HS2 under review

[hayfield]

Isn’t that NIMBYism by the landowners? The difference is that the ‘common man’ had very little say in parliament at that time. The actual decisions were very much the lobbying and wealth of the upper classes and great swathes of housing were demolished for the railway companies they had interests in. It just wasn’t called corruption because they were the power. Only general strikes and movements like the Suffragettes really made a stir and frequently were fairly brutally controlled by the police with little legal recourse.

So in this modern world of globalisation and internet why do we need more transport links? Why are more people moving for work every day when the much vaunted technology is supposed to make remote working easier? There’s a certain irony that more people are using transport to live where they want rather than close by then moaning about new rail transport passing their new country home!

This wealthy middle class have now become the power of politics with the big vote and media access to shout their opinions

So are we pandering to the few or doing the best for the masses? The masses are probably commuting relatively short distances not on HS2

 

 

Paul

 

Exactly why I chose the two questions. Without a doubt train transport has greatly benefited society and history has shown the nimbyism by the landed gentry has had a negative impact on society ever since, which should not be repeated

 

Your political take on the past is quite boring and nothing to do with the subject, as is your views globalisation, we are talking about a public facility.  

 

I do agree with your point of view about commuting being undesirable, especially as I swapped a commute into the west end with a 2 mile journey. Many though take a completely different view, being happy to both pay for the privilege and time spent travelling. Or have jobs which cannot be done at home, its a free world and neither I or you have the right to demand/expect others to change their working choices, but we can make things better for them and others.

 

I now live in a semi rural area so can understand the attraction of not living in suburbia, let alone a city centre. As for the benefits to the planet, public transport is far more eco friendly than using a car. If folks have to be rehoused/relocated for the benefit of society this should be done so they are treated fairly and not left out of pocket irrespective of their social standing

[pete_mcfarlane]

There's already a reasonably frequent service from/to Newark Northgate with stops at Stevenage and/or Peterborough and/or Grantham. My concern would be that HS2 could result in fewer fast services and leave us with more stopping trains and a slower service. But the door to door would still probably be faster for me via the ECML than HS2 via Toton, or MML which is my other route.

 

Have a read of this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629168/high-speed-two-phase-two-strategic-case-appendix-hs2-released-capacity-study-summary-report.pdf

 

It shows proposed post-HS2 timetables for the ECML, with more fast services from stations south of Doncaster.  

[PaulRhB]

Your political take on the past is quite boring and nothing to do with the subject, as is your views globalisation, we are talking about a public facility.

 

 

Wow say it eloquently why don’t you?

 

The political take on the past may be boring to you but it’s a fact that the decisions were made with lobbying from the upper classes taking precedent. That was across the board so not really that political it was more a class system. You were the one who suggested we should look at the past use of it.

 

What ‘is my views on globalisation’ then? I was only referring to the fact we hear about doing business globally yet still need more transport locally to do business here despite companies constantly talking about smarter working eliminating some of the need for travel.

I don’t see globalisation as negative purely not an argument for HS2.

 

The argument to compulsory purchase from the greater good assumes this will bring benefits to the masses. In its current form I don’t believe it does as I don’t see passenger travel as significantly improving due to the course planned.

The extra connections feeding into it require additional travel anyway and if there are too many it hardly becomes high speed

Now as a fast freight artery with lorry capacity direct to the the tunnel I think it would benefit all, speeding up goods import and export and reducing the long distance lorry travel freeing up roads too.

 

Unfortunately as history proves if we make more capacity we strive to use it up as business opportunities

So sorry I’ve bored you but I think a slightly more eloquent argument might have been more convincing than dismissing it like that.

Edited October 17, 2018 by PaulRhB

[hayfield]

Wow say it eloquently why don’t you?

 

The political take on the past may be boring to you but it’s a fact that the decisions were made with lobbying from the upper classes taking precedent. That was across the board so not really that political it was more a class system. You were the one who suggested we should look at the past use of it.

