HS2 under review

[Christopher125]

4 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Trains without tilt are no good north of Wigan because of the twisty route plus Scotland is never going to finance a HS route they spend their money on projects that benefit their people ie. more electrification and improved intercity services.The  time gains will be lost by the time you arrive in Glasgow but I seem to remember reading a long time ago that signalling on the EC route was set up for 140mph running or was it all canned to save money.If it is still in the system maybe then these trains could go to Edinborough vi this route. 

 

HS2 will still cut Euston-Glasgow by around an hour - IIRC the non-tilt penalty is something like 11-15mins on the northern WCML, but the Scottish government are keen to see capacity and linespeed improvements.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Christopher125

[Edwin_m]

Quote

 

Please ignore - first time I've used the quote button on the new site and it didn't work!  See post below. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Edwin_m

[Edwin_m]

6 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

HS2 will still cut Euston-Glasgow by around an hour - IIRC the non-tilt penalty is something like 11-15mins on the northern WCML, but the Scottish government are keen to see capacity and linespeed improvements.

Also the permitted speed for non-tilting trains are no more than 110mph, simply because nobody has wanted to run a 125mph non-tilt train badly enough to investigate whether it could run faster.  That investigation is now somewhere in the pipeline and should result in some time saving for non-tilting trains on the northern WCML.  For example there are longish straightish sections either side of Preston and around Lockerbie. 

 

Reducing the speed differential between passenger trains (slower ones a bit faster, faster ones a bit slower) may also create a bit more capacity for freight. 

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Also the permitted speed for non-tilting trains are no more than 110mph, simply because nobody has wanted to run a 125mph non-tilt train badly enough to investigate whether it could run faster.  That investigation is now somewhere in the pipeline and should result in some time saving for non-tilting trains on the northern WCML.  For example there are longish straightish sections either side of Preston and around Lockerbie. 

 

Reducing the speed differential between passenger trains (slower ones a bit faster, faster ones a bit slower) may also create a bit more capacity for freight. 

 

The Beattock/Lockerbie section has been used for high speed testing in the past, so raising the line speed is certainly possible.

 

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Trains without tilt are no good north of Wigan because of the twisty route plus Scotland is never going to finance a HS route they spend their money on projects that benefit their people ie. more electrification and improved intercity services.The  time gains will be lost by the time you arrive in Glasgow but I seem to remember reading a long time ago that signalling on the EC route was set up for 140mph running or was it all canned to save money.If it is still in the system maybe then these trains could go to Edinborough vi this route. 

 

Given the whole rationale for HS2 is CAPACITY NOT SPEED, then the fact that the overall end to end journey time from London Euston to Glasgow vis HS2 and the WCML on non tilting trains won’t be any better than now is of no particular relevance. Passengers from Preston and Lancaster will still benefit from quicker journeys with HS2 and sending HS2 services onwards to Scotland from there is more to do with optimising passenger services in a post HS2 world.

 

Granted, in such a situation passengers from Preston to Glasgow would see their journeys get longer through the use of non tilt trains, but when looking at the overal picture the number of passengers affected is likely to be far less than the number of passengers who will gain from the extra capacity and the diversion of fast services away from the southern part of the WCML.

 

I quite agree that Scotland is not going to invest in a HS style line south - but that has nothing to do with your ‘vanity project’ hints / accusations and everything to do with passenger numbers not stacking up. Glasgow and Edinburgh May be big cities but I would bet that in terms of passenger numbers combined, they still fall well short of the number of London to Manchester passengers. I believe that under the current timetable (which is constrained by a lack of WCML track capacity) Manchester gets up to four well filled Virgin services per hour while Glasgow only demands one.

