HS2 under review

[Phil Parker]

26 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

Upthread people are saying it will free up capacity on existing lines, elsewhere people are advising this won't happen as they are closing tracks to make space for this new line, the £100-150 Billion could be put to far better use.

 

Any chance you could quote a source for the closing existing tracks bit of your statement? I'd be interested to know who said and what is being closed.

 

4 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

No tracks have been closed to make way for this line (other than a short stretch of almost disused line in London).

 

If you mean this section of track then I'm not sure you can "close" a disused line.

 

28 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

the £100-150 Billion could be put to far better use

 

It would pay 18 months of the NHS legal bill for mistakes - all we get for that is well-fed lawyers.

[Siberian Snooper]

44 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

 

44 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

UK land/property values is a big factor in higher cost. But I do agree that something is not quite right when build costs in the UK are so far ahead of those on the Continent. Part of that is that we have lost many of the necessary skills in this country as manufacturing was allowed to decline. 

 

A lot of the extra cost in this country, is down to the extended procrastination that goes into the decsision making, it takes 10 to 20 years, at least,from the original idea being mooted to turning the first sod, but on the continent, the job is usually done and dusted in 5 to 10 years from the idea being mooted. They decide it's in the national interst and get on with it, saves millions.

 

 

 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

From a politcal perspective there must be a strong possibility that HS2 (which is seen as an elitist project that rich people will use) will be scrapped and some of the money used for improving rail services in the north, which almost everyone agrees are currenly dire, so passenger trains might return to Ashington, and the trans Pennine routes might be electrified after all.

By whom?

The Politicians in the North want HS2, most are left of centre, they are hardly what you would call "elitist"

 

We get the same old claptrap with no basis being wheeled out again and again and again to try and justify killing off a project that is sorely needed to add much needed capacity to Britain's railways.

 

[Phaeton]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

Any chance you could quote a source for the closing existing tracks bit of your statement? I'd be interested to know who said and what is being closed.

 

It's not on this forum, it's on another where there are London commuters who are stating that services will be closed to allow the HS2 to pass through stations they currently use

 

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

It would pay 18 months of the NHS legal bill for mistakes - all we get for that is well-fed lawyers.

 

Oh that's alright then, all ahead full steam, 

[Mark Saunders]

If cancelled now there will still be the need for it and it will be reinvented again in a few years!

 

There were two of the new intake of Conservative MP's interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday saying it should be scrapped just to give the money for their areas. 

 

Plus everybody sees the end price but not how much it is per year!

 

The whole of the investment in infrastructure in the UK has been abysmal as there is no rolling programme of improvements!

[runs as required]

46 minutes ago, melmerby said:

By whom?

The Politicians in the North want HS2, most are left of centre, they are hardly what you would call "elitist"

That used to be true up to December - but the new blue collar Tory right of centre politicians are the ones likely to lever BJ into announcing  the go-ahead.

But all (of every political slant) want a proper rail upgrade inter-connecting Northern urban conurbations either side of the Pennines and on up to the NE - long overdue.

 

I read frequently now of "shovel ready" infrastructure - presumably all capable of implementation by the next election.

What rail projects best fit this description of appealing to the new blue collar voters?  

dh

[Oldddudders]

6 minutes ago, runs as required said:

That used to be true up to December - but the new blue collar Tory right of centre politicians are the ones likely to lever BJ into announcing  the go-ahead.

But all (of every political slant) want a proper rail upgrade inter-connecting Northern urban conurbations either side of the Pennines and on up to the NE - long overdue.

 

I read frequently now of "shovel ready" infrastructure - presumably all capable of implementation by the next election.

What rail projects best fit this description of appealing to the new blue collar voters?  

dh

Oddly, today's "I" newspaper headline says "HS2 rail opposed by new Tory MPS in North". Details not obvious to me yet. 

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

From a politcal perspective there must be a strong possibility that HS2 (which is seen as an elitist project that rich people will use) will be scrapped and some of the money used for improving rail services in the north, which almost everyone agrees are currenly dire, so passenger trains might return to Ashington, and the trans Pennine routes might be electrified after all.