 

What ‘is my views on globalisation’ then? I was only referring to the fact we hear about doing business globally yet still need more transport locally to do business here despite companies constantly talking about smarter working eliminating some of the need for travel.

I don’t see globalisation as negative purely not an argument for HS2.

 

The argument to compulsory purchase from the greater good assumes this will bring benefits to the masses. In its current form I don’t believe it does as I don’t see passenger travel as significantly improving due to the course planned.

The extra connections feeding into it require additional travel anyway and if there are too many it hardly becomes high speed

Now as a fast freight artery with lorry capacity direct to the the tunnel I think it would benefit all, speeding up goods import and export and reducing the long distance lorry travel freeing up roads too.

 

Unfortunately as history proves if we make more capacity we strive to use it up as business opportunities

So sorry I’ve bored you but I think a slightly more eloquent argument might have been more convincing than dismissing it like that.

 

 

The example I bought up was to illustrate the problems of people putting self interest in the way rather than the public good being the main driver. Makes no difference if it is either political or class driven, the results are exactly the same.

 

Globalisation has nothing to do with it, this line has little to do with commodities but public transport, those travelling long distance may not only be business travellers, but those doing it for social reasons and giving some relief to commuters. We need to improve our infrastructure not strangle it 

 

I agree that it would be desirable for long distance freight to go by rail, however those in logistics challenged to keep transport prices down see no financial benefit. Modern logistics requires flexibility so that lorries can run fully loaded in both directions. However thanks to globalisation we now have a train running between the UK and China, pity we cannot replicate this pan European

 

But the whole idea about HS2 is to firstly speed up long distance rail journeys and secondly free up space on the commuter lines into London. And your point about additional capacity being used up is exactly why we need the line, if the capacity on the new line was not used up it would be a waste of money. I assume you regret the demise of the man walking in front of the train with a red flag and the lack of firemen and guards

[Glorious NSE]

There's already a reasonably frequent service from/to Newark Northgate with stops at Stevenage and/or Peterborough and/or Grantham. My concern would be that HS2 could result in fewer fast services and leave us with more stopping trains and a slower service. But the door to door would still probably be faster for me via the ECML than HS2 via Toton, or MML which is my other route.

 

Because much of the ECML is so straight and flat, there might be a case for realigning parts of it, especially north of York, and increasing the loading gauge to allow higher speed running with a view to making it HS3 with dounle deck trains at some point in the future. Or perhaps that should be HS4 as I think some refer to upgraded trans-pennine routes as HS3.

That bit of the ECML will lose the trains that don't stop, and ought to be taking passengers off the trains that do.

I'd suggest worst case is the 'ors' in your example become 'ands'.

I'd doubt somewhere like Newark will get a fundamentally worse service.

 

There is I believe a 'wishlist' of projects for improving the route north of Northallerton, including some deviations - York to Northallerton is arrow straight and 4 tracked already.

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

My teams at Kings Cross were booked to achieve turnrounds on 9 car MkIV's and HST's inside 25 minutes (including passengers off and on), as a matter of course, and that was when reservation labels had to be planted on almost every seat back too. That was all with mobile units working from one end of the platform, and not the sort of provision you could design in from scratch. The length of train and number of passengers is only of marginal difference if organised and resourced properly. They were very slick. I also did a study of how it was done at Euston, and by BA landside staff at Gatwick (airlines are penalised for late departures, not arrivals). No reason to believe that could not be achieved routinely for HS2, especially with a new platform layout and not the hideously narrow ones we had at the Cross.

 

I wouldn't argue with that at all Mike - for example at one time HST turnrounds at Paddington were 20 minutes and readily achievable (they aren't that quick nowadays).  But to achieve quick turnrounds you need the correct station layout and the right staffing thus Eurostar could do it at waterloo with no problem but they can't do it at St Pancras and had to very quickly extend turnround times and then subsequently had to extend them again.  I wouldn't argue at all with a 27minute turnround at Euston IF  platform accessibility was correctly spaced for optimum movement of passengers to/from the platform and if servicing accessibility was also good but the drawings/artists impressions published so far suggest that passenger access is not evenly spaced, and that there are a limited number of lifts.

