HS2

[Joseph_Pestell]

7 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

According so Wikipedia, Newcastle to/ from London will be 2h19, down from 2h52 via today's ECML. And Newcastle to Birmingham will be 2h07 down from 3h14 (more stops I guess, probably running via classic lines to Chesterfield, since Leeds HS2 will be a South facing terminus).

 

Though journey times aren't really the point, those are worthwhile savings.

 

Yes, if we assume that no improvement can be made to times down the ECML.

 

If 15 mins could be knocked off via the ECML (difficult certainly), then the gain of going to London via HS2 is only 17 minutes. That is right at the margins of significant gain (15 minutes). So I would suggest that capacity on HS2 would be better used elsewhere, particularly as Newcastle will have to be served by a train compatible with the traditional network, so potentially only 37% of the capacity of a "captive" HS2 train. It probably makes sense politically but the economics don't add up.

[Zomboid]

But with HS2 cutting 30 minutes from the schedule there's no need to accelerate the ECML south of York. Quite the reverse in fact, if 110mph became the normal speed with more stops, the capacity of the ECML could be increased and the intermediate stations given a much more frequent service. It would also become possible to provide a more frequent ECML service to places like Hull and Lincoln. Even keeping 125 and not having the non-stop trains to worry about would enable a significant enhancement to the service at the intermediate stations.

 

I really can't see where 15 minutes is going to come from on the ECML without some major investment, which is exactly what HS2 is going to achieve.

 

There should be no reason why a classic compatible train couldn't couple to a HS2 "captive" train for the East Mids/ Crewe/ Birmingham to London run once capacity there becomes an issue.

[jamie92208]

50 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

According so Wikipedia, Newcastle to/ from London will be 2h19, down from 2h52 via today's ECML. And Newcastle to Birmingham will be 2h07 down from 3h14 (more stops I guess, probably running via classic lines to Chesterfield, since Leeds HS2 will be a South facing terminus).

 

Though journey times aren't really the point, those are worthwhile savings.

If a Newcastle Birmingham service missed out Leeds it would access GS2 at Church Fenton. Even if it went via Leeds I think that there is going to be a connection to HS2 in the Hunslet area so such a service would be able to use the existing Leeds station. However they would have to wire up Colton Junction to Osmondthorpe and Holbeck to Stourton as well.

 

Jamie

[Mike Storey]

2 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

If a Newcastle Birmingham service missed out Leeds it would access GS2 at Church Fenton. Even if it went via Leeds I think that there is going to be a connection to HS2 in the Hunslet area so such a service would be able to use the existing Leeds station. However they would have to wire up Colton Junction to Osmondthorpe and Holbeck to Stourton as well.

 

Jamie

 

I believe the planned connection (if not altered in Shapp's search for economies in Phase 2B) is to be triangular, so it does not necessarily follow that any conventional track will need further enhancement. But, the Northern Powerhouse "plans" are to be integrated, so who knows?

 

[royaloak]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Yes, if we assume that no improvement can be made to times down the ECML.

 

If 15 mins could be knocked off via the ECML (difficult certainly), then the gain of going to London via HS2 is only 17 minutes. That is right at the margins of significant gain (15 minutes). So I would suggest that capacity on HS2 would be better used elsewhere, particularly as Newcastle will have to be served by a train compatible with the traditional network, so potentially only 37% of the capacity of a "captive" HS2 train. It probably makes sense politically but the economics don't add up.

The Fast trains wont be on the ECML though will they, they will be on HS2 so why waste money trying to speed up the ECML?

[pete_mcfarlane]

The diversion of the Leeds/Newcastle/Scotland trains off the ECML is all about freeing up capacity at the Southern end, rather than speed. 

[melmerby]

I see the latest report from the Govt is that they (D fT) have had no contact with the Chinese.

That apparently is directly with HS2 Ltd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51521965

[Ian Hargrave]

32 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I see the latest report from the Govt is that they (D fT) have had no contact with the Chinese.

