HS2 under review

[Fat Controller]

A few years since I passed that way but the Picardy station car park was pretty full the last few times I passed by.  It was I believe partly a sop to Amiens but it is fairly well sited from a road network viewpoint as well and SNCF saw it as working in a very different way from being a simple 'Amiens Parkway' and that I understand has been the case.

 

I understand the Lille option for LGV Nord was something very much devised by the then Mayor of Lille (who I think was also in the national govt at the time) and he lobbied very hard for it - with the result we see today.  But it does have the advantage of providing a good route into Belgium as well of course although the originally proposed Amiens route would have eventually become part of the Belgian route.

 

The Amiens additional route was first proposed about 14 years ago and was very much a local push from Amiens who were seeing what had happened in Lille as a result of the way LGV Nord had been routed (there was story around in SNCF at one time that Amiens had been quite happy not to have the mainline of LGV Nord in view of the building work dislocation it would have brought but they gradually changed their tune as they saw what was happening in Lille.  Whether it will ever happen depends on lots of things - LGV Nord is still working well short of its original planned capacity with plenty of the paths that Eurostar have never taken up being there for other services (Eurostar would have been basically 4 trains an hour in each direction, 2 Paris and 2 Lille/Bruxelles) and I doubt that will ever happen.  And capacity could be increased by upgrading the signalling when (if?) the full all singing & dancing version of ERTMS arrives.  So a 'relief' route via Amiens I suspect might still be more of a glnt in someone's eye rather than an early project.

The French politician was Pierre Mauroy, who managed to combine the posts of mayor of Lille (1973-2001) and Prime Minister (1981-4). 

The 'gare des betteraves' (so called for the sugar-beet fields all around) , properly called 'Gare de Picardie' was located where it was because of a long-term project for a new autoroute from the Champagne region towards Le Havre; this has only been finished in the last year or two. 

One thing that has happened over the last few years is the development of commuter TGV services within the Lille area; there are services from Dunkerque and Calais to Lille Europe; one result of this has been it becoming very difficult to find parking space at Frethun, despite a second car park being built.

[lmsforever]

Calvert would be an ideal place for an interchange as looking at the maps its going to be a busy place with the maintainence depot, so adding a couple of platforms could be factored in easily.Access by train from Aylesbury ,Oxford,and Milton Keynes and points east will be in place way before HS2 starts running.I dont think car borne passengers will be so important by then as punitive fuel prices force more motorists from the roads.Also local buses would be improved thus offering even more travel opportunities from the areas off of rail routes ,many local villages and towns are growing and would provide a viable passenger base.But talking to the staff at the HS2 event they gave the impression that the design is set in stone and the wishes and hopes of people who live beside this project are not being considered.The government will have to talk to local people in a sensible way and not ignore us ,sensible discussion can take place as long as both sides are reasonable.HS2 is a juggernaut that will have to be slowed down so as all ways of laison and decision can be taken with due attention to the populations involved.PS even people from High Wycombe and south bucks will have easy acces.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have always supported a Calvert station on HS2. And I have also advocated a much lower top speed as the higher speeds impose far greater costs (financial and environmental) for very little gain (about 9 minutes on a journey to Birmingham).

 

A Heathrow branch does not look like a good use of route capacity if you think of it as purely serving the Airport. But think of it as serving West London and the Thames Valley and it becomes an entirely viable project. By putting the South Chiltern (High Wycombe) platforms of HS2 on the branch, you remove the capacity issues caused by an additional station on the main HS2 route.

 

Let's keep thinking outside the box. When the GWR was built, the original intention was to terminate at Euston. Perhaps it is the soon-to-be-electrified Bristol and South Wales services which should be diverted in tunnel to the new Euston platforms with HS2 taking over most of Paddington. A much cheaper option.

[Glorious NSE]

Not quite sure where your huge saving is going to come from in that...

 

You still need to build new track to Euston, so you still have to drill those tunnels. You still need more platforms at Euston, so you still have the land take there, but now you have to extend the platforms at Paddington also, so you're adding land-take there?