 

Oddly, notwithstanding what looked like reasonable provision, there are already crowding problems at times around the lifts at Reading although fortunately they are well clear of the escalators but there was a right old tangle when I met my wife and daughter back from the west of England a month or so back with people trying to get heavy luggage out of the train (an HST) and then try to get into a lift where there was quite a queue building up. 

[PaulRhB]

I assume you regret the demise of the man walking in front of the train with a red flag and the lack of firemen and guards

I don’t know where you get that assumption from but if you are just going to keep throwing confrontational assumptions like that in its not going to be a fruitful discussion.

I’m very much for increasing capacity, I have to deal with the capacity issue on our railways daily squeezing the maximum out of it to get said commuters and freight through as best I can.

HS2 is still going to mix with commuter traffic in London, there’s no way to totally separate it in the current plans. All our solutions are based around squeezing more into the existing stations.

If we were to truly separate it and fulfil the dream of really increasing capacity why not build a super cross rail underground station as the terminus? We are constantly adapting the existing railway but working with having to keep that same railway going day to day. I just think a totally new line needs a new terminal and then we could think about more radical refreshes of the existing network using that extra capacity before it fills up.

The whole thing is a short term solution and I think we need to think bigger about the future rather than the next 10-20 years.

Why does a high speed line solve the whole London commuter issue when it only serves the West Coast? What actually snarls up the paths? To me it’s the freight crossing the passenger routes accessing all the freight hubs around London down to Southampton. That has a significant impact day to day and partly why the FOC delays are capped beyond a certain amount of minutes.

There is money in long distance freight if you work drivers hours into it.

On recent strike days commuters have praised the more reliable timings. This is mostly because there are less clashes so the knock on effect of a late train is drastically reduced. The capacity extensions at Waterloo are a move towards this but all stations need to be able to take longer trains at peak times. Less trains with the same, or ideally greater, capacity have the advantages of more reliability in timings and with longer trains you can lose several engines / motors before a noticeable drop in performance hits other trains behind.

I don’t think HS2 is radical enough and I certainly don’t want someone with a flag in front so let’s drop the baiting and come up with some reasoned arguments?

Edited October 17, 2018 by PaulRhB

[hayfield]

Totally agree with it must be long term planning, but the travelling public also need short term improvements. Also I understood that HS2 was to compliment both East and West coast main routes, no where did I say it would either solve all the north London commuting problems or solve the whole of London's commuting issues, it goes north ?, south or west issues need their own solutions. There may well be better alternatives, but for what ever reason they are not on the table.

 

In France the High speed trains share the same Termini then migrate to dedicated routes, why have a seperate termini ?.

 

As for freight logistics, this is a highly competitive and believe it cost effective industry but for domestic use does not fit within time constraints and flexibility. Trans continental a different story but not enough capacity on our network after coming through the tunnel for time dependant traffic. At the moment rail traffic seems designed for passenger movements first freight as a secondary importance, whether this is right or wrong is a separate issue

[lmsforever]

 Having seen the development of the UK since the 1940,s one thing has been consistent, short termisim,  no matter what era and doubtless if the infrastructure of HS2 needs to be upgraded in the future there will be no action taken.Once the line is up and running it will  change many persons travel habits lets hope that they will still travel by train and that the numbers will hold up as it will have to pay back a great deal of money.    An obvious extension would be into Scotland but this is constrained by their government and its views especially if they gain independence something that is looking very likely sometime in the next ten years.Why has there been no connection to HS1 this would have been something that should have been mandaitory ,was due to money or that HS1 is run by a private company whatever any body got any ideas?

[ess1uk]

Why has there been no connection to HS1 this would have been something that should have been mandaitory ,was due to money or that HS1 is run by a private company whatever any body got any ideas?

Schengen (UK not part)

Border crontrols

[melmerby]

 

 

In France the High speed trains share the same Termini then migrate to dedicated routes, why have a seperate termini ?.