 

As for 140mph signalling on the ECML - the ONLY section which had it fitted (via the use of flashing greens) was the short section between Peterborough and Grantham. Moreover the ORR and their predecessors REFUSED to let it be used for passenger services (i.e. the 140mph increase in speed could only be used by test trains - all passenger services had to stick to the 125mph regardless) citing concerns over drivers reaction times and the readability of lineside signals from the cab at such high speeds. Consequently ‘in cab’ signaling systems which do not rely on the observation of lineside signaling is mandatory for line speeds over 125mph - and such technology is not yet installed anywhere on the ECML.

 

Given this, and the fact the Darlington - Edinburgh section of the ECML actually has a fair few curves bits in its own right meaning much less 125mph running than you might assume, there would be no time saving (indeed it would probably still take longer) on London - Glasgow runs by sending non tilt HS2 trains via the East Midlands leg and the ECML north of York compared to a non tilt HS2 trains running via the WCML over Shap, etc

 

 

[Edwin_m]

Actually speed is in some ways more important for London to Glasgow/Edinburgh than for the shorter journeys that will be totally on HS2. 

 

The rule of thumb for high speed rail is that once the rail journey time falls below 3hr most of the air traffic goes to rail.  Although the air journey is quicker there is time spent at the airport and some people also need more time to get to the airport than the station.  All the main English stations planned to have HS2 service are within that 3hr, but Glasgow and Edinburgh are at around 3hr 45min.  In recent years the critical time threshold may have crept above 3hr with increased airport security to contend with, so relatively small time savings (or indeed relatively small increases if HS2 is slowed down) could be quite significant for rail passenger numbers and for reducing aviation emissions. 

[Legend]

I think its unlikely a cost benefit analysis would conclude a High Speed Line to Scotland is feasible . That said there may be political considerations to keeping the country united, but better not go into that, it would certainly stifle the usual grudge that all the money is spent down south .

 

I'm hoping that for limited expense (which would still be expensive but not as much per mile as HS2) we could upgrade existing lines to give incremental increases in speed ,in much the same way as the Eastern Region of BR used to do .  Improvements here and there to reduce overall journey time . We will obviously benefit from increased speeds down south . Could cab signaling be introduced on stretches to give 140mph running . the stretch between Lockerbie and Beattock  has already been mentioned.

 

The 3hr level where people transition from air to train has been mentioned . I think that has to be the target.  Like Edwin I wouldn't be surprised if that has grown a little given congestion getting to both Edinburgh and Glasgow Airports , security etc . Also the airways are congested . I can remember the flight time Glasgow to Heathrow was 55mins by BEA Trident . I think the last time I flew down 1 hr 30 mins was allowed , and it was late!

[lmsforever]

With flying add on time before flying and then time actually getting from the plane into whicyou want to be and can then hever city you are traveling to and rail is competitive now .All the terminals around the UK are in the centre of the relevant cities and you arrive just where you want to be and can then take the next step of your trip easily.People are brainwashed into flying between cities in the UK only thinking of the time in the air not the total time .Also on the train you can relax properly and have a walk around if you want to and you can see the view outside if your lucky.Everytime I travel northwards the trains are packed and return trips equally so a lot of people are being sensible even without HS.

[jamie92208]

I don't know the exact figures but I believe that the only major internal passenger flow by air, within the Mainland UK, is London to Edinburgh/Glasgow. Most of the others are marginal.   London/Leeds struggles but only keeps going because it takes you direct to Heathrow for connections.  I strongly suspect that a modest reduction in journey time between London and Scotland after HS2 opens in full, would spell the end of most air traffic on that route.

 

Jamie

[Mike Storey]

I have been reading through the latest bidding info (as much as is available) and the DfT's current expectations of speeds and journey times (subject to whatever recommendation is made if cost reductions are needed) Post Phase 2 completion.

 

Top operational speed is currently designed to be 224 mph.

 

Average journey times from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh are expected to be 3hrs 38mins, compared to averages today of 4hrs 32 and 4hrs 23 respectively, a 20% reduction for Glasgow, 17% for Edinburgh, and there are no declared infrastructure changes off HS2, bar those few minor works already in progress or planned, to achieve those timings.