[GoingUnderground]

Calvert would be an ideal place for an interchange as looking at the maps its going to be a busy place with the maintainence depot, so adding a couple of platforms could be factored in easily.Access by train from Aylesbury ,Oxford,and Milton Keynes and points east will be in place way before HS2 starts running.I dont think car borne passengers will be so important by then as punitive fuel prices force more motorists from the roads.Also local buses would be improved thus offering even more travel opportunities from the areas off of rail routes ,many local villages and towns are growing and would provide a viable passenger base.But talking to the staff at the HS2 event they gave the impression that the design is set in stone and the wishes and hopes of people who live beside this project are not being considered.The government will have to talk to local people in a sensible way and not ignore us ,sensible discussion can take place as long as both sides are reasonable.HS2 is a juggernaut that will have to be slowed down so as all ways of laison and decision can be taken with due attention to the populations involved.PS even people from High Wycombe and south bucks will have easy acces.

 

You want to slow down progress on HS2? you're condemning yourself and others to an even longer peroid of uncertainty. Personally I thought you woudl have wanted ti to proceed as fast as possible to get it over and done with.

 

If there are going to be stations in Bucks, then would it not be better to serve them with Class 395 type trains operating a semi-fast service between London and Birmingham so that the good citizens of Bucks can join the core HS2 services at London or Birmingham?

 

 

I have always supported a Calvert station on HS2. And I have also advocated a much lower top speed as the higher speeds impose far greater costs (financial and environmental) for very little gain (about 9 minutes on a journey to Birmingham).

 

A Heathrow branch does not look like a good use of route capacity if you think of it as purely serving the Airport. But think of it as serving West London and the Thames Valley and it becomes an entirely viable project. By putting the South Chiltern (High Wycombe) platforms of HS2 on the branch, you remove the capacity issues caused by an additional station on the main HS2 route.

 

Let's keep thinking outside the box. When the GWR was built, the original intention was to terminate at Euston. Perhaps it is the soon-to-be-electrified Bristol and South Wales services which should be diverted in tunnel to the new Euston platforms with HS2 taking over most of Paddington. A much cheaper option.

 

Lowering the top speeds between London and Birmingham to save construction costs assumes that Birmingham is as far as HS2 will ever go. It totally ignores the fact that the true benefit of building that section of the line is that it enables shorter journey times to destinations north of Birmingham as and when HS2 is extended further northwards and ultimately reaches Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is like wanting to revert back to airships for air travel. HS2 nees to be the core of a high speed network. Hobbling it by artificially reducing the top speed even before it has left the drawing board makes the whole exercise pointless.

 

Also the idea of terminating HS2 at Paddington isn't thinking "outside the box" it is replicating the same problem in changing trains in London that were made when the railways were first built.

 

In air travel there has been much talk of building a 3rd and possibly a 4th runway at Heathrow to create a "hub" thereby allowing people to change planes without leaving Heathrow, or even building "Boris Island". Terminating HS2 at Paddington removes the chance of creating an equivalent hub for high speed rail at "Euston Cross" possibly for as long as another 150 years.

[Edwin_m]

If there are going to be stations in Bucks, then would it not be better to serve them with Class 395 type trains operating a semi-fast service between London and Birmingham so that the good citizens of Bucks can join the core HS2 services at London or Birmingham?

That wouldn't work either.  The 395 equivalent would be significantly slower than the longer-distance trains, so would take up several high speed paths on the busiest part of the network.  This is in addition to the issue I noted above, where every train stopping at a Bucks station uses up two through paths. 

 

Even if it had a frequent train service the benefits for Bucks of a station are themselves a bit limited, at least in respect of travel to London.  Except for people who live very close to wherever any station would be, the extra time to access a less convenient station would outweigh the time saving on the relatively short journey to Euston. 

Edited June 3, 2013 by Edwin_m

[frobisher]

That wouldn't work either.  The 395 equivalent would be significantly slower than the longer-distance trains, so would take up several high speed paths on the busiest part of the network.  This is in addition to the issue I noted above, where every train stopping at a Bucks station uses up two through paths.

Possibly not. IF you're building a station astride (say) a dual track railway, surely what you'd do is double up for at least the length of the station, going up to 4 tracks with the outer two being platform loops. Still needs careful timetabling to not stuff everything up of course but you could weave separate stopping services in that way.

[Glorious NSE]

Possibly not. IF you're building a station astride (say) a dual track railway, surely what you'd do is double up for at least the length of the station, going up to 4 tracks with the outer two being platform loops. Still needs careful timetabling to not stuff everything up of course but you could weave separate stopping services in that way.

