Would HS1/HS2 have happened under British Rail?

[175mph]

If so, do you think the rolling stock would have got special livery or the standard INTERCITY livery the 125s had? I know the Eurostar line would have still been built, but by HS1 I mean the domestic service.

 

[Polarbear]

BR definitely had plans to build a dedicated link between London and the Channel Tunnel, though the proposed route was somewhat different to today's HS1. The idea in the 1970's was to build a line parallel to the Redhill - Ashford line, avoiding Tonbridge, and then taking an alignment toward London roughly following the current Uckfield line.

There was one heck of a lot of opposition to the proposals, and had the 1970's Channel Tunnel project not been abandoned, it's probable that a good chunk of the proposed line connecting London and the tunnel would have been heavily modified, if built at all.

 

[Taunton]

Went up from Euston to Birmingham by Virgin a few days ago. This is of course the "overloaded railway" that HS2 is essential to relieve. Pendolino of course.

Except it wasn't. Just a 5-car Voyager. On a Euston to Wolverhampton short working, not one beyond the wires. And it wasn't a one off, because the next day, carrying on from New Street to Edinburgh in late afternoon, in came a 10-car double Voyager, only for the back unit to be detached, and was scheduled to go back to Euston.

Putting to one side all these services running diesel under the wires, and the short formations on this "overloaded railway" (though the worst overload by far was departing Birmingham for Lancashire etc, which HS2 will not overcome) you have to wonder how the HS2 justifications are done on one hand, while on the other the operator finds they can make economies by running such short trains on the service, including a peak period departure from Birmingham back to Euston.

I think the pragmatists at BR, Chris Green et al, would have seen the financial nonsense straight away. But probably would not have run diesels back and forth under the wires, just reduced or enhanced the service to suit demand.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Went up from Euston to Birmingham by Virgin a few days ago. This is of course the "overloaded railway" that HS2 is essential to relieve. Pendolino of course.

Except it wasn't. Just a 5-car Voyager. On a Euston to Wolverhampton short working, not one beyond the wires. And it wasn't a one off, because the next day, carrying on from New Street to Edinburgh in late afternoon, in came a 10-car double Voyager, only for the back unit to be detached, and was scheduled to go back to Euston.

Putting to one side all these services running diesel under the wires, and the short formations on this "overloaded railway" (though the worst overload by far was departing Birmingham for Lancashire etc, which HS2 will not overcome) you have to wonder how the HS2 justifications are done on one hand, while on the other the operator finds they can make economies by running such short trains on the service, including a peak period departure from Birmingham back to Euston.

I think the pragmatists at BR, Chris Green et al, would have seen the financial nonsense straight away. But probably would not have run diesels back and forth under the wires, just reduced or enhanced the service to suit demand.

Anecdote is not data.

I'm amazed that people don't seem to grasp that HS2 is meant to solve the problems of the late 2020s and beyond. While it might be nice to have it today, we forecast that we'll need it by then. If we don't get cracking now, there's no way it'll be there in time for when we need it. Your BR pragmatists should be able to understand an argument like that, surely?

 

[kcajtam]

BR had the Intercity 250 project, this was a plan to upgrade the WCML to 155mph (250kph), and build class 93 locos designed for the project. The remnant of this was the WCML upgrade project, which overran and was more expensive than planned.

Had this worked out completely, HS2 may not have happened, as the WCML would have been faster.

According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable, but its a start til I'm proven wrong), one of the early proposals for Intercity 250 was to realign some of the southern WCML, to reduce the curves, including possibly rerouting onto the GCML south of rugby. Sounds very familiar to the southern HS2 route.

 

[class26]

BR had the Intercity 250 project, this was a plan to upgrade the WCML to 155mph (250kph), and build class 93 locos designed for the project. The remnant of this was the WCML upgrade project, which overran and was more expensive than planned.

Had this worked out completely, HS2 may not have happened, as the WCML would have been faster.

But surely HS2 is about capacity and not speed ?

 

[kcajtam]

But surely HS2 is about capacity and not speed ?

If it was about capacity, why is the target speed 250MPH?

As I said, the early IC250 project had a capacity increase, using the old GC mainline from Rugby to London

 

[class26]

But if all traffic is moving at the same speed it isn`t an issue surely ?

 

[HSTEd]

But if all traffic is moving at the same speed it isn`t an issue surely ?

Safety headways in seconds tend to reach a minimum at about 100mph, when effects from increasing breaking distance start to overwhelm the effect of reducing the time it takes to traverse a block.

But the curve does remain relatively flat - and that is even without Japanese super-braking which can stop a 320km/h unit in 4000m.

