HS2 under review

[DavidH]

Merely playing Devil's advocate here (and speaking as someone who can't afford a nice house in a country area), I'd wager that if house prices in the Chilterns were "blighted" and fell dramatically, this may well actually be welcomed by people born in the area who can't afford a house in their "desirable" village or town of birth.

 

If prices fell a lot, then I'd be very happy to buy a "blighted" house next to HS2 ...

 

Our farmer with the B&B - well, he/she is likely to be running the business for another, say, 20-30 years before retirement. The railway will be serving the needs of the country, with luck, for a century or hopefully more. There will be upheaval, there will be pain, there will be unhappiness; and in a short time it will be largely forgotten, and people will have moved on and built their lives somewhere else. Like we do.

[melmerby]

Some posters have said that HS2 would not be able to compete with low cost airlines on the longer distances.

 

Nobody seems to have mentioned that in 2025 or whenever HS2 gets built there might not be any low cost airlines.

Remember, they operate using relatively plentiful (at present) low cost fuel. However nowadays the amount of new oil reserves being found (and at higher cost) does not cover the amount being used each year so we are in a downward spiral of diminishing reserves and rising prices.

 

A train uses electricity from whichever source is the most economical so has the edge long term.

 

Keith

[Ron Ron Ron]

The impact of rising oil prices and diminishing supply will be far more widespread than simply putting up the price at the petrol pump.

 

The world runs on an oil based economy, where almost everything relies on it. The effect of falling production and rising prices will have a much more profound effect on all our lives.

We wear it, live in it, sleep in/on it, eat from it, wash in it, travel in it......in fact there's very little that doesn't rely on oil or oil based materials for its manufacture, transport or distribution. I'm sitting here in my study typing this post, surrounded by materials and products that are made from oil or oil based materials, some of which have been manufactured using oil based energy and almost all transported around the planet to eventually land up here, powered by oil.

 

The economic impact on business, manufacturing, services, employment and our personal lives is not to be underestimated. The cost of most things will go up, whole areas of economic activity will have to change or will cease in their present form, or even cease entirely. A transition to a world less reliant on oil will not be easy and with the best laid plans, won't happen without some difficulty.

When the time comes that people can't afford to fly, the demand for all forms of travel may be significantly reduced (including Rail), notwithstanding the increased cost of being able to so.

 

A bit of a Doomsday scenario perhaps?

It may be more complex and worrying than that. The pressures brought to bear by the rising demand for all raw materials, natural resources, minerals and food will inevitably result in significant changes to the world we know today. The prospects for how the West plans for and manages change don't seem very bright to me. We're struggling to do the economic housekeeping, let alone plan for a future world that will come under increasing social and economic pressures.

[melmerby]

The impact of rising oil prices and diminishing supply will be far more widespread than simply putting up the price at the petrol pump.

 

The world runs on an oil based economy, where almost everything relies on it. The effect of falling production and rising prices will have a much more profound effect on all our lives.

 

 

And very little seems to be being done to cope with it.

 

People still profess their "right" to buy gas guzzling cars, use high energy consumption products (both in manufacture and use) and lead generally profligate lives.

There was a recent report from America where some Republicans said they would fight to the death to preserve "their way of life", over President Obama's more environmental agenda. To me it came across as total wasteful arrogance.

Little do they appreciate (or want to appreciate) it is their children or children's children who will have to cope with the consequences.

 

I think that airlines generally have had a pretty easy time of it in the past due to government policies and I think that will change in the future when the oil really starts to run out. Short haul flights will be considered an anathema as the diminishing fuel is reserved for 'more essential' long haul business.

 

All surface transport can use alternate forms of energy but there seems to be at present no alternative to kerosene for aircraft and little meaningful research on the problem.

 

Keith

[David Bigcheeseplant]

Is there a need for the development of overhead catenary and panagraphs on aircraft!

 

David

[298]

Is there a need for the development of overhead catenary and panagraphs on aircraft!

 

David

 

I suppose there would be operational difficulties, but other forms of propulsion are being looked at...

[Ron Ron Ron]

A point of interest.

The Aerospace industry is working very hard to address the issues of aircraft fuel consumsion and CO₂ emissions and they are deadly serious about it.

 

Current new aircraft use between 5 and 15% less fuel than those delivered a decade ago (the baseline for most of the anti-aviation environmental data, although a lot of it is even more out of date) and the next generation of airframes and engines will see a further 10 to 15% reduction. Beyond that there are ambitious plans for up to a further 40% saving by 2030.

Couple that to improvements in infrastructure and the operational environment (ground handling, air traffic management and operating techniques) which are expected to yield 10 to 15% savings on fuel and emissions within the next few years.

