Jump to content
 

HS2 under review


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, Calidore said:

Times Online suggesting this morning that the report is recommending HS2 go ahead (seemingly in full) — favourite comment so far “I’ll be gone by the time this arrives, and I’m 10.”

Shouldn't judge everything by the standards of Crossrail - just 'cos that's been dragging on for a good half-century since first proposed, it doesn't mean it can't be exceeded.:jester:

 

John

 

 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's  nice to be on a Pendolino flying north out of Euston at 100mph+  heading towards civilisation !!!!  For me, when visiting London it's the 21-10 Preston train, home & in bed by midnight (usually !!).

 

A start building south from Wigan / Manchester / Leeds simultaneously with the London - Birmingham bit  would give us northerners more confidence seeing actual investment - but up here we drastically need an electrified Trans Pennine line as well - if not first.

 

We are the fifth "richest" country in the world - money should be no problem (!!!!!) - Gov needs money ? - PRINT IT (as they printed billions for the banks continuously since 2008).

 

GET IT ALL BUILT.

 

Brit15

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

It's  nice to be on a Pendolino flying north out of Euston at 100mph+  heading towards civilisation !!!!  For me, when visiting London it's the 21-10 Preston train, home & in bed by midnight (usually !!).

 

A start building south from Wigan / Manchester / Leeds simultaneously with the London - Birmingham bit  would give us northerners more confidence seeing actual investment - but up here we drastically need an electrified Trans Pennine line as well - if not first.

 

We are the fifth "richest" country in the world - money should be no problem (!!!!!) - Gov needs money ? - PRINT IT (as they printed billions for the banks continuously since 2008).

 

GET IT ALL BUILT.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

Nice idea, but the UK almost certainly does not have the resources, in terms of skills, machinery and finance, to construct more than one section at a time. One cannot simply import skills from other countries for much of the design work, or indeed, key parts of the implementation and commissioning stages. The industry is already training up people as fast as it can just to get Phase 1 done, and that is already delayed for myriad reasons.

 

However, it should be an objective to construct Phase 2b and the Northern Powerhouse HS route at much the same time, given the number of dependencies each has on the other.

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Might not be pressure be more quickly and economically relieved by "double-decking" the WCML infrastructure, at least between Euston and Birmingham?

 

Not instead of HS2, which has always been a medium-to-long-term solution anyway, but to put seats under more bums rather sooner.

 

John

Do you mean adjusting the existing infrastructure in order to be able to run double-deck trains as in other parts of the world?

Expensive! But, arguably worthwhile - in the long run. Might as well get on with HS2.

OR do you mean putting one deck of track on top of the other?

Ridiculous! Stupidly expensive, taking a very long time to complete, very objectionable, far better to stick with HS2.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Nice idea, but the UK almost certainly does not have the resources, in terms of skills, machinery and finance, to construct more than one section at a time. One cannot simply import skills from other countries for much of the design work, or indeed, key parts of the implementation and commissioning stages. The industry is already training up people as fast as it can just to get Phase 1 done, and that is already delayed for myriad reasons.

 

However, it should be an objective to construct Phase 2b and the Northern Powerhouse HS route at much the same time, given the number of dependencies each has on the other.

If there is one thing likely to get me shouting at the news right now, it is politicians saying, "We will build this/that/the other which is more than the other parties.  My answer is always - WHO will build it?  There aren't too many experts in everything from managing major construction projects to bricklayers, sitting out-of-work in the UK.  

Claims of more money for training actually delay solving the issue, because someone who is moved to training others now isn't building what they would be building if they weren't training people.  So what are you NOT going to build, while people are trained (which takes years, unless you propose that Crossrail 2 is built entirely by people with no experience).

There is a possible solution - abandon Brexit then we can continue with the free movement of skilled Eastern Europeans who have kept our construction industries going for two decades.  Somehow I can't see the two main parties rushing to sell that to their core voters, so they'll go back to the usual policy of making hugely expensive spending commitments and don't worry, it won't cost YOU anything.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Do you mean adjusting the existing infrastructure in order to be able to run double-deck trains as in other parts of the world?

Expensive! But, arguably worthwhile - in the long run. Might as well get on with HS2.

OR do you mean putting one deck of track on top of the other?

Ridiculous! Stupidly expensive, taking a very long time to complete, very objectionable, far better to stick with HS2.