 

Edwin is correct - a stopping train (capable of full line speed) would use at least 2 paths - it needs a path ahead of the train that overtakes it, that path becomes empty (wasted) after the station stop. It needs a second path behind the train that overtakes, that path would have to be empty (wasted) up to the station stop.

 

It could work if every other train stopped, so a departing one dropped into the path that an arriving one appeared out of - but that would mean half of all trains stopped at a location that (at least initially) would likely be not much more than a field in the middle of nowhere...

[GoingUnderground]

I'd forgotten that 395s do not have the capability to run at a top speed of 400kph (250 mph). Thank you for reminding me of that. But I still think that the principle remains valid in that a semi fast service using trains capable of 400kph limit could be run between London and Birmingham with a stop in Bucks to allow Bucks residents access to the core HS2 services in Birmingham for destinations northwards, and giving them faster access to London, so they would also gain from HS2 and see their property prices rise still further. Money talks.

 

Up in the great terminus in the sky, Sir Edward Watkin must be laughing at all this agonising over building HS2 when he'd already established and built much of the route over 100 years earlier.

[Edwin_m]

Martyn has posted the reason why a stopping train would cost two paths even if its top speed was the same as the non-stopping trains and the station had long accelerating/decelerating tracks with junction points that could be taken on the curve at that top speed.  It isn't a problem at OOC because every train will stop, nor at Birmingham International because there is parallel running from the platforms into the branch junction, but it would be a problem for any station where neither of these apply.  Strictly speaking you could have fewer than alternate trains calling but each train calling would have to wait there until just before the next one arrived. 

 

It would be great if a Calvert interchange could be made to work, though as I suggested above it would be more for journeys to/from the North than London, but I can't see it happening. 

[Glorious NSE]

Just to get an idea of what we think capacity is, what do folk think a regular clockface timetable would be?

 

I could see two Birmingham, two Liverpool, two Manchester, two Leeds per hour, plus one Glasgow/Edinburgh (splitting?) and a Newcastle?

 

That's a train every 6 minutes already!

 

That's making an assumption that some traffic will continue (by fares pressure) to use the 'classic' route trains - if not then from memory (without checking) then all the first 4 get better than 2TPH already...

[The Stationmaster]

Edwin is correct - a stopping train (capable of full line speed) would use at least 2 paths - it needs a path ahead of the train that overtakes it, that path becomes empty (wasted) after the station stop. It needs a second path behind the train that overtakes, that path would have to be empty (wasted) up to the station stop.

 

It could work if every other train stopped, so a departing one dropped into the path that an arriving one appeared out of - but that would mean half of all trains stopped at a location that (at least initially) would likely be not much more than a field in the middle of nowhere...

The stopping train would only use those two paths if every train ran at full line speed - and anybody who plans a train service on that basis is either extremely naive or doesn't know what they're at.  Maintenance will be needed on HS2 - just it is on any other railway, allowance will have to be made for the new infrastructure to bed-in, ballast drops will be needed for regular maintenance and so.  This trains should not be all timed to run full bore all the time - I don't know about the Shinkansen but I'm reasonably sure that noe of the European high speed routes see all train timed all the way at maximum linespeed, it certainly isn't the case on SNCF or DB.

 

A side advantage of timing below maximum linespeed (which I suspect might never in any case reach teh advertised norm quoted for HS2 due to energy costs) is that it creates more room to do things in the timetable and allows trains to 'jump' paths in a skip-stop plan because running at higher (or highest) speed) when necessary can enable trains to do that, especially if the timetable is based round flights of three paths.  The governing factor on HS2 timetabling and path utilisation is most likely going to be the capacity of the termini and reliably achievable turnround times - and I don't know if the latter time has been made public?

[The Stationmaster]

Just to get an idea of what we think capacity is, what do folk think a regular clockface timetable would be?

 

I could see two Birmingham, two Liverpool, two Manchester, two Leeds per hour, plus one Glasgow/Edinburgh (splitting?) and a Newcastle?

 

That's a train every 6 minutes already!

 

That's making an assumption that some traffic will continue (by fares pressure) to use the 'classic' route trains - if not then from memory (without checking) then all the first 4 get better than 2TPH already...

So Euston will need a minimum of 6 platform faces assuming a 30 minute minimum turnround and making no allowance for passenger flow on platforms and in circulating areas or for train re-stocking with food & drink.  In practice I would think that 30 minutes is on the optimistic side for a train of any more then 7-8 passenger vehicles so we are more likely looking at an 8 platform Euston.