 

It's a constant battle to try and match rising costs and despite fuel being the single biggest cost factor to an airline operator, nearly every other overhead, from staff costs to suppliers and services is affected, no matter how indirectly by the rising price of oil and other commodities.

 

The Rail industry will not be immune to similar pressures.

HS rail is expensive not only to build, but to operate too. The faster it runs at, the operational costs increase and the environmental benefits reduce. I can easily see the price of tickets being charged at a premium in order to pay for it.

 

I'm not anti-HS2, but I do believe there needs to be a bit of perspective used when viewing such matters.

There will be a certain degree of modal shift in some areas, but in others HS rail cannot replace air. Elsewhere it will simply not exist.

In the UK, the only air travel market likely to be affected by HS rail, is London - Scotland. 2030 anyone?

[lmsforever]

Your doomsday post makes you think just what will happen in the future will will we be using horses and carts for local journeys something I will not complain about.Aircaft are becoming more fuel efficient look at Boeings Dreamliner a very safisticated peice of kit ,railways are going to have to be in the same ball park to survive.The events happening at this moment should be concentrating the minds of those in power or not as may be be the the actual situation.HS2 is becoming a real necisity as you will see Ihave revised my views on the project I agree that it will free up capacity on other lines a good thing.Your posts have a a great del of detail and I am finding them useful thanks Ron Ron.

[Edwin_m]

In previous discussions we have established that the number of air passengers between West Midlands and Paris (the most likely beyond-London market) is too low to justify more than about one train per day, and is of course distributed over various times of day so that one train would not be convenient for all of them anyway. The only workable model for through services is that used by every other international train service, where the train also serves domestic markets in the countries it passes through. Unfortunately security rules make this virtually impossible where the Channel Tunnel is involved, so we are probably stuck with a change of train somewhere in London area including the security checks.

 

As Ron says there is a strong argument for not going all-out for speed on HS2 - whatever speed it operates (within reason!) it will be the fastest way between London and Birmingham. If and when it extends to Scotland speed may become critical for competitiveness, depending what the aviation and general travel markets are doing in 20 years time. So it is wise to do what they seem to be doing and design for a very high speed where practicable.

[melmerby]

 

Current new aircraft use between 5 and 15% less fuel than those delivered a decade ago (the baseline for most of the anti-aviation environmental data, although a lot of it is even more out of date) and the next generation of airframes and engines will see a further 10 to 15% reduction. Beyond that there are ambitious plans for up to a further 40% saving by 2030.

Couple that to improvements in infrastructure and the operational environment (ground handling, air traffic management and operating techniques) which are expected to yield 10 to 15% savings on fuel and emissions within the next few years.

 

 

Aircraft use untaxed fuel and it cannot be allowed to continue. If they had to pay a reasonable rate short haul flights would be dead in the water.

All other modes of passenger transport AFAIK have to pay tax on their fuel, which gives the airlines an unfair advantage.

 

As an aside BBC Midlands Today has been running a story about Birmingham Airport becoming London's "fourth" airport. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton anybody. That's four already! Anyway it is based on the claimed travel time from Central London to Birmingham Airport of 39 minutes, much less than the "Fly The Tube" to Heathrow.

They didn't explain how they got that figure, as HS2 misses the airport by a mile one would have to get from the HS2 station across to New Street and get a train back out to Birmingham International. That would add quite a bit of time.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

Your doomsday post makes you think just what will happen in the future will will we be using horses and carts for local journeys something I will not complain about.Aircaft are becoming more fuel efficient look at Boeings Dreamliner a very safisticated peice of kit ,railways are going to have to be in the same ball park to survive.The events happening at this moment should be concentrating the minds of those in power or not as may be be the the actual situation.HS2 is becoming a real necisity as you will see Ihave revised my views on the project I agree that it will free up capacity on other lines a good thing.Your posts have a a great del of detail and I am finding them useful thanks Ron Ron.

 

Surely the Dreamliner scores in it's long distance cruising ability, Short hops down country would not be it's forte so the train will still have the advantage. Those of you that have done a short hop will have noticed that aircraft don't reach (economical) cruising height before having to descend. Birmingham to Paris is like that.

Edit: I noticed that Boeing still quote all their sizes first in US units and the cabin is 226" I can't visualise that at all!

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

 

It's a constant battle to try and match rising costs and despite fuel being the single biggest cost factor to an airline operator, nearly every other overhead, from staff costs to suppliers and services is affected, no matter how indirectly by the rising price of oil and other commodities.

 

The Rail industry will not be immune to similar pressures.

