HS2 under review

[62613]

6 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

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.

In phase 1, The Curzon Street terminus is on a spur from a junction near Lichfield; this is also the area where trains from further North via either the WCML, or the Birmingham and Derby line will join HS2. The (triangular) junction is intended to allow trains from more northerly directions, or from London, to reach Birmingham, or indeed to bypass it. Phase 1 is of immediate benefit to trains from Scotland, the North-West and the North-East because of access to HS2

 

[The Stationmaster]

11 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

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.

A valid point but it then raises the question of exactly how much of Birmingham you wish to flatten in order to build a through station instead of  a terminus - and where do you put the through station (Water Orton?)

[melmerby]

16 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

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.

Why?

It is right next to Moor Street and also the short tunnel to New St. and will will be connected to New St. by a pedestrian way in the same way many London Tube stations that are on different lines.

Theoretically it could have connections to the Birmingham-Derby line which it runs right alongside for a while.

Birmingham originating trains would use the new terminus, through trains by-pass it entirely.

New Street is currently over capacity and using that as a base for HS2 trains is out of the question.

[jamie92208]

The onlt taking over of existing lines that I know about, other than at Park Royal, is the Leeds leg using space between Woodlesford and Hunslet alongside the existing lines and using the soace that used to be occupied by the goods lines. As thse were either side of the fast lines HS2 will take iver the space occupied by the existing up line but both existing lines will be slewed east to make way.

 

Jamie

[Flittersnoop]

14 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Why?

It is right next to Moor Street and also the short tunnel to New St. and will will be connected to New St. by a pedestrian way in the same way many London Tube stations that are on different lines.

Theoretically it could have connections to the Birmingham-Derby line which it runs right alongside for a while.

Birmingham originating trains would use the new terminus, through trains by-pass it entirely.

New Street is currently over capacity and using that as a base for HS2 trains is out of the question.

Because changing trains is a pain in the @#%*, and changing stations even more so. You were touting the usefulness of HS2 as part of the XC network, whilst the design of HS2 precludes extending any train services into Wales, the South West, Black Country, etc etc. HS2 is a massive missed opportunity. If you live in central London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds then great: otherwise, very disappointing.

[Flittersnoop]

33 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

A valid point but it then raises the question of exactly how much of Birmingham you wish to flatten in order to build a through station instead of  a terminus - and where do you put the through station (Water Orton?)

Surely a tunnel beneath central Birmingham would have been feasible? The GWR managed it 150 years ago, after all! No need to flatten anything much, and Curzon Street could have been made into a through station.

[melmerby]

15 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

Surely a tunnel beneath central Birmingham would have been feasible? The GWR managed it 150 years ago, after all! No need to flatten anything much, and Curzon Street could have been made into a through station.

Now you are talking silly. What did you thing Birmingham was like when the GWR arrived?

They just demolished what they wanted without much opposition. The poor had little say on what happened to their home.

These days it's all expensive property.

BTW the GWR "tunnel" was't. It was built as cutting and covered at the southern end but left open at the northern end, later it too was covered over.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by melmerby

[APOLLO]

As to Birmingham HS station why does it have to be in the middle of Birmingham ?, just outside with a range of local rail / bus etc connections to around & within the city is probably better, and is exactly what is currently being built & nearing completion over in Bangkok Thailand

 

New station for proposed high speed lines, new metro lines and existing rail lines at Bang Sue - new bus station alongside also with elevated motorways alongside (already built). A few miles from the city centre.

 

My brother in law is a construction engineer working on this project the last several years. A huge undertaking, and will continue as several rapid transit metro lines are currently under construction with more in the planning stages to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

They're building railways like crazy over in Bangkok while we Brits argue, fart & faff around.

 

Brit15

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by APOLLO
typo

[Allegheny1600]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

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.

 

 

Hi Mike,

Sorry to be a pedant and correct you but only LGV Sud-Est, the initial "Y" shaped section of LGV Atlantique and (I believe) LGV Nord were built for operation at 300 Kmh (186 Mph), all subsequent builds are either for 320 Kmh (199 Mph) or 350 Kmh (218 Mph). 

I *think* that SNCF has been upgrading earlier lines to the more recent specification too.

My old "local" line sees trains go from Bordeaux to Paris in an astonishing 2Hr 9min! This is a HUGE distance that used to take a long time.

 

Also, in China, they operate HS trains at up to 200 Mph, my mate James sampled such trains last year.

 

I suspect that the ability to run trains at these speeds is enabled by the use of ever lighter materials and possibly, distributed power throughout the train. Viewed in such a light, Britain's hoped for 250 Mph line is simply forward thinking (for once).