 

 

Because all trains in France are the same dimensions. In the UK the HS trains are bigger than conventional trains.

 

Keith

[PaulRhB]

, but the travelling public also need short term improvements. Also I understood that HS2 was to compliment both East and West coast main routes, no where did I say it would either solve all the north London commuting problems or solve the whole of London's commuting issues, it goes north ?, south or west issues need their own solutions. There may well be better alternatives, but for what ever reason they are not on the table.

The short term improvement is supposed to be the platform capacity increases and longer trains but what we need is a long term plan on top of that. The current capacity improvements are only adding 20% in many cases and that won't even get everyone already on some trains a seat at peak times. Many stations are very difficult to extend due to the approaches being so restricted by land sold off in the past.

 

In France the High speed trains share the same Termini then migrate to dedicated routes, why have a seperate termini ?.

To move the long distance traffic for East and West to a separate route altogether as it's the merging of the traffic that causes delays to escalate when it goes awry. That's why I suggest a 'super crossrail' type station in the vicinity of the current termini for quick connections, hence underground makes sense as there is no room for anything else unless you build another deck on top of the existing main stations with a flyover to the other coast. HS2 is supposed to be the future but it seems to be adding trains to the puzzle at existing termini which are already very busy and failures cause huge knock on delays. We already have the capacity maxed so the future proof solution would be a lot of extra capacity as part of this major project in my opinion. As it stands I don't see that it will offer any benefit on the approaches for commuters, indeed I think it will add to the congestion.

 

As for freight logistics, this is a highly competitive and believe it cost effective industry but for domestic use does not fit within time constraints and flexibility. Trans continental a different story but not enough capacity on our network after coming through the tunnel for time dependant traffic. At the moment rail traffic seems designed for passenger movements first freight as a secondary importance, whether this is right or wrong is a separate issue

Yes and already highly subsidised on the roads so if we really want to push the eco friendly side why not use that subsidy as investment to move the road traffic that can benefit from long distance haulage off roads and take the majority of rail freight, which is only economical on longer hauls out of the rail puzzle approaching our major cities to free up real capacity to make timings more reliable and give even more physical capacity. If a driver can load his truck onto a train north of London and then use his rest time to get across the channel and then get off at another major hub and do a full shift driving it is economical time wise. Realistically though the railway needs to make that time advantage cost only a fraction more than the fuel used for the convenience.

 

I know these issues aren't going to be solved as we are obsessed with the high speed passenger side and I really don't think it will deliver capacity benefits to relieve the wider issues as it stands. Adding capacity for more to travel is the main benefit of the current scheme. So does it really benefit enough people to justify large scale compulsory purchase for the greater good? I think that is marginal at best and as it will fall to politicians to make that decision it makes it highly unlikely as it will hit much of the vocal and powerful middle class who they really don't like upsetting. So NIMBYism is very powerful in the modern political world and schemes that work around existing homes with only impact during construction, like Crossrail, are much more likely to get through as there is little long term impact to their lives and vistas. So maybe more radical and costly schemes are better in the long term, personally I doubt that is possible with a' 5 year popularity cycle'.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Schengen (UK not part)

Border crontrols

That makes sense. But following on from something Paul put about long distance freight, would it not also have made sense to have (Even a single track) HS1 to HS2 link for long distance European freight? I believe there are currently continental gauge freight services using HS1 to get to Barking during quiet hours, in a bid to remove some long distance lorry moves from the UK surely being able to extend that initially to Birmingham would be a good thing?

 

Also, a HS1 HS2 link would enable continental gauge stock moves/tests to happen between the 2 rather than having a completely isolated section out of gauge for the rest of the network even if no through passenger runs are currently an option for customs reasons.

 

I understand costs come into effect, but surely that is 'simple' future proofing?

[Ron Ron Ron]

....HS2 is still going to mix with commuter traffic in London, there’s no way to totally separate it in the current plans.

 

All our solutions are based around squeezing more into the existing stations........

