Christopher125

The basic idea of 'Tram-Trains' is to have vehicles that can operate over both tramway and Network Rail infrastructure - work has already started on a trial in Sheffield, where a new fleet of trams will operate over the national network to reach Rotherham; these will be dual voltage to avoid any issues with future 25kv electrification. The Rail Engineer has a couple of articles on the Rotherham trial - Next stop Rotherham and Making the wheel-rail interface work Chris

That refers to WAML services, the more relevant article is this one - The Price of Oranges: DfT ask TfL to take on Greenford and Upminster While the devolution of these two branches to TfL is a possibility, neither has been confirmed. Chris

The business case for HS2 does not assume any premium, nor would one make much sense - after all HS2 will produce a huge increase in capacity. As for Labour's support for the project the 'media narrative' does appear to have changed today, with Newsnight reporting a backbench meeting of 40 MP's demanding the leadership stop playing about and the following story in the Guardian: HS2: Labour to support rail project if costs brought down Chris

HS2 will start construction on London-Birmingham, likely beginning with the Euston rebuild and tunnelling work as that will take the greatest amount of time - as the impact of HS1 along the route was far less than people feared I see no reason to think HS2 will be any different, and it should have minimal impact on millions of rail passengers, but if we are going to cater for rising demand than someone somewhere is going to be disrupted. Clearly most of those will be in urban areas where HS2 is predominantly built alongside existing rail lines and will operate at comparable speeds. There is no reason why they should see any long term negative impact on house price. I wouldn't be surprised if that figure also pre-dates the tunnel between Old Oak Common and Northolt. It has been designed for maximum economic value, it's as simple as that - we need another pair of tracks between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, and building them for high speed operation doesn't just outweigh the relatively minor difference in cost but allows a single line via Birmingham to relieve all three north-south mainlines. As for saying it cannot be routed to avoid people, jobs, communities and the environment, you can't then criticise it for not stopping very often - the existing network between London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester already boasts hundreds of well sited stations, better than any new line could provide at a sensible price. What they need are more trains to stop; HS2 effectively 6-tracks the WCML, with two for long distance non-stop services, two for fast/semi-fast services, and two for slow and freight trains, reducing conflicts, increasing reliability and allowing far better use of what we have. Chris

I think the following blog from James Landale is worth quoting in full - Is Labour really going to oppose HS2? Chris

