HS2 under review

[Ron Ron Ron]

......and almost two miles from the Airport Terminal.

 

 

.

[Coombe Barton]

 

Are you sure? I think they mean the station situated next to Birmingham International.

 

Chris

Yes, you're right.

 

But if "Ms Greening had been expected to make a decision on whether to approve the £32bn scheme before parliament rises for its Christmas break on 20 December." isn;lt approved then the same will stand. LOADSA headache for our guys.

[Re6/6]

Government considers new high-speed rail tunnel - Chilterns - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16017413

 

If this will appease the naysayer MPs in the Chilterns then perhaps this may be the answer to actually get agreement and moving on despite the additional £500m cost....or could it be the beginning of the end for the project...?

 

"The 100-mile rail link, which would be built between 2016 and 2026, aims to cut the London-to-Birmingham journey time to 49 minutes. "

 

I see that the BBC only focussed on one thing again and not the vital implications for capacity relief issues elsewhere.

[ess1uk]

All of the signalling renewals at Saltley will have to be completed as it goes straight through the Power Box.

Possible site for maintenance depot is the old Metro Cammell / Alstom factory at Washwood Heath ( about 400 yards from where it was proposed to put an HST depot for NE/SW HST's).

Saltley PSB moving across the road into the bunker any time soon i believe??

[Coombe Barton]

And now the decision is likely to be delayed until the New Year.

 

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-transport-news/2011/12/04/high-speed-rail-decision-may-be-delayed-65233-29893473/

[ess1uk]

maybe if they dropped the HS2 name and called it something else and stopped going on about minutes saved to Birmingham, concentrate on the capacity issues then it MIGHT win more favour??

I'll never use it so don't care either way.

[Kris]

maybe if they dropped the HS2 name and called it something else and stopped going on about minutes saved to Birmingham, concentrate on the capacity issues then it MIGHT win more favour??

 

Most passengers wouldn't recognise the capacity issues but they do understand saving the best part of 30 minutes on a journey.

[ess1uk]

 

Most passengers wouldn't recognise the capacity issues but they do understand saving the best part of 30 minutes on a journey.

And paying a fortune for the ride

[LIRR]

I might have missed some previous discussions on this subject, and my apologies if this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but when there is such a huge problem of congestion on Britain's roads and a lack of capacity on the railways, why was a high capacity freight line along the old GCR, linked to the Channel tunnel, with an extension to Birmingham not proposed? A high capacity line built to US loading gauge would enable double decked container traffic to be moved rapidly from Kent to Transfer sites close to the final destinations. It might also be possible to run double decker trains from Marylebone to Snow Hill along the same lines albeit at a slower rate.

Andy

[Edwin_m]

This was moreorless what Central Railway proposed 10+ years ago. They would have built large amounts of new track from the Channel Tunnel round to the west of London, then picked up the Great Central to the south edge of Leicester (after which the formation is lost), Midland slow lines to Chesterfield then the old route round to Beighton and Woodhead across to Manchester. Not US gauge but certainly European gauge. There was a very detailed website at one stage but it's been taken down - I think the person who was really pushing the idea passed away a few years back. Traffic would have included piggyback trailers, with passenger service proposed on some sections.

 

I suspect the fact Tunnel freight fell well short of expectations helped to kill the proposal. These days the prospect of HS2 means such a freight line would be even more difficult to fund, since HS2 is supposed to create capacity for a lot more freight on the WCML in particular. However although there are long term plans to enhance the WCML and other routes to European gauge, this is virtually impossible on a mixed-traffic route because a European-sized train cannot pass a UK-standard platform.

[The Stationmaster]

I might have missed some previous discussions on this subject, and my apologies if this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but when there is such a huge problem of congestion on Britain's roads and a lack of capacity on the railways, why was a high capacity freight line along the old GCR, linked to the Channel tunnel, with an extension to Birmingham not proposed? A high capacity line built to US loading gauge would enable double decked container traffic to be moved rapidly from Kent to Transfer sites close to the final destinations. It might also be possible to run double decker trains from Marylebone to Snow Hill along the same lines albeit at a slower rate.

Andy

A few years ago I was involved in a study of road traffic and the rail alternatives on what amounts to the southern end of one of the principal routes out of the Solent area to the Midlands. The interesting thing about it was looking at the make-up of the road traffic surveys by type of vehicle and I think it gave lie to the oft-repeated statement implying that HGVs are the cause of road congestion. In some places on the route this was clearly a strong probability but in most others that were surveyed it was far from the truth - the most predominant vehicle type by far was private cars and even light vans (Transit size or thereabouts) heavily outnumbered articulated lorries.

 

The other side of the coin is that many places accessible by road can only be reached from the railway by transhipping vehicles at a terminal with good hardstanding and specialised lifting kit. The latter can nowadays be very flexible and not limited to staying at a single site but it is not easy to shift a decent length of siding and suitable hardstanding - or to find space for it in the first place. One thing the study looked at was a sort of entrepot where containers could be transferred between road and rail for part of their journey and it also had the advantage of removing an area where artics were waiting for hours to load. The scheme was perfectly feasible but the cost estimates of its impact on total haulage costs meant it was a non-starter.

