HS2 under review

[10800]

On this page this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23853863

 

"The BBC filmed that journey back in 1953, before the entire rail network was electrified"

 

 

Thanks Martin, interesting film though (so what did he think all that third rail was?).

 

(OT - John - Balcombe tunnel, station and viaduct from about 2'30")

Edited August 28, 2013 by 10800

[The Stationmaster]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see *something* (don't ask me what though) come in at some point to try and incentivise greater use of electric traction for freight on certain bits of line, paths over Shap for diesel hauled freight in daylight hours seems to be becoming an issue for example. Extending that to other places would be possible...

 

My gut feeling though is that (provided the electrified network is designed to allow electrified freight) it will gradually come as more and more routes become fully electrified.

 

The FOCs don't like the equipment inefficiencies of having to provide multiple loco's for the job, at the moment there's very few round trips that could be electrified in full (and the obvious ones I can think of are with a TOC that has a rather eclectic traction policy but currently no electric traction...) - no demand means nobody can really justify investing in new loco's for it (yet), even if those new loco's would offer more usability than the legacy fleet...

I do wonder if the issue over Shap is entirely down to 'diesel traction' rather than the capabilities of the diesel locos and wagons involved as well as the matter of speed differentials and the sheer number of passenger trains?  We saw a revolution in diesel traction with the arrival of the Class 59s and the consequent massive trains but that also had a major impact on pathing because although they were big they were also infernally slow, especially on rising gradients.  I realise we are not talking that on Shap but pathing freights relies as much on speed as sheer tonnage handling grunt and diesel could be capable of both, with the right wagons - but I concede that electrics might do it even better.  (sorry we're a bit OT - unless the S&C could be converted into HS 3 and all the freight diverted via Shap of course ).

[Re6/6]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10287504/Take-warring-politicians-out-of-infrastructure-planning-says-Olympics-chief-John-Armitt.html

 

An excellent idea from the man that brought us the Olympic infrastructure, CTRL . A man in the mould of Sir Alastair Morton who got the Channel Tunnel building finished after earlier problems.

 

I remember seeing a programme about the planning of HS1 with Armitt in charge and I was impressed with his good nature but with a steely resolve. What a difference the PR on HS2 would be with him in charge which so far has been miserable.

 

The agenda has always been with the 'antis' with the media concentrating on the likes of the IEA report which has been countered by the new HS2 spokesman stating "There has been a lot of tosh and nonsense written about HS2, but this latest report is frankly absurd. It's guff and hogwash" but never reported outside the railway journals.. And then there's the IOD report with its 0.8% of its total membership against....That miserable percentage was never reported by radio and TV.

 

'Rail' magazine #730 has some good reporting on the matter.

 

Just finished listening to Naughtie on 'Today' trying get some sense out of two MPs from both sides all talking at once on John Armit's suggestion about an infrastructure commission. Fat chance with such juvenile MPs who would be better placed in the school playground than trying to rationally debate the matter. 

[lmsforever]

Think the problem is that the politicos are the promoters ,if it had been NR perhaps the approach would have been different less about the speed and frequencies more about the actual need.HS1 is a success and the way it fits into the countryside is excellent perhaps if this was promoted the reactions might be different remember the mobile sound system that terrified residents a complete red herring ,I would support the line if I was convinced about the actual financial prospects but at this time I am not.The rail industry needs to be to be involved more than it is now and the levels of service on other lines carefully explained so as the public knew they could reach their destinations without many changes.

[Re6/6]

A quote from the Telegraph article: "Sir John added that an independent commission might have made better progress winning backing for the HS2 rail line – a £50bn project, including rolling stock.“It will replace infrastructure that is 150 years old,” he said. “It has to be done. The focus has been put on speed. But it’s not about speed. It’s about capacity.”

....enough said......

[Re6/6]

indeed. A very capable chap if you look at his CV.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Armitt

 

It's a pity that there aren't more like his type running things.

[GoingUnderground]

Despite the Chancellor's recent pronouncement that HS2 was essential, I cannot see it being built. I've just come back from holiday in France, via Eurostar, and here are two viewpoints from my fellow holidaymakers:

1. build it now and stop messing around.
2. total waste of money.