 

If however the intention is to run on 3 minute headways with near 100% line capacity utilisation and the same 30 minute turnround time then that number of platforms will obviously not be adequate.  Somehow I can't see the pathing cost of a call at Calvert being as serious an impediment to capacity on HS2 as an 'undersize' terminus at Euston. (Perhaps we could call 'St Pancras International 2' if it is going to share the same design stupidity where the capacity of the terminal is completely out of kilter with the design capacity 'base case' for the route it serves? - and having spent a lot of time trying to square the circle of the CTRL base case when it came to signalling specification for St Pancras I'm all too aware of this particular chink in the armour of specifications for such lines.)

[Edwin_m]

The latest proposal for Euston has 11 high-speed and 13 conventional platforms. 

 

There are various documents regarding capacity, this one for example shows a minmum headway a shade over 2min and a capacity of 18 trains per hour.  This is based on a normal maximum speed of 330km/h with 360km/h being used to recover from delays.  The published end-to-end times are based on the same maximum speeds. 

[phil-b259]

So Euston will need a minimum of 6 platform faces assuming a 30 minute minimum turnround and making no allowance for passenger flow on platforms and in circulating areas or for train re-stocking with food & drink.  In practice I would think that 30 minutes is on the optimistic side for a train of any more then 7-8 passenger vehicles so we are more likely looking at an 8 platform Euston.

Under the plan a rebuilt Euston will have 11 high speed platforms.  If you assume a 3 minute headway though then that still is two more than the 9 required for such a pattern. Of course if you assume that when the full network is constructed Heathrow (currently envisioned to be 2 out of the 18 - 1x Manchester and 1x Leeds), and possibly Europe gets a frequent train then that cuts down the number of Euston arrivals slightly. On the other hand if signalling technologies continue to advance and the trains travel faster then the headway could be reduced further giving more than 18 TPH.

 

The following documents may be of interest when considering these factors

 

Headway:-

http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/hs2%20minimum%20headway%20august2011%20v3%201%20final.pdf#overlay-context=news-resources/engineering-documents

 

Proposed service patterns:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69743/updated-economic-case-for-hs2-_august-2012_-explanation-of-the-service-patterns.pdf

[Christopher125]

I have always supported a Calvert station on HS2. And I have also advocated a much lower top speed as the higher speeds impose far greater costs (financial and environmental) for very little gain (about 9 minutes on a journey to Birmingham).

 

Building it as a conventional 125mph railway (for example) would would make very little difference to the cost, the 'review of route selection and speed' suggests "the costs of building such a railway would be around 9% less than that of a high speed line. Stations, structures, and earthwork costs would remain broadly the same, with the main savings generated from rail systems, power supply and smaller diameter tunnels" yet predicted passenger numbers would be reduced by a fifth, revenue by nearly a quarter and overall benefits by a third - if you're going to the expense of building a new dedicated line, the extra benefits of a step-change in journey time will in the majority of cases outweigh the extra costs.

 

 

I'd forgotten that 395s do not have the capability to run at a top speed of 400kph (250 mph). Thank you for reminding me of that. But I still think that the principle remains valid in that a semi fast service using trains capable of 400kph limit could be run between London and Birmingham with a stop in Bucks to allow Bucks residents access to the core HS2 services in Birmingham for destinations northwards, and giving them faster access to London, so they would also gain from HS2 and see their property prices rise still further. Money talks.

 

You can still speed up services for those living between London and Birmingham without using up paths on HS2 - with much of the lucrative intercity traffic using HS2, today's fast or limited stop services on the WCML and Chiltern line will inevitably adjust their frequencies and stopping patterns to attract more medium distance and commuter traffic.

 

Just to get an idea of what we think capacity is, what do folk think a regular clockface timetable would be?

 

You can see the indicative service patterns for HS2 in the Economic Case (explanation of service patterns)

 

The stopping train would only use those two paths if every train ran at full line speed - and anybody who plans a train service on that basis is either extremely naive or doesn't know what they're at. 

 

Why do you think they are proposing to use ATO to achieve the 18tph south of Birmingham International? It will be one of, if not the most intense high speed operation in the world and to make it work it will need all services to have broadly similar performance characteristics. Slower trains and intermediate stops taking up multiple paths just aren't an option, nor should they be.