What do you think HS2 in the north is meant to do?  Allow Surrey commuters to get to London more easily.  I really wish some people commenting on this thread would bother to read it (yes - I know there's a lot of it) before coming out with statements like that.

3 hours ago, Phaeton said:

Still not convinced, it's a vanity project, the only people who are going to get benefit are the shareholders of the contractors, who knowingly put in low bids fully expecting the costs to be far higher & knowing that no-one in Government has the balls to pull the rug from under them.

 

Upthread people are saying it will free up capacity on existing lines, elsewhere people are advising this won't happen as they are closing tracks to make space for this new line, the £100-150 Billion could be put to far better use.

And here we go again!  Yet another load of total cobblers which sounds like some of the nonsense being posted by tuppeny ha'penny journos (even in 'The Daily Telegraph') who are too idle or biased to bother to even look at the facts let alone consider what they mean.  Where else on the rail network could this money be spent to solve the ever worsening capacity problems on the WCML ?

Edited January 21, 2020 by The Stationmaster
Correct typo

[The Stationmaster]

27 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

 

It's not on this forum, it's on another where there are London commuters who are stating that services will be closed to allow the HS2 to pass through stations they currently use

 

 

 

So could you post a link to the comments made by these superbly expert commuters, naming the stations they claim to be affected - please?

[62613]

3 hours ago, Phaeton said:

Still not convinced, it's a vanity project, the only people who are going to get benefit are the shareholders of the contractors, who knowingly put in low bids fully expecting the costs to be far higher & knowing that no-one in Government has the balls to pull the rug from under them.

 

Upthread people are saying it will free up capacity on existing lines, elsewhere people are advising this won't happen as they are closing tracks to make space for this new line, the £100-150 Billion could be put to far better use.

Where are existing tracks being closed? This is the first I've heard of that

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Where are existing tracks being closed? This is the first I've heard of that

Old Oak Common yard (permanent closure, depot facilities transferred to Reading - already implemented, no effect on train services)

Temporary closure between Old Oak Common West and Park Royal/Greenford Triangle - one 'Parliamentary' train each way (hardly a service) suspended.

 

I can't off hand think of any other impact on existing lines and services during Stage 1 of HS2

[APOLLO]

17 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Reopen Woodhead to link the two arms of HS2 to really connect the Midlands / NW / NE. Re Drill the old tunnels (like at Farnworth) now National Grid has cabled the "new" tunnel. 

 

Thinking again about this, it could be of REAL benefit to the Midlands NW / NE. Run HST trains around the triangle (both directions) linking Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester Airport & City, Leeds / Sheffield, Nottingham/Derby & back to Birmingham. HST Liverpool / Man / Newcastle etc etc. Perhaps reopening Woodhead is a pipe dream - but electrifying and speeding up (to as near as HST / 140 mph as possible) Manchester to Leeds needs doing NOW. The LNWR had the right idea virtually 4 tracking from Stalybridge to Leeds (including the New line now closed from Heaton Lodge Jcn to Leeds via Gildersome.

 

The London bit can be a branch line !!!! 

 

Also do we REALLY need the high speed - as already suggested 140 mph is fast enough on our small island, and would make the whole project more viable.

 

We REALLY do though need "the London branch" - for capacity relief on the WCML if for nothing else.

 

And the Conservative voting citizens of Leigh (those with blue flat caps and ferrets up their trousers) just want a railway station - of any kind -  even Pacers would do !!!!!

 

Brit15

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by APOLLO

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Oddly, today's "I" newspaper headline says "HS2 rail opposed by new Tory MPS in North". Details not obvious to me yet. 

And Midlands!

 

Strange, the vast majority of politicians of all colours in the WM are in favour as I understand they are also in the North

I assume one new Tory in the North & one new Tory in the Midlands is enough to create that headline.

[D1059]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

What do you think HS2 in the north is meant to do?  Allow Surrey commuters to get to London more easily.  I really wish some people commenting on this thread would bother to read it (yes - I know there's a lot of it) before coming out with statements like that.