 

It is criminal that when Network Rail embarked on route clearing for larger containers, they didn't go the whole hog and route clear for double decker stock. Obviously there would have been more work required than simply raising a bridge here, and lowering track there. Overall there would have been substantial benefits to all rail users. The fragmentisation of the industry put paid to any thoughts of that but imagine route clearing say the Chiltern route for double deck stock and electrification. The large containers would fit anyway after that work was done and huge capacity enhancement would be available from 'decker. 

 

I agree though that HS2 and HS2B are the easiest way of sorting capacity issues in the next ten years - provided the project fully proceeds.

 

New build infrastructure is so much quicker to develop that endless possessions of existing route,which is why EWR should be electrified at construction stage.

Edited by Covkid
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Covkid said:

It is criminal that when Network Rail embarked on route clearing for larger containers, they didn't go the whole hog and route clear for double decker stock. Obviously there would have been more work required than simply raising a bridge here, and lowering track there. Overall there would have been substantial benefits to all rail users.

 

Double-decker trains have been tried in this country, but not pursued. The problems that were found had less to do with the loading gauge and more to do with the longer dwell times and the capacity of stations to deal with the extra passengers safely.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Southern tried double decker (of a fashion) EMU's for passenger use. A subject not repeated due to what billbedford mentioned above.

 

Class_4DD_no_4902_at_Ashford_Steam_Centr

 

Double stack container trains in the UK are definitely a no no here - every bridge, station canopy and every mile of overhead electrification would need mega expensive rebuilding - a Corbyn project !!!!!!!!!!!

 

Over in the USA double stack container trains is more or less the norm. Cost the railroads a lot over many years to enable this. Over there there aren't that many  road bridges like here in the UK either - most roads are level crossings.

 

The American loading gauge is a lot bigger than ours though track gauge is the same. They are VERY long trains also. America is a big country with lots of room !!

 

 

I often wonder what is in all those boxes !!!!!!!

 

Brit15

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

It is criminal that when Network Rail embarked on route clearing for larger containers, they didn't go the whole hog and route clear for double decker stock. Obviously there would have been more work required than simply raising a bridge here, and lowering track there. Overall there would have been substantial benefits to all rail users. The fragmentisation of the industry put paid to any thoughts of that but imagine route clearing say the Chiltern route for double deck stock and electrification. The large containers would fit anyway after that work was done and huge capacity enhancement would be available from 'decker. 

 

I agree though that HS2 and HS2B are the easiest way of sorting capacity issues in the next ten years - provided the project fully proceeds.

 

New build infrastructure is so much quicker to develop that endless possessions of existing route,which is why EWR should be electrified at construction stage.

 

Please do some research before posting nonsense! The lack of double deck train clearance on the network is NOT 'Criminal' as you put it - its called being practical and grounded in solid engineering reasons (unlike your claim).

 

Firstly the biggest problem with double deck trains is NOT HEIGHT - ITS THE UK HISTORICALLY HAVING HIGH LEVEL PLATFORMS!

 

If you pay attention to double deck trains used in Europe, you will note that their carriages have a wide body hanging down between the bogies facilitating a spacious lower deck- something that is only possible because it won't be foul of the loading gauge (in particular platforms). Those same carriages would be ripped open like tin cans over here if you tried to use them, regardless of how high the bridges were.

 

Having a spacious lower deck is essential because things like staircases take up room that could otherwise be used for seats or standing space. Also such double deck carriages must have the doors at the ends rather than at the 1/3rd and 2/3rd positions, which brings allow for quicker station dwell times as its easier for folk to board / alight.

 

Rebuilding platforms is not quick / easy like bridges - and whats more once completed traditional British trains cannot call at them either, it has to be one or the other. What that means is NO TRAINS FOR 6 - 12 MONTHS while you rebuild EVERY PLATFORM LOWER  FURTHER BACK to cope - which then cannot be used by conventional UK trains as it prevents the use of wheelchair ramps and creates bigger stepping distances.

 

Secondly, the problem with containers is NOT their height - its the fact they have square corners. 'Gauge enhancement' for containers is mostly a case of replacing arched structures with flatter ones giving more room for square shaped objects to pass through rather than an increase in height. This is just as well - because when 'raising' bridges things like buried services and the vertical alignment of roads approaching the bridge can need significant adjustment and although it is sometimes possible to lower the railway, this can make it more susceptible to flooding and / or requires extensive drainage works.

 

Now if you are building a new line with dedicated stations, its easy to build in double deck capability - which is exactly what HS2 is doing. By having their platforms built in such a way that hey won't be foul of the lower deck at the beginning there will be no need for disruptive alterations later on. Equally because it will be operated by bespoke rolling stock there is no need to consider 'conventional' UK trains needs with respect to platform design.