 

Chris

Edited June 3, 2013 by Christopher125

[The Stationmaster]

Under the plan a rebuilt Euston will have 11 high speed platforms.  If you assume a 3 minute headway though then that still is two more than the 9 required for such a pattern. Of course if you assume that when the full network is constructed Heathrow (currently envisioned to be 2 out of the 18 - 1x Manchester and 1x Leeds), and possibly Europe gets a frequent train then that cuts down the number of Euston arrivals slightly. On the other hand if signalling technologies continue to advance and the trains travel faster then the headway could be reduced further giving more than 18 TPH.

 

The following documents may be of interest when considering these factors

 

Headway:-

http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/hs2%20minimum%20headway%20august2011%20v3%201%20final.pdf#overlay-context=news-resources/engineering-documents

 

Proposed service patterns:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69743/updated-economic-case-for-hs2-_august-2012_-explanation-of-the-service-patterns.pdf

Thanks for the links Phil.  Very interesting that - and perhaps I'm not surprised in view of what happened with St Pancras - that there seems to be no consideration of terminal turnround time and, as always, a considerable emphasis on line capacity in terms of trains per hour.  Now the latter is obviously a critical design factor but I am left with the impression that nobody involved with the project so far has much understanding of the train planning parameters that have to be taken into account in such a development.

 

If we assume a 30 minute turnround - which I think is probably optimistic for a modern 400m long train although one important element will probably be pretty good on these trains (and that ought to be the time to 'commission' a cab when changing ends) you still have to allow time for passenger movement and cleaning (even if only clearing litter) - that obviously means that every train will have a dwell time at platform of those 30 minutes.  And at that dwell time 11 trains arriving at 3 minute headway will use all 11 platforms,;  then start feeding in clearance times for trains crossing from one side of the formation to the other and it starts to get tight, with a 30 minute turnround and potentially requires extra running time to be inserted in order to space trains to allow unchecked crossing moves.

 

And having in the past stop watch timed very long trains unloading and loading I  doubt the feasibility of a 30 minute turnround although a lot depends on how busy the train is and how many exits from/entrances to a platform are available plus how many cleaning staff are put onto a train.  It will be even more interesting to see that level of planning detail as it begins to emerge - as I hope it will.

 

Interesting to note a comment from elsewhere about using ATO in order to achieve 18 tph.  As the trains won't be timed at full line speed the headway will be - as stated - at around the UIC allowance for practical use of planned headway.  It is pertinent to note here that there is already at least one stretch of high speed railway  (i.e. 100mph & upwards) in Britain which has operated in one peak hour - and might still do? - with the number of trains exceeding 100% of designed signalling headway capacity although it is of course very sensitive to any sort of perturbation, and it did incidentally involve trains of two different types with different maximum speeds.  There is quite a difference between running at 100/125mph and at 200mph which is why the ATO element/full ATP protection etc is required at the higher speed, but 18tph is still some way short of designed headway capacity when the latter is 2.5 minutes.  

 

Correct typo 

Edited June 4, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[Suzie]

All this discussion rather begs the question of why is a line being built that will be operating at pretty much full capacity from day one with little prospect of any capacity increase later.

[Christopher125]

All this discussion rather begs the question of why is a line being built that will be operating at pretty much full capacity from day one with little prospect of any capacity increase later.

 

 

While that may be true for track capacity, though only south of Birmingham Interchange, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of potential to increase the number of seats - if i remember correctly the captive sets are presumed to use single deck rolling stock, while many of the classic compatible services will be of 200m or 260m length. Upgrades to the existing network to allow greater use of 400m trainsets, extending the dedicated network and using double deck rolling stock with the necessary performance characteristics could all increase capacity in the future.

 

Chris

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not quite sure where your huge saving is going to come from in that...

 

You still need to build new track to Euston, so you still have to drill those tunnels. You still need more platforms at Euston, so you still have the land take there, but now you have to extend the platforms at Paddington also, so you're adding land-take there?

 

The platforms at Euston would not need to be so long, nor so many. On that basis, you might not need landtake as one could build at low-level on an east-west alignment (joining up at the east end with Kings Cross/St Pancras. To be fair though, landtake under current proposals for Euston is only temporary as building would be allowed above the new platforms.