 

Regreattably unless we can manage tofc (trailer on flat car) type operation - and probably make them compulsory on some parts of routes as is sometimes the case in mainland Europe the economics of modern distribution are often unfavourable to rail.

[Edwin_m]

And to add to what Mike has said, there isn't one "European Gauge" there are actually at least three. If I recall correctly trailer on flat car requires the largest one (ironically called GC, though the GC main line wasn't). HS1 and HS2 are probably only GB+, which supports all passenger services but means you couldn't run TOFC even on the high speed routes at night.

 

Edit: Just seen this story about the Scots promising to pay for a high speed line is Scotland if the British (=English) build it as far as the border. Sounds like "blamemanship" on a grander scale than the one about the sleepers.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Edwin_m

[LIRR]

Thanks for the clarification Edwin.

 

I am still not sure why a high speed train with a small capacity for moving people would be the best option.

 

If the requirement is for a passenger line, the different widths of the trains is not an insurmountable problem. As there would not be many stops/stations on the line, then the simple solution would be to have adjustable platforms that expand laterally and vertically to adjust to the different loading gauges. In fact my local line has a manual system on Sundays whereby a small walkway is extended to trains stopping on the innermost tracks that are not served by a platform.

If you want to make maximum use of the line, then run the largest gauge trains, that way you don't have to run as many of them to move the same number of people. I believe a similar approach was used in the 1970s by the airlines when they opted for capacity of B747s rather than the small fast Concordes.

Andy

[Kris]

The analogy between the 474 and Concorde doesn't quite work Andy as there is no reason why a high speed train can't carry large numbers of people.

[Edwin_m]

The simplest solution to a UIC gauge route would indeed be to run UIC gauge passenger trains. However when converting an existing route there is a huge transitional issue, because not only can the new trains not run past the existing platforms but the existing trains can't serve the new platforms either - stepping distances would be too great. So the only option is to suspend service while all the platforms are rebuilt, re-opening with a new fleet of trains.

 

This of course ony works if the trains don't need to run onto other un-converted routes, when the alternative would be to have a fleet that can serve both types of platform with moveable steps, like Eurostar and some of the trains proposed for HS2. I'm not sure how well this would work for a commuter train though, since the doors get much heavier use.

 

Adjustable platforms might work for occasional services but when freight and passenger continually mix at intervals of a few minutes it's not a workable option. You'd need to modify the full 12 cars worth of platform and if any one section failed in the extended position it would block the line until someone could get out to fix it. Interlaced (gauntleted) tracks are another option used in a few places in the States, but the extra width probably isn't easily available at many WCML stations.

 

If you could split the four-track WCML into separate freight and passenger tracks that would work as well - you;'d probably need a flyover in either the Willesden or Road areas to minimise conflicts. However even with HS2 I doubt that all remaining WCML passenger trains could use the same pair of tracks, since there will still be a need for fastish trains to places like Milton Keynes as well as commuter services. You'd also lose the benefit of being able to close one pair of tracks at quieter times for engineering access.

 

For all these reasons I personally think something like the Central Railway route might be needed in the very long term, primarily for UIC gauge freight but perhaps also for passengers using UIC gauge trains on those sections where there is no parallel service on the national network. However HS2 makes this less likely by removing one of the two reasons (capacity) why this is needed.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for the clarification Edwin.

 

I am still not sure why a high speed train with a small capacity for moving people would be the best option.

 

If the requirement is for a passenger line, the different widths of the trains is not an insurmountable problem. As there would not be many stops/stations on the line, then the simple solution would be to have adjustable platforms that expand laterally and vertically to adjust to the different loading gauges. In fact my local line has a manual system on Sundays whereby a small walkway is extended to trains stopping on the innermost tracks that are not served by a platform.

If you want to make maximum use of the line, then run the largest gauge trains, that way you don't have to run as many of them to move the same number of people. I believe a similar approach was used in the 1970s by the airlines when they opted for capacity of B747s rather than the small fast Concordes.

Andy

Edwin has already answered some of this but a few points to add I think. Presumably HS2 will be built to a UIC gauge for interoperability reasons (and it would later be logical to link to HS1 by a similarly gauged link). The big question will relate to platforms but logically - as on HS 1 - they would be built to UIC standards and trains would have steps (as per Eurostar to cater for this if they were also going to run over UK gauge lines and to UK height platforms). All of that is readily available rock-solid reliable technology which has been around for years with very few failures in traffic and I don't think any of those failures have been in the 'wrong side' category to the extent they actually posed any risk. But, as Edwin has said, I doubt it would be ideal for high density commuter trains.