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Double-deck trains don't tend to carry twice the number of passengers for a given train length; it's closer to one and a half times, by the time you've allowed for access to the two decks. They also have a long dwell time at stations; from observation of French, Belgian and Italian systems, about twice that of UK trains on similar workings.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Double-decker trains have been tried in this country, but not pursued. The problems that were found had less to do with the loading gauge and more to do with the longer dwell times and the capacity of stations to deal with the extra passengers safely.

 

Actually the train that was trailed was not a true 'double decker' as most would understand it.

 

Firstly it was all individual compartments interleaved with each other, rather than two open saloons stacked one on top of another as is the norm in Europe / USA / etc.

 

Secondly none of the passenger accommodation extended below the solebar (due to UK loading gauge restrictions) - again virtually every 'double deck' train design does this to maximise passenger space.

 

Its an unfortunate accident of history that the Victorian railway design standard - in particular the use of high level platforms* means that true double deck trains are a non-starter.

 

* It is alleged that high level platforms are all the fault of Queen Victoria! In the very early days what passed for platforms were actually very low and passengers would be expected to climb up into their carriage with steps just as they had to with the stagecoaches which were used for road transport before the railways came along. However this presented a danger to Victorian women as it meant that they might (shock, horror) end up showing an ankle / bit of leg as they climbed up. Therefore, when the GWR finally persuaded Queen Victoria to take the train, the directors decreed that a raised platform must be supplied to prevent any accidental exposure of the Monarchs lower body.

 

* As records show the Queen was highly impressed with her first train journey - but one of the things she commented on in particular was the excellence of the raised platform, not realising it had been built for her use. Of course in that era if the Monarch said something was an excellent idea, companies would take notice - and hence the adoption of high level platforms became the norm across our railway network. Had the GWR not sought to spare her Majesty's blushes, then the situation ,might have been very different....

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Allegheny1600 said:

They have high level platforms in Germany, even where they run double deck coaches.

 

Not as high as UK ones (though higher than 'traditional' continental platforms) and not the case at every German station.

 

However they key point is that their high (ish) platforms do not intrude into the space required for double deck stock!

 

Basically the German railways structure gauge was defined during the era of having low platforms and takes full advantage of this - and hence has allowed double deck trains for many decades.

 

As platform heights have increased in recent decades (primarily to help with disabled access) the increases have taken place in such a manor that the structure gauge has not been reduced and there is still sufficient width for carriage bodies to extend down between the bogies without getting narrower thus eating into the potential passenger space..

 

Its a lot easier to 'add' than it is to 'take away' when building stuff - and for the UK to provide enough space for double deck trains requires the wholesale trimming back and lowering of platforms - even if you are using the German standards as a target.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, sorry! I see that German high platforms are not as high as ours now.

When you see this;

28005078437_94b913a60a_b.jpg

 

It looks pretty high here.

However,

28005087347_4cbd10a305_b.jpg

 

Proves that these platforms are indeed less high.

Oh, well!

It just proves that any kind of "double decking" in the UK is a preposterous idea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Ah, sorry! I see that German high platforms are not as high as ours now.

When you see this;

28005078437_94b913a60a_b.jpg

 

It looks pretty high here.

However,

28005087347_4cbd10a305_b.jpg

 

Proves that these platforms are indeed less high.

Oh, well!

It just proves that any kind of "double decking" in the UK is a preposterous idea.

 

Firstly those pictures are of a heavily rebuilt city centre station - TRADITIONAL German platforms (many of which still remain out in more rural areas) - and thus what the national loading gauge is built around are much lower!

 

Have a look at this diagram - note the 'step in' at the bottom of the loading gauge precisely to accommodate British high level platforms.

 

DN41ohiW4AAebny.jpg:large

 

 

Those German high level platforms are built with a bigger setback from the track so that the lower half of the carriage may clear them. Note that the 'traditional' low level German platforms fit neatly in the 1'5" gap below the car body.

 

Where the Germans have raised their platforms, they have done so starting further back than the traditional British practice - so that means they don't affect the structure gauge and impact the carriage shape.

 

Rebuilding British platforms further back to allow for the straight sides of the German loading gauge would introduce unacceptable stepping distances to trains built to conform to the EXISTING UK loading gauge - hence conventional UK gauge trains would be BANNED from calling at such platforms!