HS rail is expensive not only to build, but to operate too. The faster it runs at, the operational costs increase and the environmental benefits reduce. I can easily see the price of tickets being charged at a premium in order to pay for it.

 

I'm not anti-HS2, but I do believe there needs to be a bit of perspective used when viewing such matters.

There will be a certain degree of modal shift in some areas, but in others HS rail cannot replace air. Elsewhere it will simply not exist.

In the UK, the only air travel market likely to be affected by HS rail, is London - Scotland. 2030 anyone?

 

 

I think HS2 is basically a good idea although perhaps not going to the right places in its initial stages. But one thing which does concern me about it is the high speed being talked about. While technical development is a continuing process and will obviously bring some improvement SNCF have found a major step change in power consumption if they run much faster than existing LGV speeds - even an uplift of 20-30kph produces, they say, an increase in power consumption way out of step with any perceived advantages from raising running speeds (as SNCF are notoriously poor at exploiting such advantages anyway I think the only gain they would look at is the commercial one?).

[Ron Ron Ron]

Keith, just to pick up on a couple of points there.....

 

Aircraft use untaxed fuel and it cannot be allowed to continue.

It would be very difficult to apply tax for a number of reasons.

 

 

As an aside BBC Midlands Today has been running a story about Birmingham Airport becoming London's "fourth" airport. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton anybody. That's four already!

Don't forget London City Airport, which although much smaller than the other London airports is doing very well indeed.

 

 

They didn't explain how they got that figure, as HS2 misses the airport by a mile one would have to get from the HS2 station across to New Street and get a train back out to Birmingham International. That would add quite a bit of time.

The plan includes a Birmingham International Parkway station, unfortunately it's situated a fair way from the airport and the present Birmingham International station (the proposed site is on the other side of the M42).

However the plan includes a rail people mover/ transit system to link the new station to both. There will be no need to go via central Birmingham coming from the London direction.

 

 

.......Those of you that have done a short hop will have noticed that aircraft don't reach (economical) cruising height before having to descend. Birmingham to Paris is like that.

Only on very short hops, but Birmingham to Paris is not a good example (aircraft general climb to and fly at normal cruising levels).

Paris to Birmingham is a better example though (for reasons I won't go into) but although the aircraft generally fly slightly lower than in the other direction, they still use economical cruising levels for the fuel efficient aircraft that are used on that route.

 

 

In both directions, the aircraft are at their cruising levels for at least a third of the flight time. It would be for longer if they used faster climbing aircraft, or if they burned more gas in the climb (however that's wasteful).

 

.

 

 

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....But one thing which does concern me about it is the high speed being talked about. While technical development is a continuing process and will obviously bring some improvement SNCF have found a major step change in power consumption if they run much faster than existing LGV speeds - even an uplift of 20-30kph produces, they say, an increase in power consumption way out of step with any perceived advantages from raising running speeds.....

Hi Mike.

Exactly what I was referring to.

On another forum someone put up some figures that showed the sort of increases in power consumption and consequent increase in nominal CO₂ production that would result from higher speeds.

IIRC the data came from French and British research papers.

 

 

[dmustu]

I think engineering the line for 400 km/h operation is a form of 'future proofing'. While its not economical to run trains much faster than 320 km/h at the moment, that may well change in 30 years time. If you look at Japan's Tokaido Shinkansen, most trains run at 260 km/h, some advances with JR Centrals N700 trains with a passive tilt system allows them to travel up to 275 km/h, but any significant increases in speed above 275 km/h on the route will require some major rebuilding of the railway.

 

Building HS2 for 400 km/h running will allow for future increases in speed above 320 km/h, when technology becomes cost effective for that to happen, wont require expensive rebuilding work of the infrastructure, if and when it can happen. In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with running trains at 320 km/h on 400 km/h railway, and waiting for thecnology to catch up. After all, there's plenty of 90mph turbo's running on 125mph railway out of Reading, for example!

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike.

Exactly what I was referring to.

On another forum someone put up some figures that showed the sort of increases in power consumption and consequent increase in nominal CO₂ production that would result from higher speeds.

IIRC the data came from French and British research papers.

 

 

I know that SNCF actually carried out some running trials back in the mid 1990s and were shocked at the results. I don't know the details but apparently the increase was so great it immediately put a stop to their plans to increase speeds on several routes as all the more recent builds of TGV have the speed capacity already.

 

Future proofing a route is one thing but it would be interesting to know the civil engineering cost impact of raising line speed from, say, 320kph to 400kph. I suspect it would largely have to be done at the expense of the curvature and gradient profiles and would surely bring quite an impact?