 

The idea of 'movable' platforms would be far more complex and require interlocking with a sophisticated signalling and train identification system which would increase technical risk and raise costs so it strikes me as a non-runner. It would also pose the problem of dealing with any people who might happen to be on the platform when it has to be 'moved'

 

As far as capacity is concerned I'm not at all sure where the idea of 'a high speed train with a small capacity for moving people' has come from as that is the antithesis of many contemporary European high-speed trains especially a Eurostar which has a seating capacity in excess of of a pair of Boeing 747-400s while a TGV Duplex can seat 545 and the earlier designs can seat in excess of 300/350 people. Thus even older TGV style trains running on a 3 minute headway would theoretically be capable of shifting in excess of 6,000 people per hour (which would no doubt overwhelm the terminals unless they were designed to handle that number) while a Eurostar clone (capacity wise) could move over 16,000 per hour and has already handled c1,600 through a terminal on a 3 minute headway. I doubt if there's any other sort of long distance passenger transport that could match that short of A380s taking-off at 2 minute intervals.

[Edwin_m]

HS2 will indeed be to European gauge, but only GB+ I think, with Euro-height platforms like HS1 (there are actually two standard Euro-heights but let's not go there).

 

The reports talk about two types of trains - standard Euro-trains that can only (in the UK) run on HS2 (and probably HS1 and any connecting line), and a hybrid type* that can also run on the UK infrastructure where electrified at 25kV. These will be to UK gauge with moveable steps. The Eurostars could do the hybrid role with some modifications, but they will be 30 years old by the time HS2 opens so a new fleet is envisaged.

 

Initially we will have Euro-trains between London and Birmingham and the hybrid fleet will run to Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow using HS2 as far as Lichfield. When HS2 extends to Manchester and Leeds, more Euro-trains will be introduced and the hybrids will still serve Glasgow but will be cascaded onto Newcastle and Edinburgh services. This suggests a fleet size of around 50 units, and because they are a non-standard design they will cost a lot more than the other fleet.

 

*I don't think they call it that but sorry I can't face wading through the reports to check! Nothing to do with dual power sources in this context.

[The Stationmaster]

The reports talk about two types of trains - standard Euro-trains that can only (in the UK) run on HS2 (and probably HS1 and any connecting line), and a hybrid type* that can also run on the UK infrastructure where electrified at 25kV. These will be to UK gauge with moveable steps. The Eurostars could do the hybrid role with some modifications, but they will be 30 years old by the time HS2 opens so a new fleet is envisaged.

And a lot of the technology around which the Eurostar was built is considerably older than that!

[dmustu]

I went to one of the HS2 road shows sometime ago and the chap from the dft I spoke to about it said that it would be built to the same loading gauge as HS1, which is the same as the french high speed lines, so something like a tgv duplex could happily run on HS1 and 2. He also said that the bit of north london line that would connect HS1 to HS2 would be gauge enhanced to the same loading gauge as the high speed lines (would be a bit silly if it wasn't!).

[Kris]

Todays latest update http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16453869

[Re6/6]

Todays latest update http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16453869

 

Looking encouraging.

 

If this "Critics have argued that overcrowding can be eased by improving the existing line, running longer trains and having fewer first-class carriages."

is the best alternative then it's a pretty weak argument.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Looking encouraging.

 

If this "Critics have argued that overcrowding can be eased by improving the existing line, running longer trains and having fewer first-class carriages."

is the best alternative then it's a pretty weak argument.

It's very much the same old hoary chestnuts that are used as means of capacity increase and as the Southern (Railway and Region) found over the years they do work up to a certain point but there comes a time when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits - which would I reckon be undoubtedly the case on parts of the WCML, especially in some of the urban areas.

[Tim Hale]

I once watched a regional 'news' slot concerning a NIMBY (blow-in) decrying the use of a wind-turbine that was 1500m from her property and out of her eyeline blocked by a belt of trees.

 

Her objection was the 'whistling and hum' from the turbine- at which point the news team attempted to capture the racket - absolute silence except the noise of the wind in the trees (above)

 

Her response to the lack of noise was ' they (turbines) only make noises at night' - at which point a slight sniggering was heard from a member of the news team.

 

Tim

[steve fay]

^{Its about time this project was given the go ahead.}

^{All three political partys where pushing High Speed rail in the manifestos in the run up to the election. Now the current government are dragging there feet because it seems they are being held back by there own MPs. In wealthy areas.}

^{We need a way to get the economy going, create jobs and improve our infrastructure and a long term project like this is the key.}

^{Being a railway enthusiast does meke me a little bias but surely large scale projects like this is what the country needs right now.}

^{The capacity on the existing network is at saturation. Why oh why cant they just get on with it.}

[melmerby]

I notice the objectors are still banging the same old drum that you could upgrade the West Coast line to get the extra capacity that HS2 would provide.

(as mentioned above)

 

They don't seem to appreciate (or just want to ignore, more likely) the problem of putting extra tracks in would entail, which is the only way the extra capacity could be provided.

Or is it just Nimbyism without substance, i.e keep on repeating the same (discredited) logic and somebody might eventually listen!

 

Keith

Edited January 7, 2012 by melmerby