One thing is for sure, IF we ever get this railway - we won't be "fastest" for that long as the Chinese will surely get ahead of us with even newer lines.

Cheers,

John.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I rather agree with you about Curzon St. The Birmingham branch seems unnecessary when there are good potential connections to the station out by the NEC/Airport.

 

HS2 should really be focussed on destinations further North where there can be some really worthwhile time savings.

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi Mike,

Sorry to be a pedant and correct you but only LGV Sud-Est, the initial "Y" shaped section of LGV Atlantique and (I believe) LGV Nord were built for operation at 300 Kmh (186 Mph), all subsequent builds are either for 320 Kmh (199 Mph) or 350 Kmh (218 Mph). 

I *think* that SNCF has been upgrading earlier lines to the more recent specification too.

My old "local" line sees trains go from Bordeaux to Paris in an astonishing 2Hr 9min! This is a HUGE distance that used to take a long time.

 

Also, in China, they operate HS trains at up to 200 Mph, my mate James sampled such trains last year.

 

I suspect that the ability to run trains at these speeds is enabled by the use of ever lighter materials and possibly, distributed power throughout the train. Viewed in such a light, Britain's hoped for 250 Mph line is simply forward thinking (for once).

One thing is for sure, IF we ever get this railway - we won't be "fastest" for that long as the Chinese will surely get ahead of us with even newer lines.

Cheers,

John.

 

Yes, but. We can do that extra speed here but at a huge extra cost in laying out the route and having no intermediate stations. I don't blame Buckinghamshire folks for being p****d off by HS2. They get all the disadvantages and no benefits.

 

The difference between a 225kph railway and a 350kph railway between London and Birmingham is about 9 minutes. Not enough to be useful to anybody or put an economic value on. Conventional transport economics puts that at 15 minutes +.

 

France is quite another matter, with, as you say, much greater distances involved.

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

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.

 

Curzon Street being a terminus surely only matters if through trains between Euston and the North are planned to stop there en route. Whereas if separate services operate, ie Euston/North and Birmingham/North, it is not a concern ? And presumably making the Birmingham station through rather than a terminus would have added (even) more to the cost, if not also a less optimal location than Curzon St.

 

I agree with Stationmaster, given the size of the UK a maximum speed of 186mph, using existing technology and standards, would seem more suitable.

 

[rovex]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

A valid point but it then raises the question of exactly how much of Birmingham you wish to flatten in order to build a through station instead of  a terminus - and where do you put the through station (Water Orton?)

Personally be happy to see them demolish all of Birmingham. Can't think of anything much in the centre worth saving not since the sixties anyway.

[woodenhead]

5 minutes ago, rovex said:

Personally be happy to see them demolish all of Birmingham. Can't think of anything much in the centre worth saving not since the sixties anyway.

The council agree with you, it's so awful that they are proposing banning through traffic and pushing people onto the ring roads.

 

Clearly they don't want people to see the city centre unless they have too.

 

Actually, Birmingham is much improved and there are some lovely bits in the centre now, it is being transformed but it takes time, Manchester got a little help in that respect

[woodenhead]

46 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

They're building railways like crazy over in Bangkok while we Brits argue, fart & faff around.

 

Brit15

 

I guess planning laws and the impact of NIMBYS has a big impact when it comes to transport projects abroad.

 

How about the high speed land across an African country, only benefit to the locals is the fact they get compensation for every farm animal killed by the trains - and I bet you can imagine what the latest scheme to earn money quickly for farmers is.

[Mike Storey]

Actually, Chinese high speed lines are now designed for c. 300 mph running, not 200 mph, and a few are indeed running at that speed. 

 

But that is not the point. HS2 is designed with lower gradient profiles than LGV and ICE equivalents, hence energy usage from that alone is a major saving, let alone the technology likely to be possible in 10-15 years. The argument for higher speed, as discussed on here before, actually saves the number of trainsets needed for a given frequency, thus the energy saving from that alone is significant. But the designers have already suggested a lower top speed to reduce costs, but this apparently saves only a few £billion (less, if the current frequency plans demand more trains and crews and maintenance and extra energy bills etc), not the multiple billions apparently necessary to make the scheme "worthwhile", in the eyes of some.

 

Whilst the comments on a very significantly lower top speed (c.140 mph) were worthy of discussion perhaps 10 years ago (and they were discussed, at great length in the 2008/2010 options papers, and rejected in that review as sub-optimal), they ain't worth a flying fig now. A compromise at c.200 mph is most likely, but that reduces total capacity, compared to the original estimate of demand. Building in redundancy has always been a very British thing.