[melmerby]

 

Don't forget London City Airport, which although much smaller than the other London airports is doing very well indeed.

 

 

 

The plan includes a Birmingham International Parkway station, unfortunately it's situated a fair way from the airport and the present Birmingham International station (the proposed site is on the other side of the M42).

However the plan includes a rail people mover/ transit system to link the new station to both. There will be no need to go via central Birmingham coming from the London direction.

 

 

 

Only on very short hops, but Birmingham to Paris is not a good example (aircraft general climb to and fly at normal cruising levels).

Paris to Birmingham is a better example though (for reasons I won't go into) but although the aircraft generally fly slightly lower than in the other direction, they still use economical cruising levels for the fuel efficient aircraft that are used on that route.

In both directions, the aircraft are at their cruising levels for at least a third of the flight time. It would be for longer if they used faster climbing aircraft, or if they burned more gas in the climb (however that's wasteful).

 

I forgot about London City, that would make Birmingham sixth!

 

I hadn't appreciated how close the station was to the airport, even though I downloaded a copy of the originally published maps (first editions).

It would still add time to the checkin but then again all the other airports have transfer times as well.

 

The aircraft cruising heights on flights such as B'ham-Paris-B'ham still do not reach what I understand is the most economical height (unless they do now as I haven't been since the '90s), namely 30000+ feet which is where an aircraft such as the previously mentioned Dreamliner would be at it's best.

 

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

I forgot about London City, that would make Birmingham sixth!

 

I hadn't appreciated how close the station was to the airport, even though I downloaded a copy of the originally published maps (first editions).

It would still add time to the checkin but then again all the other airports have transfer times as well.

 

The aircraft cruising heights on flights such as B'ham-Paris-B'ham still do not reach what I understand is the most economical height (unless they do now as I haven't been since the '90s), namely 30000+ feet which is where an aircraft such as the previously mentioned Dreamliner would be at it's best.

 

Keith

 

Birmingham is already a viable alternative to 'the London airports' for a sizeable chunk of folk living to the west of London but you have to think a bit laterally to realise it's there (or look at the flights and fares). It is a comparatively simple, but often crowded, rail journey from the western end of the Thames Valley and for many the road journey is easier than Gatwick or London City although not as easy as Heathrow. I think the main reason it isn't appreciated as an alternative is simply because it has never presented itself in that way and many folk just dont realise that it's there.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Birmingham Airport may be currently accessible from the Thames Valley etc, but not as convenient as nearby Southampton Airport is for Reading, Newbury, Basingstoke and the Camberley/Farnborough/Frimley area.

There's a more limited choice of European or Holiday destinations, but Southampton is the main UK launching pad for flights to regional French airports, as well as serving several European cities.

Situated next to a motorway junction and with a modern railway station located right outside the Terminal door, quite a number of passengers are coming from north Hampshire and the Thames Valley, presumably to avoid the congestion and extra time needed to negotiate Heathrow.

 

Keith, when the Dreamliner finally enters service (it's very late), it's highly unlikely you'll see it on the Birmingham - Paris route.

Economical cruising altitude varies according to a number of factors, including aircraft type. Believe me, the aircraft that are used on that service (RJ85, ERJ195, DHC8-Q400 plus the occasional A318/319) cruise at economical Flight Levels.

[298]

The last time I was on a Dash-8 Q400 from Edinburgh to Birmingham, we didn't seem to reach cruising height until passing Crewe.

 

The distance from the Interchange station to the NEC/Airport seems to be attracting attention, but here's on reason for the conspiracy theorists to mull over: Ignoring the fact that you can't get it any closer, it does allow space for both facilities to expand towards it, especially considering the latter may rapidly grow and need a second runway. Building the station on the proposed site allows for this and means it doesn't have to be rebuilt if HS2 was closer and more parallel to the M42...

[WR Tim]

I think engineering the line for 400 km/h operation is a form of 'future proofing'. While its not economical to run trains much faster than 320 km/h at the moment, that may well change in 30 years time. If you look at Japan's Tokaido Shinkansen, most trains run at 260 km/h, some advances with JR Centrals N700 trains with a passive tilt system allows them to travel up to 275 km/h, but any significant increases in speed above 275 km/h on the route will require some major rebuilding of the railway.

 

Building HS2 for 400 km/h running will allow for future increases in speed above 320 km/h, when technology becomes cost effective for that to happen, wont require expensive rebuilding work of the infrastructure, if and when it can happen. In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with running trains at 320 km/h on 400 km/h railway, and waiting for thecnology to catch up. After all, there's plenty of 90mph turbo's running on 125mph railway out of Reading, for example!