 

However, ETCS (ERTMS Level 2) is starting to be rolled out on the ECML, Level 2 being the minimum requirement for running at speeds above 125 mph. The contract for the London to Grantham section was tendered last Autumn, with award expected in the Spring. However, the plan has already been rolled back from the initial aspiration to do London to Doncaster as the first phase, so goodness knows when it will reach the ECML north of York. (They may not, of course, do this on a linear basis, so it could come before Doncaster for example).

 

At least one bidder (Alstom) may well offer a tilting version of the classic compatible version (initial tranche), which could well reduce those timings, but one could assume at higher capital and operational cost.

 

Energy consumption, expressed as traction power costs, is expected to be just slightly less than double that of current operations at 125 mph maximum. However, more than one bidder is predicting a 30% reduction in those costs.

 

The over-riding justification for building anything at all, is that Network Rail forecast that the WCML will be "full" by 2024 (i.e. unable to take any further train paths) south of Crewe, for either passenger or freight services, and that demand will continue to rise. The business case for so doing is aided significantly by the gains in modal share generated by high speed operation, and if construction cost constraints increase the planned journey times and significantly affect the business case, then the original Act will have to return to Parliament (not clear whether this means a full Commons votable amendment or just HMG as the Executive, as an increase in costs, which of course will also affect the Business Case, does not seem to require full parliamentary approval, although this is arguable). One could therefore imagine a scenario where, if GDP forecasts are reduced significantly, that cancellation is strongly considered, as it would appear that the BC would fall to negative.

 

Quite what would happen to UK railway operations subsequently is a mystery. Unless suppressed demand does fall, or remain static, in the long term (which nobody is yet forecasting), one could envisage a situation where demand is deliberately further priced off, even more than it is now, to obviate any further taxpayers' money being expended beyond existing, incremental enhancement and renewal.

 

Whatever anyone wishes would happen, it is improbable that HS2 money would be diverted to grander schemes on the existing railway - the business case would fail instantly, given the emphasis placed by so many on the adequacy of the BC for HS2. That much is clear from any reading of alternative options considered some years ago, and their corresponding ROC's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Mike Storey

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, lmsforever said:

With flying add on time before flying and then time actually getting from the plane into whicyou want to be and can then hever city you are traveling to and rail is competitive now .All the terminals around the UK are in the centre of the relevant cities and you arrive just where you want to be and can then take the next step of your trip easily.People are brainwashed into flying between cities in the UK only thinking of the time in the air not the total time .Also on the train you can relax properly and have a walk around if you want to and you can see the view outside if your lucky.Everytime I travel northwards the trains are packed and return trips equally so a lot of people are being sensible even without HS.

There is however a problem with that idea.  A question was asked years back why BR, unlike SNCF, did not run early morning trains on various long distance routes from London?  And the answer- even back then - was that people tended to live in the city. centres in France, particularly Paris, whereas in Britain most business travellers, the folk who would use such trains. tended to live in the suburbs and therefore had to first get to the city centre station in order to use such trains.

 

It was noticeable - and i'm going back a good many years - that when the 07.30 Paddington - Plymouth was introduced long distance travel on it from London took a very long time to develop although it developed much earlier from Reading.  And this suburban/commuter belt spread can benefit airports considerably - for example I can get to Heathrow by taxi in less than half the time it takes to get to St Pancras (for Eurostar).  Last week my son had to go to Paris for a meeting and to get there in time he had to be on the 06.54 from St Pancras, which meant leaving home not long after 04.00 to catch a train into London. he could have left almost 90 minutes later if he was taking a flight from Heathrow.  As it worked out Gare du Nord was more convenient for his destination in Paris and the cost of going by Eurostar was less than the airfare plus he could have a more relaxing return journey.  