 

The first was from a retired civil engineer who lived in Lancashire and used the WCML, whilst the second was from a retired army officer who lived in Yorkshire and used the ECML. The ECML already have faster journey times than the WCML or MML and the second guy and his wife did not appreciate the disruption that trying to improve the WCML over much of its length would cause. With this "I'm All Right Jack" attitude even from people who benefit and enjoy High Speed rail travel whilst in France I cannot see how there will ever be sufficient support to allow HS2 to go ahead.

 

The Independent Infrastructure commission idea is so sensible, but it takes all the power and decision making over such sexy infrastructure projects away from the politicians that it will turn them all into opponents of any project because It is always easier to oppose than to support. At least if the party in power is in favour you should get support from its MPs, but maintaining party discipline in Westminster over the current crop of MPs makes herding cats look like childs play given the recent vote on Syria!

[The Stationmaster]

Despite the Chancellor's recent pronouncement that HS2 was essential, I cannot see it being built. I've just come back from holiday in France, via Eurostar, and here are two viewpoints from my fellow holidaymakers:

1. build it now and stop messing around.
2. total waste of money.

 

The first was from a retired civil engineer who lived in Lancashire and used the WCML, whilst the second was from a retired army officer who lived in Yorkshire and used the ECML. The ECML already have faster journey times than the WCML or MML and the second guy and his wife did not appreciate the disruption that trying to improve the WCML over much of its length would cause. With this "I'm All Right Jack" attitude even from people who benefit and enjoy High Speed rail travel whilst in France I cannot see how there will ever be sufficient support to allow HS2 to go ahead.

 

The Independent Infrastructure commission idea is so sensible, but it takes all the power and decision making over such sexy infrastructure projects away from the politicians that it will turn them all into opponents of any project because It is always easier to oppose than to support. At least if the party in power is in favour you should get support from its MPs, but maintaining party discipline in Westminster over the current crop of MPs makes herding cats look like childs play given the recent vote on Syria!

An interesting display of self-interest from both of them and very much, I think, the way many people approach and develop a view of the HS2 project.  Much of anybody's attitude is, regrettably, a consequence of the way it has been presented with stupid emphasis on speed potential and limited attention to the capacity it will deliver or the fact that such capacity will be a general thing rather than just a railway thing.  Failure to sensibly address the fares issue is also creating doubters who see it as 'a railway for the rich' and so on.

 

The folk involved in the HS2 gravy train (for that - I fear - is what it is for some of them) need to get a serious grip of what the project is really about and start doing an Armitt and promoting it on what it is really meant to do, which does not include getting from London to Birmingham x minutes quicker but actually being able to get there at all.

[martin_wynne]

which does not include getting from London to Birmingham x minutes quicker but actually being able to get there at all.

 

Or what you are going to do when you get there which you can't do on your computer from somewhere else.

[The Stationmaster]

Or what you are going to do when you get there which you can't do on your computer from somewhere else.

The impression I get nowadays is that ever increasing numbers of folk are taking their computers with them - in their pockets

[martin_wynne]

The impression I get nowadays is that ever increasing numbers of folk are taking their computers with them - in their pockets

 

There you are then -- on their way to Birmingham and desperately trying to stay in contact with somewhere else.

[Edwin_m]

I'd be interested in seeing any actual evidence that increased access to electronic communications is actually reducing the need for physical travel, particularly of the medium to long distance type that HS2 is aimed at.  I was recently at a workshop on a separate high speed project (which presumably makes me part of the gravy train!) where most people seemed to be of the opposite view. 

Edited September 8, 2013 by Edwin_m

[GoingUnderground]

I'd be interested in seeing any actual evidence that increased access to electronic communications is actually reducing the need for physical travel, particularly of the medium to long distance type that HS2 is aimed at.  I was recently at a workshop on a separate high speed project (which presumably makes me part of the gravy train!) where most people seemed to be of the opposite view. 

 

I am surprised that so much of the debate always concentrates on the business benefits. I know that the business benefits provide much of the benefit side of the cost/benefit analysis or business case, but IMHO many travellers on high speed lines seem to be leisure travellers, where electronic communications will have facilitated the journey, booking tickets and hotels etc., but cannot substitute for it.

[martin_wynne]

many travellers on high speed lines seem to be leisure travellers, where electronic communications will have facilitated the journey, booking tickets and hotels etc., but cannot substitute for it.