 

 

 

......HS2 is supposed to be the future but it seems to be adding trains to the puzzle at existing termini which are already very busy and failures cause huge knock on delays. ....

 

.....As it stands I don't see that it will offer any benefit on the approaches for commuters, indeed I think it will add to the congestion........

 

 

 

Paul, can you explain what you are saying here, as I'm quite puzzled by those comments?

 

As far as the rail tracks go, HS2 is totally segregated from the classic rail lines, except where it links into the classic network at various points north of Birmingham and in Yorkshire..

Curzon St. is a brand new terminus, exclusively for HS2 traffic.

Euston and Piccadilly are being extended to add HS2 exclusive facilities, adjacent to, but separate from the existing "classic rail" facilities.

 

So I don't understand what you mean when you say HS2 is going to mix with commuter traffic, or talk about "squeezing more into the existing stations".

Perhaps I've misunderstood your point.

 

 

 

.

[PaulRhB]

The plans I saw still meant there were some crossings with the existing network on the approaches. If that’s separated as the original proposal then good but I understood there’s still local services using HS2 on the London approach then diving off to the existing network?

[Edwin_m]

The plans I saw still meant there were some crossings with the existing network on the approaches. If that’s separated as the original proposal then good but I understood there’s still local services using HS2 on the London approach then diving off to the existing network?

That has never been the plan.  The tracks aren't even connected in the London area. 

[Edwin_m]

Because all trains in France are the same dimensions. In the UK the HS trains are bigger than conventional trains.

 

Keith

The initial HS2 fleet will be to smaller dimensions so it can run on existing routes ("classic compatible" in HS2-speak).  European-sized trains may be ordered for Phase 2 when there are more destinations reachable without going onto the classic network. 

 

However HS2 trains could be up to 400m long (as a coupled set) which is longer than any other passenger train in the UK except possibly Eurostars.  Few platforms are that long, and in any case the main stations in most of our cities are close to full capacity.  So new platforms/stations would be needed even if there was no intention ever to run European gauge trains. 

[PaulRhB]

No it appears the plans I’ve looked at on the HS2 site tonight that have the levels on are under where the line drawings I had appeared to be junctions at Old Oak.

I still don’t see how this helps out significantly though in overall capacity as it’s only longer distance travellers who it serves. The debate Hayfield raised was why don’t they have more powers to help the greater good and the congestion problem and media punchbag is shorter commuter traffic capacity. I don’t think it helps that much to compensate for the political effect that annoying a lot of people being moved under bigger powers would have in the media and hence political arena.

Fundamentally it’s the political effects that dictated this and I just can’t see a larger number benefitting than are affected by it so NIMBY will be a far stronger political factor than the commuters.

So getting back to the point I was trying to make I don’t think there’s the justification on this for the greater good and hence more powers to force it or other similar projects through.

[caradoc]

The benefits of HS2 are (at least) two-fold; It provides greater capacity and speed for longer distance trains, and by removing these services from the current network also provides greater capacity there for shorter distance routes (as well as freight).

[Neil]

Schengen (UK not part)

Border crontrols

 

 

That makes sense. ......

 

Well yes and no. It would add complication and cost but not much; there's already a connection at St Pancras heading towards Camden and Primrose Hill. Similarly I doubt it would add much in percentage terms to equip Birmingham (or other stations) with a dedicated international departure lounge (something like Lille perhaps) particularly if it was factored in at the design stage. Staffing costs for customs and border control would be ongoing but it seems a little hollow to make objections on these grounds as we look set for a massive increase in border and customs staff thanks to Brexit. Again we would be talking small numbers in percentage terms.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Well yes and no. It would add complication and cost but not much; there's already a connection at St Pancras heading towards Camden and Primrose Hill. Similarly I doubt it would add much in percentage terms to equip Birmingham (or other stations) with a dedicated international departure lounge (something like Lille perhaps) particularly if it was factored in at the design stage. Staffing costs for customs and border control would be ongoing but it seems a little hollow to make objections on these grounds as we look set for a massive increase in border and customs staff thanks to Brexit. Again we would be talking small numbers in percentage terms.

