2+1) and 380 seats in 2+2 (Business class?) then it could be a fairly useful feature.

Business class costs the same as the tickets cost for standard class today, only with very limited cheap advanced tickets. First class stays the same, other than limited cheap advanced tickets. Whilst the new standard class is almost solely used for cheap advanced tickets, other than on very busy services where the extra seating would help enable more people to find a seat.

Those with turn up and go priced ticket get a bit more for their money (2+2 seating rather than 3+2). Whilst those who are happy that they have a cheap ticket probably are OK with a smaller seat size, especially if you are a family with children where the children are smaller than an adult and so the adults can more easily encroach into the neighboring seat that their child is sat on.

 

[edwin_m]

If 3+2 was limited to one coach giving 104 seats in 3+2 configuration, 65 in first class (2+1) and 380 seats in 2+2 (Business class?) then it could be a fairly useful feature.

Business class costs the same as the tickets cost for standard class today, only with very limited cheap advanced tickets. First class stays the same, other than limited cheap advanced tickets. Whilst the new standard class is almost solely used for cheap advanced tickets, other than on very busy services where the extra seating would help enable more people to find a seat.

Those with turn up and go priced ticket get a bit more for their money (2+2 seating rather than 3+2). Whilst those who are happy that they have a cheap ticket probably are OK with a smaller seat size, especially if you are a family with children where the children are smaller than an adult and so the adults can more easily encroach into the neighboring seat that their child is sat on.

Interesting idea. However the service is likely to be fairly peaky so there will be plenty of seats to fill off-peak, including the comfy ones, so I think there will be some good prices to be had at certain times.

 

[quantinghome]

I'm not sure 3+2 is needed if double-decker coaches can be used for captive stock. SNCB have double deck coaches with 140 seats and they aren't too pokey (although you may want to lengthen the pitch a bit perhaps). 3+2 would also need Shinkansen-width loading gauge, which HS2 isn't specified for, so it's not going to happen.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure 3+2 is needed if double-decker coaches can be used for captive stock. SNCB have double deck coaches with 140 seats and they aren't too pokey (although you may want to lengthen the pitch a bit perhaps).

Well then.... double deck 3+2!

But yeah, It is becoming increasingly unlikely there will ever be any captive sets - the fact that none will be ordered for Birmingham services indicates that the preference of DfT is for a uniform fleet.

3+2 would also need Shinkansen-width loading gauge, which HS2 isn't specified for, so it's not going to happen.

So..... how do commuter trains in the UK do this all the time with the loading gauge substantially smaller than HS2s?

 

[gsnedders]

So..... how do commuter trains in the UK do this all the time with the loading gauge substantially smaller than HS2s?

By not having armrests and vary narrow aisles.

 

[quantinghome]

Well then.... double deck 3+2!

But yeah, It is becoming increasingly unlikely there will ever be any captive sets - the fact that none will be ordered for Birmingham services indicates that the preference of DfT is for a uniform fleet.

Not sure that follows. Phase 1 services will have little requirement for captive sets, as you say only the Birmingham services. However once phase 2 is completed there will be sufficient services for a decent order of captive trains.

 

[po8crg]

But yeah, It is becoming increasingly unlikely there will ever be any captive sets - the fact that none will be ordered for Birmingham services indicates that the preference of DfT is for a uniform fleet.

The preference for a uniform order doesn't mean the preference is for a uniform fleet.

The number of CC units in use on Phase 1 is very similar to the number needed for Phase 2. Phase 2 adds the London-Newcastle, Birmingham-Newcastle and London-Sheffield (and possibly Birmingham-Sheffield) routes, but removes the London-Manchester and Birmingham-Manchester routes from the CC fleet, as well as releasing CC units from London-Birmingham.

In addition, if the number of CC units ordered is to provide the full service from the opening of Phase 1a, then there will be extra CC units from the Liverpool and Scotland services that are no longer needed with the opening of 1b (faster runs means that fewer units will be needed to provide the same service).