 

With suburban services removed from Paddington by Crossrail and GW services removed to Euston, it should be possible to build an adequate HS2 terminal at Paddington without landtake.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Building it as a conventional 125mph railway (for example) would would make very little difference to the cost, the 'review of route selection and speed' suggests "the costs of building such a railway would be around 9% less than that of a high speed line. Stations, structures, and earthwork costs would remain broadly the same, with the main savings generated from rail systems, power supply and smaller diameter tunnels" yet predicted passenger numbers would be reduced by a fifth, revenue by nearly a quarter and overall benefits by a third - if you're going to the expense of building a new dedicated line, the extra benefits of a step-change in journey time will in the majority of cases outweigh the extra costs.

 

 

 

You can still speed up services for those living between London and Birmingham without using up paths on HS2 - with much of the lucrative intercity traffic using HS2, today's fast or limited stop services on the WCML and Chiltern line will inevitably adjust their frequencies and stopping patterns to attract more medium distance and commuter traffic.

 

 

You can see the indicative service patterns for HS2 in the Economic Case (explanation of service patterns)

 

 

Why do you think they are proposing to use ATO to achieve the 18tph south of Birmingham International? It will be one of, if not the most intense high speed operation in the world and to make it work it will need all services to have broadly similar performance characteristics. Slower trains and intermediate stops taking up multiple paths just aren't an option, nor should they be.

 

Chris

 

I think that it is optimistic to think that HS2 built to 400kph standards is only going to cost 9% more than a railway built for lesser speed, say 300kph. The extra constraints on curvature alone lead to it being so much more difficult to find an alignment that can avoid housing -  so compensation costs for property rise to start with, not included in your figure.

 

Even taking your figure of 9%, 9% of £33bn is £3bn - a worthwhile saving which money could be put to good use elsewhere.

 

But when I talked about extra costs, I was thinking more in terms of energy and polution (including noise).

 

As to lower speed leading to lower revenues, I have already commented that the higher speed only saves 9 minutes on a London-Birmingham journey. 9 minutes is not a significant enough time-saving to affect people's choice of mode never mind pay high supplementary fares.

 

The business/strategic infrastructure case for HS2 is (or should be) all about increased capacity not about speed.

[GoingUnderground]

While that may be true for track capacity, though only south of Birmingham Interchange, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of potential to increase the number of seats - if i remember correctly the captive sets are presumed to use single deck rolling stock, while many of the classic compatible services will be of 200m or 260m length. Upgrades to the existing network to allow greater use of 400m trainsets, extending the dedicated network and using double deck rolling stock with the necessary performance characteristics could all increase capacity in the future.

 

Chris

 

The capacity issue is mitigated to some extent if the services beyond Birmingham also call at Birmingham - extra destinations without any need for additional paths. 

 

The platforms at Euston would not need to be so long, nor so many. On that basis, you might not need landtake as one could build at low-level on an east-west alignment (joining up at the east end with Kings Cross/St Pancras. To be fair though, landtake under current proposals for Euston is only temporary as building would be allowed above the new platforms.

 

With suburban services removed from Paddington by Crossrail and GW services removed to Euston, it should be possible to build an adequate HS2 terminal at Paddington without landtake.

 

Alternatively, stick with the expansion of Euston, close Paddington and release the whole site for redevelopment.

 

I think that it is optimistic to think that HS2 built to 400kph standards is only going to cost 9% more than a railway built for lesser speed, say 300kph. The extra constraints on curvature alone lead to it being so much more difficult to find an alignment that can avoid housing -  so compensation costs for property rise to start with, not included in your figure.

 

Even taking your figure of 9%, 9% of £33bn is £3bn - a worthwhile saving which money could be put to good use elsewhere.

 

But when I talked about extra costs, I was thinking more in terms of energy and polution (including noise).

 

As to lower speed leading to lower revenues, I have already commented that the higher speed only saves 9 minutes on a London-Birmingham journey. 9 minutes is not a significant enough time-saving to affect people's choice of mode never mind pay high supplementary fares.

 

The business/strategic infrastructure case for HS2 is (or should be) all about increased capacity not about speed.

 

Do you really think that a 400kph service will produce significantly more noise pollution than a 320kph service? I happen to think that the noise pollution issue is vastly overstated. Sure it will make a noise, but so would additional trains on an uprated or enlarged WCML. The noise of a passing train is much less intrusive than the continual roar of traffic noise from a motorway.