And you'd factor the costs of those in to the costs of the tickets. 

 

I suspect the real problem here is that the railways were burned by the North of London Eurostar service fiasco (and the almost empty shadow HST service to Waterloo that did run) and don't want to risk it again. 

[Edwin_m]

Well yes and no. It would add complication and cost but not much; there's already a connection at St Pancras heading towards Camden and Primrose Hill. Similarly I doubt it would add much in percentage terms to equip Birmingham (or other stations) with a dedicated international departure lounge (something like Lille perhaps) particularly if it was factored in at the design stage. Staffing costs for customs and border control would be ongoing but it seems a little hollow to make objections on these grounds as we look set for a massive increase in border and customs staff thanks to Brexit. Again we would be talking small numbers in percentage terms.

That connection comes out on the wrong side of the Euston main line and north of where HS2 goes into tunnel.  The HS1-HS2 connection investigated and abandoned involved shoehorning in something rather similar but would have removed some existing tracks to make space. 

 

The problem with international Eurostars from north of London is the level of demand.  I've just checked Birmingham-Paris as an example, which one flight each in the morning, afternoon and evening, operated by fairly small aircraft.  Even if all those people wanted to travel at the same time they wouldn't fill more than a couple of coaches of a Eurostar.  Passenger numbers from the likes of Manchester would be similar, but with the added problem that the journey time by train becomes less competitive from further north. 

 

Eurostar is probably the only rail operator anywhere that relies almost entirely on international long-distance travel, and has the advantage of two of serving Europe's closest pairs of major cities.  The number of passengers between two cities in different countries is likely to be much less than that between two cities of similar population and separation when there is no border involved (Manchester is much smaller than Paris but generates a similar number of London passengers).  Hence most international trains on the Continent are also domestic trains within the countries they pass through. 

 

At a push it might be possible to run something like Manchester-Birmingham-Old Oak-Stratford-Ebbsfleet-Ashford-Lille-Paris a couple of times a day and get some sort of viable passenger load by capturing flows such as people travelling between Birmingham and Kent.  But this would need the paraphanalia of passport checks, baggage screening and potentially in future also customs to be set up at each boarding point.  Unless some sort of segregation could be set up within the train, domestic passengers would also have to undergo these checks.  The extra cost and delay would render such a service uncompetitive, when anyone wanting to travel internationally by train gets a much wider choice of times by travelling to London and boarding at St Pancras. 

[Oakydoke]

It's no good reopening the HS2 to HS1 link discussion again.

That ship has sailed.

HS2 is being built without such a link and it would now be very, very difficult to retrospectively put one in without massive disruption to HS2 and would almost certainly incurs costs that could never, ever be recuperated or justified.

[hayfield]

And you'd factor the costs of those in to the costs of the tickets. 

 

I suspect the real problem here is that the railways were burned by the North of London Eurostar service fiasco (and the almost empty shadow HST service to Waterloo that did run) and don't want to risk it again. 

 

 

Pete

 

I my opinion its a lack of joined up thinking probably caused by all these different operating companies. I am certain a train could start in Edinburgh, stop at 3 or 4 main stations (hubs) and finish at St Pancras, where they could join Eurostar, I am certain a train could also start in Glasgow and via Liverpool and Manchester join the East Coast main line to St Pancras further down

 

I have a couple of holidays in Europe using the railways and with the exception of Paris we changed trains at certain hubs enroute which connected with the TGV network. Its about time government ensured the railways worked for their customers, not either the treasury of big business, but equally I think nationalisation is also not the answer  

[Ron Ron Ron]

......... I am certain a train could start in Edinburgh, stop at 3 or 4 main stations (hubs) and finish at St Pancras, where they could join Eurostar, ............

 

 

This option is already available today and has been available for just coming up to 11 years, except the train from Edinburgh arrives at adjacent platforms in KGX.

 

 

.