 

But the crux of any travel choice, particularly for business travel is where you will start from and where you want to get to and for many journeys going via the city centre from/to home is less convenient than getting to an airport, even if their destination happens to be more convenient for a major railway station than an airport.  It will often boil down to where you live rather than anything else.

[cunningduck]

3 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I don't know the exact figures but I believe that the only major internal passenger flow by air, within the Mainland UK, is London to Edinburgh/Glasgow. Most of the others are marginal.   London/Leeds struggles but only keeps going because it takes you direct to Heathrow for connections.  I strongly suspect that a modest reduction in journey time between London and Scotland after HS2 opens in full, would spell the end of most air traffic on that route.

 

Jamie

 

I think that Glasgow/Edinburgh to Exeter/Bristol/Southampton are all profitable, judging by the amount of services per day and passenger loading as when I’ve used them!

[frobisher]

On 12/02/2019 at 21:51, locoholic said:

Yes, I know, although the wind resistance is proportional to the square of the speed.

 

Not sure what your point is about power consumption. If the train has a higher operating speed, it uses a lot more energy to reach that speed.

 

Wind resistance is proportional to the square of the speed within turbulent flow, with non-turbulent flow it is proportional to speed - and it's somewhere in between for the cases somewhere in between.  Decent aerodynamics will keep it near the non-squared end.

 

When the energy is coming from the national grid, you're more concerned with the rate of power consumption rather than how much energy is used overall (hint, it's NOT a battery).

 

Also, regenerative braking puts a large chunk of that energy back into the grid in any case...

 

[locoholic]

25 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Wind resistance is proportional to the square of the speed within turbulent flow, with non-turbulent flow it is proportional to speed - and it's somewhere in between for the cases somewhere in between.  Decent aerodynamics will keep it near the non-squared end.

 

When the energy is coming from the national grid, you're more concerned with the rate of power consumption rather than how much energy is used overall (hint, it's NOT a battery).

 

Also, regenerative braking puts a large chunk of that energy back into the grid in any case...

 

Do train companies not get charged for how much electricity they use, like the rest of us do?

 

With High Speed rail, if you try to limit the power consumption by accelerating more slowly, then you spend much less time at the design speed and therefore derive less benefit from spending all that money making trains that will go fast. Or, you can skimp on the design as well, and have traction motors and OHLE that can't deliver rapid acceleration, but journey times will be compromised.

 

i'm not against High Speed rail. I just don't think it's honest to present it as being no more financially or environmentally costly than conventional rail.

[Mike Storey]

28 minutes ago, locoholic said:

Do train companies not get charged for how much electricity they use, like the rest of us do?

 

With High Speed rail, if you try to limit the power consumption by accelerating more slowly, then you spend much less time at the design speed and therefore derive less benefit from spending all that money making trains that will go fast. Or, you can skimp on the design as well, and have traction motors and OHLE that can't deliver rapid acceleration, but journey times will be compromised.

 

i'm not against High Speed rail. I just don't think it's honest to present it as being no more financially or environmentally costly than conventional rail.

 

OK - let's tackle the financial issue:

 

Slow the trains down and more sets will be needed. I hope that is taken as a given? I have used the classic compatible, 200m sets, as currently tendered, for these figures. 

 

The estimation used, at 2011 prices, for traction power costs, in the HS2 risk analysis is £3.90 per Km travelled on HS2 at a max speed of 224 mph, and £2 for the same on conventional tracks at existing speed limits (taken from aggregation of Pendolino and Mark IV set operational costs for the latter).

 

The estimated operational cost, per Km travelled, of running each extra train (under the same situation) is estimated at c. £7.20, taken from a combination of train crew costs, allocated overheads and insurance, and pro rata per Km maintenance cost. It is acknowledged that trains running at lower speeds will not achieve the same Km per day as at higher speeds, but the difficulty in adjusting the figures surrounds what that reduction will be. But that really only affects maintenance costs, as crew costs are on a per day basis.