Given the similarities of the likely numbers, I'd expect the CC order to cover the full CC requirements both before and after the opening of Phase 2, meaning there can be a single CC order for Phase 1 and a single captive order for Phase 2.

 

[MarkyT]

The preference for a uniform order doesn't mean the preference is for a uniform fleet.

The number of CC units in use on Phase 1 is very similar to the number needed for Phase 2. Phase 2 adds the London-Newcastle, Birmingham-Newcastle and London-Sheffield (and possibly Birmingham-Sheffield) routes, but removes the London-Manchester and Birmingham-Manchester routes from the CC fleet, as well as releasing CC units from London-Birmingham.

In addition, if the number of CC units ordered is to provide the full service from the opening of Phase 1a, then there will be extra CC units from the Liverpool and Scotland services that are no longer needed with the opening of 1b (faster runs means that fewer units will be needed to provide the same service).

Given the similarities of the likely numbers, I'd expect the CC order to cover the full CC requirements both before and after the opening of Phase 2, meaning there can be a single CC order for Phase 1 and a single captive order for Phase 2.

Yes they could order captives for Phase 2 but the future operator might instead decide to stick with a uniform CC fleet anyway for flexibility, as assuming captives were single deck with 2+2 seating they would offer no capacity benefit over CCs, while they could never be diverted via conventional infrastructure under any circumstances. Because the development cost for a CC design would have been sunk in the Phase 1 order, further trains to the same design should not carry much of a price premium over notional 'standard off the shelf' units from Europe. The major benefit of captives would be the ability to include bi-level coaches, if required to meet demand.

 

[po8crg]

assuming captives were single deck with 2+2 seating they would offer no capacity benefit over CCs.

That would depend on seating layout. It's possible that the wider captive trains could allow for seating along more of the length of the carriage. Even if you only add one row of seats per carriage, that's 30 over an 8-car 200m unit. (assuming 6 standard and 2 first class carriages).

The most obvious way would be a huge increase in the possible overhead luggage storage space (taller and wider trains), which could reduce or eliminate the need for floor-level luggage racks, but it's possible that some things (e.g toilets, wheelchair spaces, bicycle spaces) that are currently oriented along the length of the train could be oriented widthways on a captive train.

But yes, bilevel coaches would be the more obvious benefit, given that the development cost would be sunk.

 

[edwin_m]

The width of captives and classic compatibles isn't much different - compare the interiors of one of the single-deck TGVs with a Eurostar. Certainly not enough to allow 2+3 with the sort of seat you'd expect on an intercity journey. The difference is that the UIC gauge is the full width nearly down to rail level and is much larger up above. So the two decks of a double-deck train can be about the same width with the same number of seats across, but the lack of "shoulder room" on the upper deck is very noticable.

 

[po8crg]

I've ridden all three types of Eurostar in the last few months, and comparing the e300 to e320 (which is a fairly close comparison, since they have the same seats, design of overhead rack, etc) the really noticeable thing is that the higher roof makes it possible to put considerably larger luggage into the overhead rack on the e320. If only the rack was wide enough, you could easily stick full-sized suitcases up there They'd stick out sideways on an e320 now, but all of the airline-cabin-luggage sized cases that most people use these days fit easily on the e320, which means you don't miss that huge luggage store at carriage end that isn't there on the e320 but is on both layouts of the 373.

I note that the e320 manages to fit storage and luggage space opposite the non-disabled toilets, and the e300 doesn't (the disabled toilet needs the wide corridor to provide enough room for a wheelchair to get to the toilet, obv). It's staff storage in some carriages and luggage in others, IIRC.

I'm not saying it would make a huge difference, but I'd bet you can get 5-10% more seats (ie one or two more rows per carriage) on a GC-gauge train than on a W10-gauge train of the same length.