And here we go again!  Yet another load of total cobblers which sounds like some of the nonsense being posted by tuppeny ha'penny journos (even in 'The Daily Telegraph') who are too idle or biased to bother to even look at the facts let alone consider what they mean.  Where else on the rail network could this money be spent to solve the ever worsening capacity problems on the WCML ?

 

The original poster is either deliberately trolling this forum thread, or just has a very deep lack of understanding of how railways actually work and run. 

To the vast majority on this forum it is blindingly obvious that HS2 will bring huge benefits to the UK's railway system, the least of which will be quicker London - Birmingham journey times.

Yes, there will be disruption while its built and life will change for those living near it, but the same can be said for any new road, or housing estate. Think what the inhabitants of the original village of Milton Keynes must have felt when they saw what was being planned - and the effect of that must have turned out to be many times worse than a new railway line

 

[scottystitch]

My question isn't one of whether there is a need; I agree with HS2 at a strategic level, but I'm not so sure of the details at a tactical level;

 

1 - Why does it need to be a High Speed line at velocities akin to TGV and HS1.  My understanding is that a decent slice of the cost comes from the alignment required for "High Speed" running.  If it's about capacity, why can't it be a more conventional railway, laid sufficiently to allow Pendolino or 8xx class trains to run at full tilt (no pun intended) between Euston and Birmingham and Manchester/Liverpool, non-stop (and thence on to Carlisle and Glasgow)?  A dedicated railway with no stopping or freight services, just dedicated fleets of conventional ECML or WCML trains.

 

2 - Why does it have to be one line: Euston to Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester, Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds?  Why can't it be two completely separate lines thus: Euston to Birmingham Crewe, Manchester , and on; and (for arguments sake) St Pancras to Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds (and ultimately York, Newcastle, Edinburgh) ?   

 

With everything emanating from Euston, that section between Euston and Birmingham  becomes proportionally more busy than the rest of the HS2 network, inviting constraints, I'd have thought, and would then begin to resemble that section of the WCML, although not to the same extent, admittedly.

 

3 - "HS3" can then be built to a similar standard; lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Hull, with no intermediate stops, no junctions, just fast max speed running between stops.

 

These are genuine questions. I don't consider myself to be ignorant of the need for "HS2". Maybe I am just ignorant of why, if it's not about shaving 20 minutes off of Birmingham - London, it needs to be quite so fast.

 

Best

Scott

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, Phaeton said:

 

It's not on this forum, it's on another where there are London commuters who are stating that services will be closed to allow the HS2 to pass through stations they currently use

 

 

Sorry to be rude but this is just nonsense. The one short section of line closed to allow HS2 construction carried precisely one train a day ! Can you please advise what other services are, allegedly, to be closed to allow HS2 ?

 

 

[royaloak]

6 hours ago, Phaeton said:

Still not convinced, it's a vanity project, the only people who are going to get benefit are the shareholders of the contractors, who knowingly put in low bids fully expecting the costs to be far higher & knowing that no-one in Government has the balls to pull the rug from under them.

 

Upthread people are saying it will free up capacity on existing lines, elsewhere people are advising this won't happen as they are closing tracks to make space for this new line, the £100-150 Billion could be put to far better use.

Which tracks are closing, the WCML, the MML, the ECML or do you mean that tiny bit of railway from Old Oak Common the Greenford which has hardly had a passenger service on it since Cross Country moved out of Paddington in 2002 (I think) and the only service it got was the once a week Chiltern Parliamentary train?

[royaloak]

3 hours ago, Phaeton said:

 

It's not on this forum, it's on another where there are London commuters who are stating that services will be closed to allow the HS2 to pass through stations they currently use

As HS2 is a new route please explain how that works because I havent a clue, it isnt from that toytown forum is it?

[caradoc]

6 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Which infrastructure project doesn't have some degree of vanity about it, for the whichever national or local government that invents it, completes it or cancels it.