That apparently is directly with HS2 Ltd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51521965

 
Which was Grant Shapps response to Andrew Marr this morning when the subject was raised.His response played down the possibility of this happening.

[Joseph_Pestell]

14 hours ago, royaloak said:

The Fast trains wont be on the ECML though will they, they will be on HS2 so why waste money trying to speed up the ECML?

 

Probably. But it is a stupid waste of expensively created capacity on HS2 unless those Newcastle trains are joined to something else for the run down the main section of HS2 (and even then they are not making optimal use of the capacity because they have to be single deck to be compatible with the classic network.).

 

Capacity will already be freed up on ECML by Leeds trains (which can be full length D-D using HS2) and Edinburgh trains down the WCML.

[Joseph_Pestell]

42 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
Which was Grant Shapps response to Andrew Marr this morning when the subject was raised.His response played down the possibility of this happening.

 

I was really disappointed by Andy this morning. His questions showed a shocking level of ignorance and confusion.

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I was really disappointed by Andy this morning. His questions showed a shocking level of ignorance and confusion.

It’s not just Andrew Marr, most TV journalists ( not to mention their radio and print colleagues) give the distinct impression that they don’t actually understand what HS2 is, or why it has been deemed necessary to build it.

 

.

[Butler Henderson]

16 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

It’s not just Andrew Marr, most TV journalists ( not to mention their radio and print colleagues) give the distinct impression that they don’t actually understand what HS2 is, or why it has been deemed necessary to build it.

Does that go for most things to do with railways. I presume at least he did ask how the trains would be steered!

[jjb1970]

26 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

It’s not just Andrew Marr, most TV journalists ( not to mention their radio and print colleagues) give the distinct impression that they don’t actually understand what HS2 is, or why it has been deemed necessary to build it.

 

.

 

The really worrying thing is that it isn't just generalist like Marr, very few journalists working for specialist publications really seem to understand their subject any more. I (unfortunately) have to speak to journalists about shipping and air pollution issues a lot and even though most of them work for ostensibly respectable publications very very few know their subject.  Dear old Roger Ford is very much the exception. 

[corneliuslundie]

I was a specialist technical journalist and I never pretended to know much about my subjects (lighting and building services). I relied on knowing who to ask. No journalist can ever have more than a smattering of knowledge about

everything they have to report on.

That does not excuse some of the very poor journalism one sees though. The job is to find out and then explain it for the readers.

Jonathan

[Joseph_Pestell]

16 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I was a specialist technical journalist and I never pretended to know much about my subjects (lighting and building services). I relied on knowing who to ask. No journalist can ever have more than a smattering of knowledge about

everything they have to report on.

That does not excuse some of the very poor journalism one sees though. The job is to find out and then explain it for the readers.

Jonathan

 

All well and good knowing the right person to ask. But how does that help if you don't know enough to formulate the right question?

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I was a specialist technical journalist and I never pretended to know much about my subjects (lighting and building services). I relied on knowing who to ask. No journalist can ever have more than a smattering of knowledge about

everything they have to report on.

That does not excuse some of the very poor journalism one sees though. The job is to find out and then explain it for the readers.

Jonathan

Anybody else spot the obvious parallel with government ministers?

 

The only difference would seem to be the lack of pretence...

 

John

Edited February 16, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[jjb1970]

I think a big part of the problem is the Internet, there are so many sources of free information and blogs that many traditional sources of information have slashed costs to try and compete. Made worse by a need to keep stories down to a couple of hundred (simple) words and hand everything off a provocative headline. More and more news and media is little more than click bait. Some of the publications I am familiar with fired their experience writers to cut costs and now rely on people whose skills start and end with repackaging press handouts.

There used to be a paper called Lloyd's List, it was a heavy weight broadsheet and paper of record for an industry,  now it is a website peddling clickbait. I am a member of two engineering institutions,  one maintains a high standard in its publications,  the others publications are frankly embarrassing. I find it all rather sad as I remember a time not that long ago when some of these publications were very highly respected. 