The £70bn figure is almost as daft as the £80bn - you don't need to be an economist to realise why adding inflation and VAT is misleading but journalists are happy to repeat it anyway. In fact the quality of reporting generally has been pretty poor, if it doesn't fit the 'narrative' regarding a u-turn by Labour they don't report it - I've not seen a single mention of this interview Ed Balls gave on Friday which if anything suggested a softening in tone regarding the project - he refuted the ridiculous Sun story that he'd been given the 'last word' on Labour's policy, distanced himself from the arbitrary £50bn 'cap' previously suggested, and appeared to accept that if money isn't invested in HS2 then it will still need to go to other transport/rail schemes rather than grabbing it for house building as some commentators have been suggesting. Victoria Derbyshire: Can you be clear on Labour’s policy on HS2? Ed Balls: Yes, there is no blank cheque from the next Labour government for HS2. We’ve always supported the idea of a new north-south rail link, but when I listen to David Cameron and George Osborne giving the impression that, even though the costs are going up billion by billion, and even though the benefits are becoming less clear, they are going to go ahead regardless. I think that is completely irresponsible. A Labour Treasury won’t treat public money in that way … VD: Can you be clear what “no blank cheque” means? Does that mean at £50bn Labour would go ahead with it and if it rises above that, you scrap it? EB: No, because there are two sides to this ledger. There is both the cost and the benefit. And we need to know, one, are the costs under control, and they have been spiralling in recent months; and secondly, are the benefits really there so that this would be the best way to spend that money, rather than using it on other ways to improve our transport network or our rail network. And that is something which we are looking hard at, as is the new chair of HS2, and the NAO and the PAC. Because, at the moment, those questions haven’t been answered. And you know, I … VD: Once they are you can be definitive with voters? EB: Absolutely. And if the case is clear, the benefits are strong, it’s the best way to spend the money and the costs are under control, at that point I would be happy to say we’ll support it. But what I am not going to do is say we support it when the costs are rising, the benefits are unclear and the government are acting like cheerleaders rather than proper stewards of public money. That is not a road I am going to go down and … VD: Well you did with the Millennium Dome, let’s be fair? EB: As you know Victoria, government and being a grown up is partly about learning from mistakes and in the case of the Millennium Dome that was a Conservative Michael Heseltine vanity project which the Labour government should have scrapped in 1997 and didn’t and it was a mistake and I think you should learn from your mistakes. VD: Is HS2 a vanity project then? EB: I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying is that we need to know the costs are under control and the benefits are real. And if we judged that it wasn’t in the national interest, we would not go ahead. And if it is in the national interest, if this is the best way to spend £16bn on transport in the next Parliament and the extra billions in the years after, then we’ll give it the go-ahead. But, at this stage, I genuinely don’t think that the evidence is there, the case has been made, the NAO has been very critical and the government can’t answer the questions. In those circumstances, it would be irresponsible for me to say, regardless of the benefits, we are going to pull the plug, but it is also really irresponsible for me to say ‘well OK, whatever it costs and however obscure the benefits, we will go ahead anyway’, because I don’t think that is the job of the Chancellor or the Treasury or proper government. George Osborne seems to be a cheerleader, that is not the job of the Treasury and that is not the role I am going to play. I am going to be … VD: So it will be your final decision on whether Labour backs HS2? EB: No, of course it won’t. It will be a decision for a Labour Cabinet or a Labour shadow Cabinet led by Ed Miliband of which I am an important player, but only one voice amongst many. My job though is to be absolutely clear: a Labour Treasury will keep a tight grip on costs and always want to know the benefits are there. You are right, there have been times in the past where that wasn’t done – the Dome. There have been times in the past where we were hard-headed and said ‘yes go ahead with that project’ – like the Olympics – completely the right thing to do. Even on the Olympics, though, it was the Treasury’s job to say ‘are you sure the costs are under control, make sure it is managed well’. But the benefits were there and real. In the case of HS2, we need to see these benefits, it needs to be properly set out. I don’t think that case has been won yet. And as I said, a Tory Chancellor being a cheerleader, a Labour Chancellor being disciplined with public money. I think the public want discipline on public spending and that is what I am going to deliver. Chris

The argument for HS2 has always been primarily about capacity, but it's not an easy one to communicate - the problem with providing extra capacity for freight is that it doesn't address the far greater long term capacity issues facing passenger traffic - both inter-city, inter-regional and commuter. Removing a relatively small number of freight trains from the WCML would not achieve very much, especially as the extra passenger capacity is most needed during the peaks - there would be no substantive increase in capacity on the fast lines nor into the congested termini at Euston, New St, Piccadilly etc, while journey times would see little if any improvement. It's not really practical anyway, as a lot of the freight traffic on the WCML has to use it to reach other lines or freight terminals like Daventry. France already has a very comprehensive network though, having probably built or started the majority of lines with an obvious economic case - those left are naturally much harder to justify, especially in the current economic climate. Chris

She was trying to downplay Ed Balls comments, and a good thing too. In the words of Ed Milliband's press team, who were apparently briefing against the shadow chancellor, he 'overstepped the mark' with this apparent change of tack. To prove the point, Maria Eagle (who is a fully fledged convert to the cause) ad-libbed "and that's why we support HS2" in her subsequent speech, and it seems other prominent members of the shadow cabinet have also been trying to stress that there's been no change in policy - Paul Waugh has some interesting comments on his blog Chris