 

Locally we have the Ipswich Northern Route, ostensibly to remove congestion from Ipswich, but which will give the local Tory Council the opportunity to let their friends in the house building sector create 10,000 new homes, with nearly two cars per home on average (the research indicating the need for the "bypass" was apparently funded by Keir Construction). Of course, the new residents will need the services of the local hospital, mental health care infrastructure (if their is any left), schools, supermarkets, etc. etc. All that will of course add congestion and put the local services under more strain. However, the local council will be able to tell everyone what a wonderful thing they have done to "improve" Ipswich.

 

But on the other hand the local council will have 10,000 new Council Tax payers contributing to the area ! In my locality a new housing scheme is nearing completion; It certainly has caused environmental damage by concreting over a field, and inconvenience to locals during construction, but people do require homes, and the new residents will provide extra customers for the local shops, bus and train services, and pupils for the schools.

 

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, scottystitch said:

2 - Why does it have to be one line: Euston to Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester, Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds?  Why can't it be two completely separate lines thus: Euston to Birmingham Crewe, Manchester , and on; and (for arguments sake) St Pancras to Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds (and ultimately York, Newcastle, Edinburgh) ?  

 

So look at the trouble they are having building one line from London to the north, and instead you are suggesting they build two?

 

That will create even more opposition, even greater costs (you now need to purchase twice as much land, build twice as much infrastructure, etc.).

 

It may well be that two lines provides the best outcome, but the money and political will to push it through simply don't exist.

[scottystitch]

2 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

So look at the trouble they are having building one line from London to the north, and instead you are suggesting they build two?

 

That will create even more opposition, even greater costs (you now need to purchase twice as much land, build twice as much infrastructure, etc.).

 

It may well be that two lines provides the best outcome, but the money and political will to push it through simply don't exist.

 I merely posed the question, I didn't suggest anything.

 

However, even if I was suggesting two, after Birmingham, as the present plan stands, it already is two lines. I'm merely asking why both of the post-Birmingham lines have to travel through a common corridor to get to London.  Why not just separate the lines entirely, using the Midland Main Line as a guide corridor for the Leeds line. That doesn't double the amount of land required, it only doubles the amount of the southern section.

 

 

A kinder response from you would have been to omit your first two sentences, leaving only the last. 

 

Every time I pose a question on RMWeb I instantly regret it..........

 

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, scottystitch said:

My question isn't one of whether there is a need; I agree with HS2 at a strategic level, but I'm not so sure of the details at a tactical level;

2 - Why does it have to be one line: Euston to Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester, Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds?  Why can't it be two completely separate lines thus: Euston to Birmingham Crewe, Manchester , and on; and (for arguments sake) St Pancras to Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds (and ultimately York, Newcastle, Edinburgh) ?   

 

With everything emanating from Euston, that section between Euston and Birmingham  becomes proportionally more busy than the rest of the HS2 network, inviting constraints, I'd have thought, and would then begin to resemble that section of the WCML, although not to the same extent, admittedly.

 

3 - "HS3" can then be built to a similar standard; lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Hull, with no intermediate stops, no junctions, just fast max speed running between stops.

 

Best

Scott

Don't forget that HS2 isn't one/two continuous routes.

There will be services originating in Birmingham going to the NW and others likewise to the NE

The XC route from Birmingham to Sheffield/Leeds etc. is currently far from ideal and would benefit from a faster route.

The add on to HS2 "basic" is intended to help with this.

Building two routes wouldn't.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by melmerby
added last sentence

[Flittersnoop]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

 

There will be services originating in Birmingham going to the NW and others likewise to the NE

The XC route from Birmingham to Sheffield/Leeds etc. is currently far from ideal and would benefit from a faster route.

The add on to HS2 "basic" is intended to help with this.

 

Which is why it's a bad idea to have the Curzon Street station in Birmingham as a terminus: one of many design flaws in the HS2 project. A project that is the rail industry's big chance for the 21st century should not have so many obvious drawbacks, especially since its pricetag means it's very unlikely that there will be further money to correct these flaws for many decades.