 

Air resistance is proportional speed squared so the energy required for higher speeds will inevitably increase beyond the point where it gives an advantage without much that you can do about it - there's a limit to how pointy you can make the nose of the train. There are also diminishing returns in terms of journey time. 160 km at 320 kph is 30 mins, at 400 kph it is 24 mins - if that extra 80 kph doubles your energy costs then nobody is going to pay twice as much to save 6 minutes between London and Birmingham.

 

Maybe at some point when nuclear fusion is working we will have a limitless supply of cheap, environmentally painless electricity but until that point train speeds will hit a wall of practicality.

 

This is the same reason why all modern jet airliners fly at similar speeds of 600 Mph (give or take a bit) - it just isn't beneficial to go faster unless you stop worrying about efficiency and go a lot faster (ie Concorde) but then you pay for it in operating costs.

[Allegheny1600]

Future proofing a route is one thing but it would be interesting to know the civil engineering cost impact of raising line speed from, say, 320kph to 400kph. I suspect it would largely have to be done at the expense of the curvature and gradient profiles and would surely bring quite an impact?

It will not cost very much more to design in a maximum speed of 400Kph as opposed to a max of 320Kph!

If you're preparing drawings anyway, there is no difference - so we look as though we are going about this the right way (for once!).

The actual curvature required (in terms of land requirement) is only a bit greater BUT as you are now requireing a slightly longer chord between straight sections, well! You are not purchasing the 'inside' of the sharper curve anyway. Result: No real difference in land costs!

Gradient profiles. Designing in from the very beginning will only mean flattening out the top and bottom of the change in gradient profile (at worst!) - the actual gradients will stay the same - look at LGV est to see just how severe these are anyway. At such speeds, gradients are of little consequence to true high speed trains as they are up and over most 'hills' before gravity really takes hold. Result: earthmover crews gain a few more days employment, perhaps!

The things that would impact the line being run at 400Kph would be the tension required in the overhead lines (& maintenance thereof), possible changes to the (cab) signalling and potential baffling required lineside for the NIMBY's.

As has already been stated, the running costs for going to 400Kph are going to be the decider along with the actual/perceived benefit.

However, if I had the choice I would rather travel on an LGV engineered for 400Kph at 320Kph, than where the train is running to the speed limit!

Cheers,

John E.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Allegheny1600

[Ron Ron Ron]

The last time I was on a Dash-8 Q400 from Edinburgh to Birmingham, we didn't seem to reach cruising height until passing Crewe.

I hope that was on the climb out of Birmingham heading north?

If it was that's pretty quick, less than 10 minutes after take-off.

Southbound from Edinburgh, it would have reached its cruising level halfway from Edinburgh to the English border and started its descent into Birmingham overhead, or just north of Manchester.

 

 

 

 

The distance from the Interchange station to the NEC/Airport seems to be attracting attention, but here's on reason for the conspiracy theorists to mull over: Ignoring the fact that you can't get it any closer, it does allow space for both facilities to expand towards it, especially considering the latter may rapidly grow and need a second runway. Building the station on the proposed site allows for this and means it doesn't have to be rebuilt if HS2 was closer and more parallel to the M42...

Any expansion of Birmingham Airport is going to be to the west or south of the present site. The proposed HS station site is to the east of the NEC and M42, in the triangle between the M42, A452 Chester Rd. and the A45.

Unless they plan to flatten the NEC (some might think that a good thing ) the airport isn't going to get any closer to the proposed station.

 

Map of the area

 

Personally I think it's too far away from the airport and International station, but I can see why the line is routed there, plus as it's a"Parkway Station" large areas of car parking are planned on this open site.

Maybe a better location would be under/ over the International/ NEC/ Airport site, routing to the east of Bickenhill, but that would entail expensive tunnelling to the north of the NEC.

.

[Edwin_m]

Another option is to make the trains and infrastructure both capable of a higher speed but only use the maximum speed when recovering from any delays. Having this sort of margin is also useful on hilly sections where the train might otherwise have to brake (and waste energy) on the downgrades to stay within the limit.

 

I agree with Allegheny that in general a higher design speed won't add that much to costs. The exception is where the larger curve radii makes it more difficult to thread the line between villages or other places that must be avoided. In the extreme this could mean more tunneling to go underneath such sensitivities (and incidentally aerodyanamic losses are much higher in tunnel). Difficult to know where this might have come into play going by the end result, but no doubt this information is available somewhere in the design documents.

[Glorious NSE]

Unless they plan to flatten the NEC (some might think that a good thing )

 

They should make it part of the next Labour manifesto - i'd vote for that!