To have intermediate stations would be to reduce capacity for long distance services and extend journey times - there's no need when the WCML already has well sited stations at all the major intermediate conurbations which parkway stops on HS2 could never compete with. Far better to use HS2 for long-distance traffic and concentrate shorter distance semi-fast and commuter traffic on the WCML - this would still see substantially faster journey times on the dominant passenger flows, increase frequencies and capacity while freeing up capacity on the slow lines. Chris

I think he's referring to the following passage of the report: "The methodology employed makes the implicit assumption that transport connectivity is the only supply-side constraint to business location. In practice, there could be other constraints that could inhibit the potential location effects, such as the availability of skilled labour and land in a given location. Therefore, in order to realise the potential forecast impacts on business location across Britain, there may be a need for complementary changes to create an environment in which businesses can develop. However, the analysis assumes that the overall gains in output come from more efficient use of resources, rather than the use of new resource inputs, so the increased need for investment in areas to which businesses move is balanced by a reduced need for such investment in areas that they move from." Peston is pointing out that the report doesn't take into account other factors which impact where businesses locate - however it does say that 'complimentary changes to create an environment in which businesses can develop' will be needed. In other words, the government will have to do more than simply improve transport to attract business to the regions and maximise the potential benefits, which I don't think anyone is surprised by. ---- A strong speech from the SoS today, it seems they've finally got the message about stressing the need for extra capacity. Here's a few choice quotes... Chris

He's totally opposed to Crossrail and I believe thinks that coaches would be a better investment than rail, so it's more of the same unfortunately. Chris

It's even more disappointing that a former Chancellor doesn't recognise that the actual cost has remained broadly the same, what increased (thanks to the treasury) was the amount of contingency. As for the old chestnut about diverting funding from the existing network, I seem to remember the same argument being levelled at Crossrail with regards to the Tube - the answer is to fund both. He certainly understands political reluctance to spend money on the conventional rail network going by his record as Transport Secretary and later Chancellor, he was a complete waste of space. I think his real motivation is exposed by the following quote: "Certainly if we spend £50 billion on HS2, there will be no money for transport links to the proposed Boris Island or to any other new airport.” Chris

Of course, but nobody knows how anything will turn out in advance unless they happen to posses a time machine - what no-one should do is base their opinion on a hatchet job of a report by a right-wing think tank funded by people who are ideologically opposed to such a scheme. What we do know is that this country can deliver a high speed line on time and on budget and that the risks, delays, disruption of trying to make-do with the existing network can only ever be a short term solution, and that any cancellation or deferral of HS2 will, as with Crossrail and Thameslink, only delay the inevitable and ratchet up the costs yet further. Chris

...because it's a right-wing think tank pushing the view's of it's founders and funders, who are ideologically opposed to a scheme like HS2 regardless of it's merits. Why do you think they sent out the summary in time for the Sunday papers, but held back on the actual report until today? Now we can see how they've arrived at £80bn it's quite clearly nonsense. There's a great blog from Zelo Street which sums up their laughable maths quite succinctly:- HS2 IEA report one high turkey City AM have their own story Why HS2 won't cost £80bn as does the International Rail Journal The IEA assesment of HS2 is pure fantasy HS2 Ltd have released a couple of statements. Chris

I'm not quite sure what you were expecting - there's no simple answer to something as complex as modelling long term passenger demand, but if nothing else history tells us it's very easy to underestimate the effect of a stepchange in capacity and journey times; that's true not just of passenger growth since privatisation, and on the WCML since the upgrade, but the early railways and motorways too where many people expressed similar thoughts. Chris

While that may be true for track capacity, though only south of Birmingham Interchange, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of potential to increase the number of seats - if i remember correctly the captive sets are presumed to use single deck rolling stock, while many of the classic compatible services will be of 200m or 260m length. Upgrades to the existing network to allow greater use of 400m trainsets, extending the dedicated network and using double deck rolling stock with the necessary performance characteristics could all increase capacity in the future. Chris