 

It would appear the savings from abolishing the project are anyway needed to pay the NHS negligence liabilities potential bill (£86 billion).....

[melmerby]

46 minutes ago, rovex said:

Personally be happy to see them demolish all of Birmingham. Can't think of anything much in the centre worth saving not since the sixties anyway.

And that comes from somebody whose location is "Redditch"

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I rather agree with you about Curzon St. The Birmingham branch seems unnecessary when there are good potential connections to the station out by the NEC/Airport.

 

Good potential connections to where exactly?

It's miles from any other rail routes.

OK for the NEC/Airport/Motorway network but no good for onward train travel generally.

[Mike Storey]

Incidentally, tales on here of the timing between a decision to build a high speed line and its entry into service, as being a few years, are very wide of the mark.

 

The most recent high speed line in France, from Paris to Bordeaux, was some 20 years in the offing (and it was very close to being cancelled, once SNCF Mobilities learned what the track access charges would be from SNCF Reseau), before a sod was cut. Indeed, since the original LGV line to Lyon, it has taken some 40 years to agree and authorise, a secondary route to relieve the extreme capacity constraints that demand for the original route generated. 

 

The Italian high speed network, although progressed with indecent haste in recent years, was some 25 years in planning. A key part of the initial works were mired in corruption (Mafioso) and cost overruns, but they sorted that with experience. But you will note that few of their lines go anywhere near city centres, without resort to using classic lines.

 

In Spain, bar Madrid-Barcelona, Valencia and Valladolid, most of their, much vaunted, high speed routes are both due to conversion to Standard gauge and are also mostly single track entities, with passing sections. Not exactly the high capacity, high frequency services required of HS2.

 

In most cases, European high speed lines were not built to resolve capacity issues (there is plenty of latent capacity on most European classic routes, outside of Paris-Lyon, London-Folkestone, and a few of the German connections), but for major journey time savings.

 

HS2 is very different in that respect.

 

 

[class26]

3 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

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.

 

But to have Curzon st as a through station would massively increase costs. Where would the through line go ? There would be miles of tunnel, unless you know better ?   That`s not going to be cheap.

[class26]

1 hour ago, rovex said:

Personally be happy to see them demolish all of Birmingham. Can't think of anything much in the centre worth saving not since the sixties anyway.

 

Sorry , off topic but you obviously have not been to central B`ham recently  The cent re is massively improved over where it was 30 or 40 years ago. 

[runs as required]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Good potential connections to where exactly?

It's miles from any other rail routes.

OK for the NEC/Airport/Motorway network but no good for onward train travel generally.

 But you pointed out earlier that Curzon St is convenient for Moor St, and the Snow Hill cut and fill tunnel. 

So the logic of a much cheaper through station at International (rather than Water Orton) makes sense because the conurbation can be accessed  by WM Regional Transport  from International to Snow Hill and onward at a much more localised network scale.

2

The Tory opposition to HS2 is led by Victoria Prentis MP for N Oxfordshire interviewed today on R4 World at One (30.40 - 34.40). As one might expect she expresses a “too much is already happening in our neck of the woods” argument (including the Varsity Line linear city) and is trying to recruit the new blue collar Tories into her lobbying.

Her alternative is a National cycle network - and, you’ve guessed it - “shovel ready” rail connection projects up north. All agreed with Tony Travers's summation that the decision will be "Political" rather than "cost effective".

 

Again I ask ... nominate three such schemes already “shovel ready “ ?

I’d suggest that even a connecting chord is likely to have a 5 year lead time these days in UK.

dh

Edited January 21, 2020 by runs as required
link to 'World at One'

[pete_mcfarlane]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

Curzon Street being a terminus surely only matters if through trains between Euston and the North are planned to stop there en route. Whereas if separate services operate, ie Euston/North and Birmingham/North, it is not a concern ? 

And this is most likely due to a deliberate decision to separate these different traffic flows. Some of this seems to be driven by the realisation that the Birmingham trains can be operated by dedicated units that don't have to be able operate off HS2, which makes them cheaper to purchase. 

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

34 minutes ago, class26 said:

Sorry , off topic but you obviously have not been to central B`ham recently  The cent re is massively improved over where it was 30 or 40 years ago. 

But it did go downhill a bit last year when Ian Allan closed. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

7 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

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.

 

Extra revenue from any infrastructure project or its resultant by products is worthwhile. However, local councils have not used the monies gained from a significant increase in additional retail outlets locally to improve the infrastructure around them. Result, traffic jams on roundabouts on major local dual carriageways, etc.

 

So there is little reason to expect the increased tax revenues from the new Council Taxpayers will be used effectively to improve local services.