[EmporiaSub]

4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I think a big part of the problem is the Internet, there are so many sources of free information and blogs that many traditional sources of information have slashed costs to try and compete. 

And if repeated enough times on the internet, becomes the ‘truth’....

[melmerby]

39 minutes ago, EmporiaSub said:

And if repeated enough times on the internet, becomes the ‘truth’....

And ends up on Wikipedia...........

[Fat Controller]

19 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I was a specialist technical journalist and I never pretended to know much about my subjects (lighting and building services). I relied on knowing who to ask. No journalist can ever have more than a smattering of knowledge about

everything they have to report on.

That does not excuse some of the very poor journalism one sees though. The job is to find out and then explain it for the readers.

Jonathan

It cuts the other way as well; competent scientists and engineers who can communicate to a lay audience are pretty thin on the ground.

[Glorious NSE]

23 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Probably. But it is a stupid waste of expensively created capacity on HS2 unless those Newcastle trains are joined to something else for the run down the main section of HS2 (and even then they are not making optimal use of the capacity because they have to be single deck to be compatible with the classic network.).

You are predicating "waste" on not filling all capacity from day 1 - if it was believed that capacity was necessary from day 1 then it's being dreadfully under-specced!

In reality, it uses most train paths from the start of Ph1, but there will be capacity for a couple more train paths, and doubling sets, and doubling decks in future if needed.

I don't see that as a bad thing or a "waste" in any way, rather that building it in such a way that you have no room for growth would be the waste!

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just now, Glorious NSE said:

You are predicating "waste" on not filling all capacity from day 1 - if it was believed that capacity was necessary from day 1 then it's being dreadfully under-specced!

In reality, it uses most train paths from the start of Ph1, but there will be capacity for a couple more train paths, and doubling sets, and doubling decks in future if needed.

I don't see that as a bad thing or a "waste" in any way, rather that building it in such a way that you have no room for growth would be the waste!

 

So you would suggest "classic compatible" trains from Newcastle to begin with. And then, as capacity becomes an issue, put the Newcastle traffic back on to the ECML. A bit of a hard sell, perhaps?

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 16/02/2020 at 10:56, pete_mcfarlane said:

The diversion of the Leeds/Newcastle/Scotland trains off the ECML is all about freeing up capacity at the Southern end, rather than speed. 

 

I can absolutely get this in respect of Edinburgh and Leeds. Not only does it free up ECML capacity (avoiding the need to deal with the Welwyn bottleneck, local MP, G. Shapps) but the passengers will see a worthwhile journey time reduction. Newcastle does not have that advantage.

 

Leeds, with its own HS2 station can use "captive" trains, double-deck. Edinburgh can't do that but the Edinburgh trains could combine at Crewe (or Wigan) with another 10-car single-deck set to make reasonably good use of track capacity on the HS2 core (about 30% less than a 20-car double-deck set).

 

Newcastle does not get a good enough time saving to justify the potential wasted capacity. With most Leeds and Edinburgh services removed from ECML, plenty of space there for improved Newcastle services.

[Zomboid]

When capacity on HS2 becomes an issue, then portion working of the classic compatible trains becomes a necessity.

 

They manage it on the Tohoku Shinkansen, with "Classic Compatible" trains running to Akita and Yamagata as portions coupled to "Captive" trains.

 

And who knows, maybe by then the necessary enhancements beyond Leeds to enable larger gauge trains to run could be justified. Or even an extension of the high speed lines to the north east of England (and beyond to Edinburgh & Glasgow that way). Actually needing double deck trains on HS2 isn't seen as a requirement for the first batch of stock, so any such issue is decades away, by when a lot of things could have changed.

[Glorious NSE]

31 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

So you would suggest "classic compatible" trains from Newcastle to begin with. And then, as capacity becomes an issue, put the Newcastle traffic back on to the ECML. A bit of a hard sell, perhaps?

Not at all - as per Zomboid's post, as that capacity becomes critical you have several options.