 

Yes, it is of course possible to buy a new fleet of trains with extendable flaps (the new HS2 'classic compatible' stock is likely to have them, but thats an awful lot of new trains - particularly given the way on many commuter lines like the SWML, the ability of slow trains to use fast line platforms (or vi-sa-versa) in cases of disruption / engineering work is a must so you need to replace EVERYTHING, not just the trains for one particular service group.

 

The other thing to take in from that diagram is the width of the loading gauge - the Germans have at least an extra 12" to play with. However if the trains themselves are wider then on double / multiple tracked lines each line has to be further apart plus grater lateral clearance is required to structures. Making things higher is relatively easy - making them wider as well is a lot more disruptive!

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allegheny1600 said:

 

It just proves that any kind of "double decking" in the UK is a preposterous idea.


Or at least, that "this is easy, you just raise a few bridges" isn't the simple fix some say.

HS2 newbuild sections will end up double-deck capable from new, even if the 1st gen HS2 trains are not double deck it will allow for future capacity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Its an unfortunate accident of history that the Victorian railway design standard - in particular the use of high level platforms* means that true double deck trains are a non-starter.

 

As you say later, the issue isn't high level platforms but rather the specific UK design of such.

 

For example, there are a reasonable number of high level platforms in use in North America which obviously doesn't prevent bi-level trains because the design allows for the space.

 

North American high level platforms are at 48" vs the UK standard of 36".

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

For example, there are a reasonable number of high level platforms in use in North America which obviously doesn't prevent bi-level trains because the design allows for the space.

 

 

Again, high level platforms in North America were a late invention - during the boom in railway construction low ((or frequently no platforms were the norm). As such their loading gauge could tale full advantage - meaning the platforms upgraded many years later to high level ones did not infringe on the necessary space required for double deck stock to be viable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, quite a lot of modern passenger stock on British rails is 9' 2" or 9' 3" wide, but only above platform height.

(e.g. Desiro's, Electrostars, 700's, Javelins, 165 & 166 etc.).

 

W6a upper body width = 2820mm (9' 3") maximum.

UIC  (Europe) upper body width is 3150mm (10' 4") maximum.

 

 

This diagram illustrates how the UK platform edges incur into the UIC loading gauge width.

 

 main-qimg-7b72ecbe1b96a6ada5b74df337bd43

Edited by Ron Ron Ron
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have to thank you Gents, although I haven't read all 185 pages, I've learned more about HS2 from this thread than from ANY of the media published stories and accounts.  I fully understand the need for new long-distance infrastructure, and the relief it provides to existing routes. 

Also it seems clear that the high-speed aspect (that makes it sound cool & sexy) has been latched on to by the media and presented as the main purpose of the project, to its detriment.

Thanks, Dave.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
52 minutes ago, DLT said:

I have to thank you Gents, although I haven't read all 185 pages, I've learned more about HS2 from this thread than from ANY of the media published stories and accounts.  I fully understand the need for new long-distance infrastructure, and the relief it provides to existing routes. 

Also it seems clear that the high-speed aspect (that makes it sound cool & sexy) has been latched on to by the media and presented as the main purpose of the project, to its detriment.

Thanks, Dave.

I have been similarly informed by this thread.  I wouldn't entirely blame the media, TBH.  The project called itself HS2 instead of LNWR2 or something to get politicians attention, because a high speed railway is like other countries have so we must have one.  A railway capable of boringly carrying 1.5 million people to work every week doesn't quite have the cache....

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Caroline Lucas (of the Green Party variety) was on LBC tonight, on the Ian Dale programme, being quizzed for (I think?) nearly a hour about her party's stance and policies, with the election in mind.

 

On the subject of transport and encouraging train travel, she was questioned as to why she was opposed to HS2 if she was in favour of greater use of the railways, particularly for longer distance travel?

 

Apart from concern about the "devastation' to trees and ancient woodland, she said she'd rather the investment went on railways "ordinary people could use", including new lines, also rather implying that HS2 was some sort of frivolous leisure line that "ordinary people" would have no use for !!!!!

You couldn't make this up.

It really is a sad state of affairs when politicians, journalists and other commentators are taking quite vociferous stances on issues they clearly have no understanding of.

You could say they always have, but I'm pretty convinced the ignorance has never been as bad as it is today.

It wouldn't be so bad if they objected on genuine concerns, such as the massive cost, whilst demonstrating that they knew and understood what HS2 was and how it came about.

 

It's a shame the General Election ballot paper doesn't have a "Send the whole lot of them to South Georgia" box to tick.

I suspect that option would win by a landslide.

 

 

 

.

 

 

  • Like 9
  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...