 

This does not appear to include mid-life refurbishment costs, or other in-life modifications.

 

This does not include the difference between infrastructure costs saved by lower speeds or increased capital expenditure of additional train sets, both of which remain unknowns, although assumptions for the latter are included in the risk assessment - c.£40m per train for 200m sets, or around £60m for 260m sets envisaged as needed post Phase 2 (I do not actually understand that uplift).

 

It is clear that extra trains cost more than additional energy per Km travelled, even if the numbers are 50% out. There is an argument around environmental issues, but that very much depends on energy sources, which are changing radically, and the increased energy efficiency of traction packages now on offer since these calculations were originally undertaken. I am not sure what or whom is being accused as dishonest.

 

I attach a link to the risk assessment document for anyone to work out for themselves. 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69741/hs2-cost-and-risk-model-report.pdf

 

[Northmoor]

On 12/02/2019 at 12:48, phil-b259 said:

Finally as regards passenger loadings - obviously initially the trains will not be full - added to which the line itself will only be half finished (i.e. The leg through the East Midlands and on to Yorkshire not being completed for a further decade after the initial phase). However a historical study of transport infrastructure, be it road or rail shows that its very much a 'build it and they will come syndrome'. Many rail reopening on the classic network show this trend with actual ridership on the borders rail line far exceeding the 'projected' numbers being bandied around before it was built

Very true, it's interesting how far out some of the predictions can be.  Bathgate, re-opened three decades ago, I believe reached it's conservative first year target in a few months.

Conversely, preserved railways similarly misjudge passenger numbers, but almost invariably in the other direction.  I started a study back in 2000 - and have been compiling data ever since - of traffic on heritage lines.  There are so many that decades after opening, haven't got close to the numbers predicted, despite having achieved the re-opened line they'd planned.  Being out by a factor of three to five, isn't unusual.  There are also some which are carrying considerably less than they did a generation ago.

[Arun Sharma]

Rather interestingly and not surprisingly last night's BBC Question Time from Aylesbury had the old chestnut, "Whither HS2". 

Not one member of the audience nor one member of the panel, which included the founder of Wikipedia as well as Fiona Bruce [who lives in the area] and a couple of well known MPs, mentioned [or gave any sign of comprehending] what we on here understand the purpose of HS2 to be viz., freeing up track paths on existing ECML & WCML lines so that increased freight and stopping services can run on them. 

The audience who appeared to be local to Aylesbury still had no comprehension of what the effect of turning HS2 into a fast but stopping service might be on the provision of tph between Euston and Curzon Street.

I don't know who is responsible for promoting HS2 and explaining to the people paying for it why it needs to exist but they are doing a pretty poor [expletive deleted] job!

 

[black and decker boy]

2 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

Rather interestingly and not surprisingly last night's BBC Question Time from Aylesbury had the old chestnut, "Whither HS2". 

Not one member of the audience nor one member of the panel, which included the founder of Wikipedia as well as Fiona Bruce [who lives in the area] and a couple of well known MPs, mentioned [or gave any sign of comprehending] what we on here understand the purpose of HS2 to be viz., freeing up track paths on existing ECML & WCML lines so that increased freight and stopping services can run on them. 

The audience who appeared to be local to Aylesbury still had no comprehension of what the effect of turning HS2 into a fast but stopping service might be on the provision of tph between Euston and Curzon Street.

I don't know who is responsible for promoting HS2 and explaining to the people paying for it why it needs to exist but they are doing a pretty poor [expletive deleted] job!

 

no point trying to explain to many people, they'll only ever hear what they want to hear and will only repeat what suits their angle.

 

so for the Chilterns, a fast service to benefit the north but not them isnt going to be listened too.