 

[mallard]

If it was about capacity, why is the target speed 250MPH?

Because if you're building a new line to increase capacity by taking the fast express services off the existing line, it makes sense (and shouldn't cost very much more) to make it a modern high-speed line.

 

[Hadders]

Because if you're building a new line to increase capacity by taking the fast express services off the existing line, it makes sense (and shouldn't cost very much more) to make it a modern high-speed line.

Quite. Take the fast express services off the WCML and use the capacity to introduce better services to places like Tamworth, Nuneaton, Northampton etc.

 

[PR1Berske]

Went up from Euston to Birmingham by Virgin a few days ago. This is of course the "overloaded railway" that HS2 is essential to relieve. Pendolino of course.

Except it wasn't. Just a 5-car Voyager. On a Euston to Wolverhampton short working, not one beyond the wires. And it wasn't a one off, because the next day, carrying on from New Street to Edinburgh in late afternoon, in came a 10-car double Voyager, only for the back unit to be detached, and was scheduled to go back to Euston.

Putting to one side all these services running diesel under the wires, and the short formations on this "overloaded railway" (though the worst overload by far was departing Birmingham for Lancashire etc, which HS2 will not overcome) you have to wonder how the HS2 justifications are done on one hand, while on the other the operator finds they can make economies by running such short trains on the service, including a peak period departure from Birmingham back to Euston.

I think the pragmatists at BR, Chris Green et al, would have seen the financial nonsense straight away. But probably would not have run diesels back and forth under the wires, just reduced or enhanced the service to suit demand.

This post really does help in making my case against HS2. I do think that, as time goes on and the budget increases, the need for this project will be seen for the fakery it truly is. There's no capacity problems, there's no timetable squeeze, there's no need for HS2.

 

[NotATrainspott]

This post really does help in making my case against HS2. I do think that, as time goes on and the budget increases, the need for this project will be seen for the fakery it truly is. There's no capacity problems, there's no timetable squeeze, there's no need for HS2.

If the Treasury is so unwilling to dish out cash for such worthy projects as Pacer replacement, why are they so willing to give out tens of billons for new high speed rail? Surely Andrew Adonis didn't cast a spell on all the staff in 1 Horse Guards Road and get them to approve something without due diligence? And in any case, qui bono? Who has anything to gain from bad decisions being made?

 

[HSTEd]

If the Treasury is so unwilling to dish out cash for such worthy projects as Pacer replacement, why are they so willing to give out tens of billons for new high speed rail? Surely Andrew Adonis didn't cast a spell on all the staff in 1 Horse Guards Road and get them to approve something without due diligence? And in any case, qui bono? Who has anything to gain from bad decisions being made?

Why is Pacer replacement particularily worthy?

Replacing functional stock early is pretty much the definition of a waste of money?

 

[PR1Berske]

If the Treasury is so unwilling to dish out cash for such worthy projects as Pacer replacement, why are they so willing to give out tens of billons for new high speed rail? Surely Andrew Adonis didn't cast a spell on all the staff in 1 Horse Guards Road and get them to approve something without due diligence? And in any case, qui bono? Who has anything to gain from bad decisions being made?

Your first question had been put many times, and not once has there been an adequate response. Focusing on regional rail was a strength of BR: giving London Euston another line would have been instantly dismissed.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Your first question had been put many times, and not once has there been an adequate response. Focusing on regional rail was a strength of BR: giving London Euston another line would have been instantly dismissed.

You're the one claiming that HS2 is pointless. If so, why is the Treasury dishing out the cash? Either there is a grand conspiracy whereby the Treasury is deliberately making the wrong funding decision, or they think HS2 is a good use of money.

 

[FQTV]

You're the one claiming that HS2 is pointless. If so, why is the Treasury dishing out the cash? Either there is a grand conspiracy whereby the Treasury is deliberately making the wrong funding decision, or they think HS2 is a good use of money.

There is a little bit of a trick of the light about the funding behind HS2 and other similar high-profile new infrastructure proposals. As a sovereign nation, we can (and do) print our own money. The way that politics (as opposed to, strictly speaking, government) appears to work is that money can be printed when there's a marketable reason for doing so.

Witness the Chinese being encouraged to 'invest' in HS2 by 'bidding for contracts'. There's an inherent lack of logic in that sentence, but what it basically seems to be saying is that if the Chinese become interested, it displays 'confidence'. That 'confidence' can then be spun into economic positivity, and money to pay the Chinese can be printed secure in that positive outlook.

It's not entirely dissimilar to the way that the markets themselves work in developing the stock valuations of otherwise unprofitable entities such as Uber. It's all about 'sentiment', 'confidence', 'positive outlook' and, of course, being 'world class'.