 

Forget the 9 minutes saved on London-Birmingham. HS2 must be far more than just a London-Birmingham route. Look at the potential to save far more than that in timings to destinations in the Midlands, North and Scotland, or perhaps you don't want HS2 to be extended north of Birmingham, or believe those sections will never be built. There is no point in building the sections north of Brum for 400kph if the London-Birmingham section has a lower design top speed.

 

If all you want is increased capacity, then enlarging the WCML is the answer. But do you really want to keep us from enjoying the benefits of faster rail travel?

 

In all the debate, I keep thinking about the first motorways, and the money spent here in the UK on modernising our roads in the last 50-60 years. All this came from the public purse, paid for by general taxation, which included taxes on fuel and motor vehicles. Now that we want to do the same for the original victorian privately financed railway infrastructure to permit much higher speeds than those possible at the time of their construction there is a huge outcry. We built new motorways and dual carriageways because it was not economic or practicable to enlarge the existing roads to provide the increased capacity required and to take advantage of the higher speeds possible through technological advances in road transport since the invention of the horse and cart which had until the start of the 1900s dictated the design of our road network.

 

As regards the financing, railways are permanent infrastructure, and building new ones will generate growth as well as leaving an asset for the benefit of future generations.  Much of the spend will have to be incurred in this country because the physical works have to take place here. Hence I believe it will be better for this country than financing borrowing to increase consumer spending where much of the goods and services are nowadays made or provided from outside the UK, or even the EU. I do sympathise with genuine loss of value that will affect those folks who will end up living close to the line, but I have no sympathy at all for those who say that it will be a "blot on the landscape, blighting the beauty of the Chilterns". Compared to what's already there in terms of the existing canals, railways, motorways, housing and industry, it's immaterial. I used to go to the Chilterns for pic-nics when I was young and lived in NW London, and I don't want it despoiled, but I really cannot accept that HS2 will do that given the pressure to minimise its environmental impact.

 

HS2 will be money well spent in my view which can only benefit the country for decades to come.

 

Rant over.

[Edwin_m]

The platforms at Euston would not need to be so long, nor so many. On that basis, you might not need landtake as one could build at low-level on an east-west alignment (joining up at the east end with Kings Cross/St Pancras. To be fair though, landtake under current proposals for Euston is only temporary as building would be allowed above the new platforms.

 

With suburban services removed from Paddington by Crossrail and GW services removed to Euston, it should be possible to build an adequate HS2 terminal at Paddington without landtake.

The issue at Paddington would be accommodating the 400m trains that will run on HS2 (2 coupled sets).  This is the European standard for high speed routes and building for anything shorter would immediately reduce the passenger capacity in proportion. 

 

From Praed Street to the far end of the trainshed is only about 200m, so a high speed terminus here would involve widening and remodelling the throat (which may be too tight a curve for platforms in any case) or extending through the Lawn and under streets and hotels with the buffer stops underground somewhere near Sussex Gardens. 

 

The low-level station at Euston would also need 400m platforms but this probably just means they would be accessible from Euston at one end and St Pancras at the other. 

 

I think that it is optimistic to think that HS2 built to 400kph standards is only going to cost 9% more than a railway built for lesser speed, say 300kph. The extra constraints on curvature alone lead to it being so much more difficult to find an alignment that can avoid housing -  so compensation costs for property rise to start with, not included in your figure.

 

Even taking your figure of 9%, 9% of £33bn is £3bn - a worthwhile saving which money could be put to good use elsewhere.

 

But when I talked about extra costs, I was thinking more in terms of energy and polution (including noise).

 

As to lower speed leading to lower revenues, I have already commented that the higher speed only saves 9 minutes on a London-Birmingham journey. 9 minutes is not a significant enough time-saving to affect people's choice of mode never mind pay high supplementary fares.

 

The business/strategic infrastructure case for HS2 is (or should be) all about increased capacity not about speed.

Shorter journey times will reduce the train fleet size, with savings in staffing and depot size, because a faster train can do more journeys in a day.  They do of course increase energy costs.

 

The alignment is mostly designed for 400km/h but reduces to lower speeds in various places where environmental constraints mean curves are too tight for this speed.  This suggests that if there were other alignment constraints that would be more easily overcome at a lower top speed then the speed on that section would also have been reduced.  The quoted journey times are based on an Alstom AGV with maximum speed of 360km/h but assumed to run at only 330km/h when on time (where the infrastructure permits) to give some margin for recovery from delays. 