[lmsforever]

The audience was mainly Aylesbury people because it came from the Waterside Theatre in Aylesbury the publicity beforehand said bring two questions with you.Not surprised at HS2 questions because as you state publicity is appalling no details just occasionally drip fed bits of news no real news we want to know  just how we shall be affected by the construction especially as it will sever two of the busiest routes into town and how many lorries of earth will be passing through Aylesbury?  

[corneliuslundie]

Similarly in 'Shropshire one community is campaigning against HS" simply because some construction traffic will be generated in the area.

See a recent front page Shropshire Star headline.

Jonathan

[Mike Storey]

It will be what it will be. Either it gets built, or it doesn't. Frankly, I probably won;t be around when it does, but I will be around when it does not. That decision will determine whether or not the UK is determined to be world class, or just a nation of voxpop opportunism, for whatever makes the best short term soundbite for the politicians, or quick buck for the markets (and the various politicians who make a living from that - I presume I cannot suggest where the majority of those lie, or which European solution they favour, in non-compliance of this forum's rules).

 

No long term strategy for anything whatsoever, has ever had the support of the voter for more than a few years- the progenitors of the National Health Service and the introduction of the first nationwide social care services were voted out within five years, because people were fed up with rationing, despite the necessity for the national economy. I have no great expectations, especially given the horrendous reaction on here, from so-called railway enthusiasts.

 

[ess1uk]

On 13/02/2019 at 20:12, lmsforever said:

Trains without tilt are no good north of Wigan because of the twisty route plus Scotland is never going to finance a HS route they spend their money on projects that benefit their people ie. more electrification and improved intercity services.The  time gains will be lost by the time you arrive in Glasgow but I seem to remember reading a long time ago that signalling on the EC route was set up for 140mph running or was it all canned to save money.If it is still in the system maybe then these trains could go to Edinborough vi this route. 

Until ertms is installed on the ECML then no trains will run at 140mph. The same on the Wcml. 

 

[Il Grifone]

The blockers are out again!

(As far as I'm concerned since we are already at track capacity limits, HS2 is long overdue.) In any case it is a national prestige project.  We lost the APT through similar political interference/myopia.

 

In yesterday's Metro, we had David Davis spouting nonsense ( but then he is a politican so that's normal!) to the effect that we could replace the entire fleet of rolling stock for the cost of HS2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we they flog off all the rolling stock at a bargain price in the nineties, so that replacement is no longer the taxpayers problem? New stock would not solve the capacity problem anyway.

[Mike Storey]

8 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

The blockers are out again!

(As far as I'm concerned since we are already at track capacity limits, HS2 is long overdue.) In any case it is a national prestige project.  We lost the APT through similar political interference/myopia.

 

In yesterday's Metro, we had David Davis spouting nonsense ( but then he is a politican so that's normal!) to the effect that we could replace the entire fleet of rolling stock for the cost of HS2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we they flog off all the rolling stock at a bargain price in the nineties, so that replacement is no longer the taxpayers problem? New stock would not solve the capacity problem anyway.

 

David Davis has never done detail, or, well, anything, come to think of it.

 

[lmsforever]

HS2 at the moment is bumbling along in the long grass but soon it will have to come out into the daylight and prove that they and their supporters are right ,construction will probably follow the trend in the UK  and be hopelessly delayed.It will of course be way over budget and have to be bailed out numerous times this will stop any construction north of Birmingham and the perceived benefits will not happen.One thing that will happen is that the normal network will have services taken away and journey times lengthened so as to force passengers onto high speed,this is fact said at roadshows and by many and DAFT have agreed that this will happen.Instead of expresses the wcml and ec will be commuter lines and no use to long distance passengers who can join at convenient hubs today.Supporters can shout all they like HS2 will divide travel not aid it in the UK how far out will London commuters live and more important will they pay the fares to go into London the hubs around other cities will have smaller areas that passengers travel as today and will have investment to improve them.But long distance travel will be chopped down to one line that is not what we want in the UK choice works now but it is being sacficed for something we do not need.