The markets are a good deal less interested in workaday banalaties, which is why the 'money' for (say) HS2 is genuinely not available for the likes of sorting out the East Coast Main Line's cut-price catenary, re-opening Lewes-Uckfield, East West Rail or for that matter the NHS or dualling the A1 from Newcastle to Edinburgh.

So the Treasury isn't exactly dishing out the cash, I think; it's just bought some new toner for the photocopier.

 

[PR1Berske]

You're the one claiming that HS2 is pointless. If so, why is the Treasury dishing out the cash? Either there is a grand conspiracy whereby the Treasury is deliberately making the wrong funding decision, or they think HS2 is a good use of money.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I do believe that the Treasury is wrong to be funding an extra line into Euston.

 

[matt_world2004]

Isnt the great western mainline effectively a. 1970s concept of what a highspeed railway would be.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

BR had the Intercity 250 project, this was a plan to upgrade the WCML to 155mph (250kph), and build class 93 locos designed for the project. The remnant of this was the WCML upgrade project, which overran and was more expensive than planned.
Had this worked out completely, HS2 may not have happened, as the WCML would have been faster.
According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable, but its a start til I'm proven wrong), one of the early proposals for Intercity 250 was to realign some of the southern WCML, to reduce the curves, including possibly rerouting onto the GCML south of rugby. Sounds very familiar to the southern HS2 route.

After WCRM, which took over 10 years of disruption and consumed £10 billion, yet only delivered half it was intended to do, the DfT/Treasury took the view that a completely new line (like HS1 had just proved) was a more economic proposition than upgrading an existing Victorian railway.
The GW electrification project is another example of the huge cost and challenge of performing surgery on old main lines.

BR would not have been allowed to manage the construction of new lines anyway.
The engineering/construction industry would have got the job (as for HS1 and Crossrail).
BR's limit was deviations like the ECML at Selby (you have to ask why that went ahead, now the coalfield is idle), and the new Harecastle tunnel on the WCML.
The DfT would still have been in charge of planning and funding any large project.

 

[AY1975]

Isnt the great western mainline effectively a. 1970s concept of what a highspeed railway would be.

That depends what you mean by a high speed railway. The Germans distinguish between a "Neubaustrecke" (NBS) which means a new build line and in practice (though not always) is usually a high speed line, and an "Ausbaustrecke" (ABS) which literally means an outbuild line and refers to an existing line that has been upgraded for higher speeds. HS1, HS2 when it is built, and possibly the Selby cut-off on the East Coast Main Line, are what the Germans would call a NBS (and, at least in the case of HS1 and HS2, what the French would call a high speed line or "Ligne à Grande Vitesse" (LGV)), whereas the rest of the ECML, the WCML and the GWML would be classed as an ABS.

 

[moggie]

You forget that in the 70's BR made major line upgrade including electrification projects look simple.

Up until privatisation BR had been pursuing a conventional system solution for WCRM before being cast aside on the sacrificial altar of political ignorance and dogma. WCRM PUG2 infrastructure was a DfT and Railtrack specification and failed not least because of the flawed requirement for a moving block signalling system which was (is) in reality decades from main line application in the UK. Like a house of cards, once that pipedream was revealed for what it was the rest of the project specification collapsed. Not only was there a tremendous waste of money on planning and design works consigned to the dustbin they then had to do it all over again and pay VT £m's in compo for the failure to provide.

So yes, in a parallel universe where railways were seen as the future in a 90's UK BR were the most likely organisation, fully equipped and resourced to deliver new mainlines. Of course private sector construction and equipment suppliers would have been used as contractors to BR (that was the norm for new works) but BR would have managed the projects. No doubt, BR would also have needed extra resources to do so. The difference with now and today is BR would have expected to recruit, train and mentor all of its new workforce using the vast amount of rail engineering skills and experience it already had at its disposal. A DoT with a mindset to authorise this level of investment would have expected nothing less.

Back in today's world..........

 

[Peter Kelford]

BR might have done it, but it wouldn't be such a shambles. After all, at least some of BR's money would come from tickets and not just government handouts like NR. Last Saturday (23rd December), the only express service that wasn't delayed or failed was a short formed (5-coach) HST to Aberdeen, calling at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark and Doncaster before pulling into York! Usually, it's a straight run.

 

[richieb1971]

I think we would be ahead of where we are at today. Politics makes things complicated and justification is always high on the agenda.