 

As to 9min time saving, this is getting on for 20% of the London-Birmingham HS2 time.  Experience with routes such as the ECML suggests that a 10% reduction in journey time on a long distance train will lead to a 9% increase in demand.  There may be an even greater benefit if journeys can be brought within the threshold of 3-4 hours where rail becomes competitive with air on journey time.  This doesn't apply to Manchester and Leeds, which have virtually no London or Birmingham flights these days, but could be important for Scotland.  So the consequences for demand, revenue and the benefits of reducing car and air journeys do depend quite strongly on maximum speed. 

 

Nobody can say now with any certainty what the optimal speed will be in ten or 20 years time.  There is particular uncertainty on energy costs, which will affect not only the cost of running the service but also the attractiveness of other competing modes where energy forms a greater proportion of the total cost.  There would be no reason not to use a lower speed if that proved to be the best balance between demand, operating cost and environmental issues, but if the route was designed for lower speeds it would be almost impossible to upgrade later.  

Edited June 4, 2013 by Edwin_m

[Glorious NSE]

 

 

As to lower speed leading to lower revenues, I have already commented that the higher speed only saves 9 minutes on a London-Birmingham journey. 9 minutes is not a significant enough time-saving to affect people's choice of mode never mind pay high supplementary fares.

 

Where does this 9 minutes figure come from, i've heard that before but don't really recognise where it comes from? The published figures suggest it's 84 minutes currently versus 49 minutes on HS2, which is more than half an hour saved - in fact not far off a halved journey time? http://www.hs2.org.uk/phase-two/facts-figures

 

Sorry, the following somewhat crossed with Edwin's reply, but i'd already typed it.

 

 

 

The platforms at Euston would not need to be so long, nor so many. On that basis, you might not need landtake as one could build at low-level on an east-west alignment (joining up at the east end with Kings Cross/St Pancras. To be fair though, landtake under current proposals for Euston is only temporary as building would be allowed above the new platforms.

 

Landtake on a different alignment is still landtake...

 

 

 

With suburban services removed from Paddington by Crossrail and GW services removed to Euston, it should be possible to build an adequate HS2 terminal at Paddington without landtake.

 

The number of existing platforms there might work, but HS2 is being designed for trains that are virtually double the length of an HST - so where do you put 11 extended platforms between Bishops Bridge Road and Westbourne Bridge?

There's around 8 tracks in the Paddington approach there at the moment (not including the H&C), you'd have to assume needing around double that width to fit in 11 tracks and platforms...

 

The curvature of Paddington station would make it very hard to add the extra space on the South side (the platforms have a serious curve already - you can't ease that curve to the inside without affecting the listed trainsheds, and you wouldn't really want to make the curve sharper) - on the North side there's the H&C line and a huge new development which you'd have to knock down to put the expanded station in...

http://binged.it/10NuzL5

 

If that had been suggested a decade or so ago it would have been fairly easy as there was a huge amount of empty space to the North, but that's now gone.

 

In addition you can't extend (much) at the 'town' end without getting rid of the concourse - and affecting the listed structures, plus the road and properties on it (and I suspect you'd foul the circle line before you got a 400m train in?)

 

So whilst I can see that you could do something with Paddington if you had the will, I don't agree that it could be done 'without landtake'.

 

And...it would also be substantially worse for HS2 passengers connection-wise...

[The Stationmaster]

All this discussion rather begs the question of why is a line being built that will be operating at pretty much full capacity from day one with little prospect of any capacity increase later.

Actually it isn't - timetable maximum speed is c.90% of permitted maximum which in turn is c.90% of designed maximum; thus there are potentially some minutes in reserve in train times.  Similarly - by using the UIC recommendation - actual planned headway will be generally greater than designed headway and that could be bettered by using the designed headway but reliability would potentially suffer (as it would if the maximum speed were to be used for timetabled purposes).  So there is a theoretical, and actual, reserve capacity in both speeds and headway although flexibility would be lost if the reserves were to be fully used.

 

Train length and gauge - as already mentioned also provide potential reserve with the full 400 metre train length available if not initially used plus - it would seem - gauge potential for possible double-decking depending on the loading gauge finally adopted

 

However - and it does bear repeating I think - the real constraint on increasing capacity will more than likely prove to be platform capacity at termini, particularly Euston in just teh same way that the capacity constraint on CTRL/HS 1 is St Pancras.