Obviously, the bi-level is a much bigger difference. TGV gets 45% more seats than single level on their duplexes compared to the single-level TGVs, rather less than double, but still a lot - you need some space for the stairs up and down from the vestibule, and there are some sections that have to be single-level (e.g. wheelchair access). TGVs have power cars with no seating, but end-carriages with cabs would be normal in the UK; those would almost certainly be single level anyway (take off room for stairs at one end and a cab at the other and there just aren't enough seats left), so it would make sense to put the wheelchair spaces and accessible toilets there.

One big advantage of buying the classic compatibles first is that the UK could get some indication of the actual popularity of the HS2 services. If the London-Birmingham services are filling up 8-car trains, then they can be doubled up; if those are filling, then bi-level captive trains (or even double-length units so you don't waste space on the middle cabs) could be put in the Phase 2 order. If demand isn't high enough, then the Phase 2 order could be single-level captives or classic compatibles.

 

[MarkyT]

... If only the rack was wide enough, you could easily stick full-sized suitcases up there They'd stick out sideways on an e320 now, but all of the airline-cabin-luggage sized cases that most people use these days fit easily on the e320, which means you don't miss that huge luggage store at carriage end that isn't there on the e320 but is on both layouts of the 373

Interesting that on Voyagers the overhead luggage space was deliberately made smaller than absolutely neccessary, to allow only small items to be stowed. Very large items, particularly when overhanging the shelf, can be dangerous. On a GW HST, I witnessed a large piece of luggage fall from the shelf totally unexpectedly onto someone's head. Thankfully in that case they were not physically injured, although extremely shocked. I suppose you could have aircraft style doors, but even then the act of lifting large heavy stuff up there can be dangerous in itself, and difficult if not impossible for some. If the overhead locker doors had to be ensured closed before departure, that could adversely impact dwell time and require more cabin staff.

One big advantage of buying the classic compatibles first is that the UK could get some indication of the actual popularity of the HS2 services. If the London-Birmingham services are filling up 8-car trains, then they can be doubled up; if those are filling, then bi-level captive trains (or even double-length units so you don't waste space on the middle cabs) could be put in the Phase 2 order. If demand isn't high enough, then the Phase 2 order could be single-level captives or classic compatibles.

I agree it's a flexible plan. There are many options for future service and fleet development.

 

[Three-Nine]

Shinkansen services in Japan operate luggage storage in this way pretty much now. Luggage storage is largely overhead (from memory, there used to be some services with luggage racks but I haven't seen one for some years now), with a small amount of space behind the end seats in most coaches (which can prevent these seats reclining if the luggage is large enough). If required, the legroom is generous enough that you can fit a case in front of you as you sit, though this can be uncomfortable on long journeys. Speaking as the archtypical nine-stone weakling, heavy luggage can be somewhat difficult to get onto the overhead racks without assistance, and I usually try and arrange boarding so that I can get my case into the aforementioned gap behind the end seats.

Theres some evidence to suggest that the tourist boom in Japan is causing issues; there are now notices on some shinkansen about storing luggage and on my last visit, during the height of the cherry blossom season and on one of the main routes between Kyoto and Tokyo I witnessed luggage being left all over the coach, including in front of the coach doors which isn't something I've personally seen before - at least not to that extent.

I'm told that there is a luggage-forwarding service used by Japanese people and its possible the luggage arrangements were devised with that in mind.

My personal feeling is that some end coach, floor-level luggage storage is required.

 

[gsnedders]

I'm told that there is a luggage-forwarding service used by Japanese people and its possible the luggage arrangements were devised with that in mind.

There's multiple competing ones; but yes, very few people travelling domestically take their luggage with them, and will just take a day bag with them when travelling. I imagine this unsurprisingly has consequences on luggage provision on trains. (It also makes domestic flights super-quick to board: I remember a domestic 777 starting to board 15 minutes before departure and leaving on time, in large part because there's no faffing around with baggage.)