If the railways got through the WW2 without nationalization Beeching wouldn't have had a right to interfere in the railway workings of the 1960's. It just goes to show you that if you leave things in politicians hands you will get the minimum that is absolutely necessary. Although with HS2 there is a sense putting railways in the spot light again for whatever reason.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Although with HS2 there is a sense putting railways in the spotlight again for whatever reason

Reason: The UK government doesn't want to be seen 'going against the grain' with high-speed rail. The problem is this, in China and France, the countries with the most successful high-speed networks, they don't seem to cock up half as much.

 

[richieb1971]

Reason: The UK government doesn't want to be seen 'going against the grain' with high-speed rail. The problem is this, in China and France, the countries with the most successful high-speed networks, they don't seem to cock up half as much.

Ah well, the government starts off the cocking up by not providing someone within that can monitor progress on a technical level. Therefore the contractors know the government is blind and naive and charge excessive amounts. Then the government in all their wisdom choose the trains which are probably not comfortable. Then the franchisee bids and wins and has to recoup astronomical amounts of funds from ticket prices which means Joe Bloggs can't afford to travel on it anyway. So you end up with HS2 with trains running half empty. And that is progress in the UK.

I am going to Japan in April. Paid my £200 for the Shinkasen rover ticket. I think i'm going to really enjoy travelling faster than I ever have (on land) in extraordinary comfort. I know the windows will all be cleaned and the trains will be bright white. I will video the whole thing and will post it here. I have total faith in the Japanese system. I do enjoy train travel in the UK but I seldom do it because its not value for money.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

At privatisation in 1996, BR had no experience in proper high speed rail (as in Shinkansen, LGV, NBS etc).
IC250 never got off the ground and would have been small deviations of the WCML, not reopening the GC.
TV4 is all we have to show for the intended WCML upgrade, and still at 125mph.
HS1 was designed to largely LGV standards (track, OHLE, signalling), by a separate government-owned body (with access to private capital).
Partly this was influenced by the interface with LGV Nord and Eurotunnel (which adopted French technical standards).
HS2 is following a similar path, and the senior people in HS2 Ltd seem to be ex-BR and consultancy types with major infrastructure experience, including abroad.
There was no chance that "BR" would have been given the job of building a mega-£billion new line as it didn't have the capability, and no credibility with the Treasury.
BR and its successors have enough to do with the day job.
We'll have to see what role, if any, Network Rail takes in operating and maintaining HS2 (they do that for HS1 under contract, not as part of their normal licence).
And as for what colour their HS2 trains would have been painted...
They will be painted whatever colour is agreed between the DfT and the WCP franchisee (who will also be running the classic West Coast network of Pendolinos).

 

[Andrew1395]

HS1 was envisaged and would have been delivered by British Rail - its subsidiary Union Railways would have managed the project. As part of the privatisation of BRB, it was taken over by the government and later the delivery was undertaken by London & Continental Railways. Although private, LCR was in effect a government project with the money all guaranteed by the Treasury. Assets (BR property and IPR) were given to LCR as a consequence of privatisation.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Politically speaking HS1 and HS2 are very different projects.

HS1 was all about connecting London with the LGV Nord and avoiding the nonsense of Eurostars trundling around on DC powered lines doing no more than 90mph. It's also seen the environmental benefit of significantly reducing the demand for flights between London and Brussels/Paris. It was always going to happen regardless of the ownership status of BR.

HS2 on the other hand is a purely national project and as such under BR would have been subject to the usual Treasury methods of scrutiny, essentially "there must be a cheaper way". Assuming the economy would still have developed in the same way then the looming WCML capacity crunch would still be an obvious problem in need of a solution but with BR still around I suspect it would have been put off rather longer. Privatisation has been around long enough that many here have known nothing else but one inescapable truth about BR was that the Treasury absolutely loathed putting serious money into what they saw as a dinosaur industry even though in efficiency terms it was streets ahead of most comparable organisations.

As for a BR HS livery who knows? The fact that BR had already concluded that the blue-for-everything image was an out of date concept suggests that it would have been open to more regular image updates, ie BR Inter-city livery would probably have changed again by now. So what would have been decided for HS trains is anybody's guess. Although looking at HS Rail in other countries mostly white liveries are rather popular...

 

[deltic]

I think we would be ahead of where we are at today. Politics makes things complicated and justification is always high on the agenda.

If the railways got through the WW2 without nationalization Beeching wouldn't have had a right to interfere in the railway workings of the 1960's. It just goes to show you that if you leave things in politicians hands you will get the minimum that is absolutely necessary. Although with HS2 there is a sense putting railways in the spot light again for whatever reason.

If there had been no nationalisation and railways were kept in the private sector then most of the network would have closed down, far more than went under Beeching