Building it as a conventional 125mph railway (for example) would would make very little difference to the cost, the 'review of route selection and speed' suggests "the costs of building such a railway would be around 9% less than that of a high speed line. Stations, structures, and earthwork costs would remain broadly the same, with the main savings generated from rail systems, power supply and smaller diameter tunnels" yet predicted passenger numbers would be reduced by a fifth, revenue by nearly a quarter and overall benefits by a third - if you're going to the expense of building a new dedicated line, the extra benefits of a step-change in journey time will in the majority of cases outweigh the extra costs. You can still speed up services for those living between London and Birmingham without using up paths on HS2 - with much of the lucrative intercity traffic using HS2, today's fast or limited stop services on the WCML and Chiltern line will inevitably adjust their frequencies and stopping patterns to attract more medium distance and commuter traffic. You can see the indicative service patterns for HS2 in the Economic Case (explanation of service patterns) Why do you think they are proposing to use ATO to achieve the 18tph south of Birmingham International? It will be one of, if not the most intense high speed operation in the world and to make it work it will need all services to have broadly similar performance characteristics. Slower trains and intermediate stops taking up multiple paths just aren't an option, nor should they be. Chris

Absolutely correct, HS2 can serve so many destinations that every available path will be needed south of Birmingham, not only ruling out intermediate stops but even calling into question the usefulness of the proposed Heathrow branch. While I can understand why those campaigning against the line want to give people the impression that the DfT are against intermediate stations, they are being built to serve Nottingham and Sheffield where the demand and sufficient capacity is available. Chris

Oops! Does this mean there'll be no provision for freight or engineering trains to stable and/or round? Strikes me as quite a loss of flexibility. Chris

Redhill is getting a new 'Platform 0' on the west side of the station, where there are currently sidings. Chris

It's also worth remembering that unlike many HSL's this will involve an unusually large amount of tunnelling especially into London and Manchester, and the phased rebuilding of Euston which for practical and budgetary reasons extend the construction time. The bits inbetween might only take a couple of years. Chris

True - indeed the cost per year is broadly the same as that currently spent on Crossrail, with construction of HS2 beginning as that project winds down. That might sound an attractive option but there are several pretty fundamental issues: - The first phase is years ahead of the second in the design/planning/consultation process which would delay the opening of any phase and the project as a whole. - While it's true the second phase has a stronger BCR, that's in the context of both phases being operational with 400m captive sets on the busiest intercity flows to and from London. A Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds line on its own would be limited to using shorter classic compatible sets on such services. - Capacity. There isn't room for those extra services anyway. The capacity crisis facing the southern WCML (Network Rail predict it to be 'effectively full' by the mid 2020's) is arguably the strongest argument for building the new line, so there just isn't room for more services from Manchester, Leeds etc which would leave the northern legs of HS2 massively underutilised. What stops the station being built is the reduction in capacity caused by a stopping service. An extra classic-compatible service to the North West for example will deliver far greater benefits than a stop at Aylebury or Calvert, which will mainly be used for short distance commuting with little overall journey time benefit from already relatively affluent areas. Reducing the top speed from 360kph (which is what everything is modelled on) to 300kph still results in a loss of capacity while also reducing the overall benefits of HS2 by extending journey times. Chris

If i remember the options document correctly the final choice actually came down to Toton versus a station in Derby, East Midlands Parkway performed poorly against the former at least in part due to the expense of building a station and it's situation in green belt with no scope for development or regeneration. Chris

Euston Square did a pretty good job of bottling the smell, along with the smoke too! The lack of ventilation perhaps making it the best recreation of what the Metropolitan was like with a constant procession of steam trains. Chris

I did wonder if it might be more crowded but i thought it was worth going for the atmosphere alone, seeing a steam hauled passenger train on the Inner Circle is an experience which may never be repeated. Chris