[APOLLO]

As we get more and more "climate change" acclimatised (Ha Hahh !!!), ban diesels, and eventually ban petrol cars, ban cars from cities etc we need ALL our railways more and more. Not everyone will be able to run / afford an electric car. I doubt any existing lines etc will be closed - changed perhaps yes but not closed. Looking forward public transport of all forms will need radical change and improvement in the coming years. The alternative is not to travel, and either walk or cycle, a choice most cannot take. Many people these days do not work in the town they live in. Doubt this can be changed much either as we all specialize etc.

 

Just added this morning the "Train & Tram" option to my Greater Manchester bus pass (starts Feb). £10 for a year free travel on trains & trams in the GMPTE area. It was previously free. A bargain though for us old farts. I don't mind paying a tenner so long as the money is invested in Manchester's public transport.

 

https://tfgm.com/tickets-and-passes/add-tram-and-train?utm_source=TfGMweb&utm_medium=MPU&utm_campaign=add_tram_and_train

 

Bring on HS2 - The Great Crested Newts at Bamfurlong are looking forward to their new homes with all mod cons  !!!

 

Brit15

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by APOLLO
typo

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, scottystitch said:

My question isn't one of whether there is a need; I agree with HS2 at a strategic level, but I'm not so sure of the details at a tactical level;

 

1 - Why does it need to be a High Speed line at velocities akin to TGV and HS1.  My understanding is that a decent slice of the cost comes from the alignment required for "High Speed" running.  If it's about capacity, why can't it be a more conventional railway, laid sufficiently to allow Pendolino or 8xx class trains to run at full tilt (no pun intended) between Euston and Birmingham and Manchester/Liverpool, non-stop (and thence on to Carlisle and Glasgow)?  A dedicated railway with no stopping or freight services, just dedicated fleets of conventional ECML or WCML trains.

 

These are genuine questions. I don't consider myself to be ignorant of the need for "HS2". Maybe I am just ignorant of why, if it's not about shaving 20 minutes off of Birmingham - London, it needs to be quite so fast.

 

Best

Scott

That is a very sensible question and one point is that the speeds are not akin to those of the SNCF LGVs - they are markedly faster.  This is perhaps where loony headline hunters and the 'high speed' propaganda bit  took over the practicalities and caused the whole purpose of the route to become lost.    SNCF LGVs have a maximum speed of =186mph although their design speed would allow running in excess of =200+mph.  But they don't run that fast for one very good reason - because even SNCF realised that the power consumption and energy costs run way out of balance if you push speeds any higher than their nominal working maximum - they have tried it and they have rejected it, and that is the usually amazingly profligate SNCF I'm talking about.

 

So I wonder what sort of differences in physics the HS2 designers came up with to justify their very high speed or was it just on the basis of saying 'we've got the fastest' during conversations in the playground?  Or will HS2 power consumption be incredibly lower for that extra speed than the average TGV (which admittedly are in many respects 1960s technology)?  There is possibly a commercial argument for running  faster than =186mph and there might well be a resource argument because the journey time (which is a consequence of achievable speed) coupled with the frequency decides how many trains are needed.  But to me those can be the only logical arguments for running faster than 'traditional' LGV speeds and then that has to be balanced against any changes to curve and gradient profiles which are required to safely facilitate much faster running.  From what I've seen of various drawings etc online HS2 profiles are considerably more generous than those of the French LGVs and that will no doubt impact the construction cost.

 

It is I think too late now to spend yet more money reprofiling the route, and the construction, for a reduction of speed to =LGV levels but in train running terms I can't see much point in running any faster unless it saves train and traincrew resources and the money saved there is not spent on track and train maintenance instead as a consequence of running at higher speeds.    My own preference would be for maximum running speeds around the LGV level and possibly some money might be saved in some areas of construction and grade profiling without major redesign.  I do however suspect the power consumption costs would be reduced by running at that speed assuming physics in England ares the same as physics in France.   and I really do think that slower than 186mph is probably going to be too slow to be really competitive.