 

But do leisure travellers need every last minute shaved off their journey time?

 

Wouldn't a new freight railway from Felixstowe to Birmingham be of greater advantage to the economy and the environment than a new passenger railway from London to Birmingham? After all there are already two rail routes and a motorway for that journey. And for the real leisure travellers, a canal.

 

Martin.

[Kris]

I wonder how much investment that building the line will bring that is totally unconnected. i.e. oversea's businesses seeing it as a sign that the country is looking to the future rather than sticking with the past. Having seen this then investing in other industries. 

[jjb1970]

If we build a new railway then it may as well be built with modern train control systems and high speed running capability. And I believe we do need additional capacity on that corridor. Yes they could try and re-build the WCML again and add more track, quadruple more of it and fit new train control to increase speed and capacity but that will not be cheap and will cause huge disruption. Ditto upgrading the chiltern line. There are other alternatives I'm sure but I think there is one question and one statement that can sum up the arguments involved;

 

Question - do we think the rail route(s) from London to the Midlands and North need extra capacity, yes or no?

 

If the answer is no then fine but that assumes there will be limited future traffic growth given the utilisation of the existing routes.

 

Statement - if you want extra capacity then it doesn't matter how you try and do it, it won't be cheap.

 

My own view is that if we're going to spend billions then it is better to buy new and do it right. The WCML went massively over budget and suffered a lot of capability cuts to try and make the upgrade finally delivered fit what was considered to be affordable. I really have no confidence that another attempt to transform the WCML would be the answer. In a sense I do feel the focus on speed is counter productive and I certainly think there is an argument over the best compromise between cost and speed and that the very high speed proposals will take the line into that area of diminishing returns that makes it less sensible for a small country. If HS2 is built then it will free up enough paths on the existing WCML that new freight lines will be in effect delivered by the back door. And it is not an HS2 or new freight line argument as I believe it is more an HS2 or spend the money on something else entirely (roads? airports? other government departments?). I think the government cancelling HS2 but saying to the rail industry "well, it was a bad idea but there you go, spend the money on something else like freight lines" is minimal to zero.

None of which is to say the project should have a blank cheque or ignore concepts such as value for money and I do worry at the cost escalation and the levels of contingency being built into the budget. And some of the pro-HS2 propaganda I find just as cringe inducing as the anti-HS2 stuff.

[The Stationmaster]

I am surprised that so much of the debate always concentrates on the business benefits. I know that the business benefits provide much of the benefit side of the cost/benefit analysis or business case, but IMHO many travellers on high speed lines seem to be leisure travellers, where electronic communications will have facilitated the journey, booking tickets and hotels etc., but cannot substitute for it.

Fortunately it is at last changing as according to an article in one of today's papers McLoughlin is about to start swinging the debate and argument onto the correct ground - capacity.  And allegedly - well it is in a 'paper - 'officials' at DafT are realising they erred in concentrating so much on speed and journey time savings when promoting the scheme.

[Edwin_m]

Fortunately it is at last changing as according to an article in one of today's papers McLoughlin is about to start swinging the debate and argument onto the correct ground - capacity.  And allegedly - well it is in a 'paper - 'officials' at DafT are realising they erred in concentrating so much on speed and journey time savings when promoting the scheme.

McLoughlin was interviewed on Sky, saying just that and quoted on Radio 4 news just now. 

[Coombe Barton]

Now on BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24009212

[pete_mcfarlane]

From the BBC news article:

 

 

 

Richard Houghton, spokesman for campaign group HS2 Action Alliance, said: "In terms of capacity, there are many ways of increasing capacity across the network.

"Euston [planned to be used by HS2] is the second least-used line into London. So if you're going to fix capacity problems you wouldn't start there. If it's not about speed now, they need to reassess the route."

Are these people real? I'm struggling some of the mental gymnastics that the anti-HS2 campaigners are going though to come up with arguments other than 'I don't want it going past my nice big house'.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Fortunately it is at last changing as according to an article in one of today's papers McLoughlin is about to start swinging the debate and argument onto the correct ground - capacity.  And allegedly - well it is in a 'paper - 'officials' at DafT are realising they erred in concentrating so much on speed and journey time savings when promoting the scheme.

 

From a PR point of view, they should have announced the Northern part of the scheme first. The resultant outcry from the SE of England when they thought they were missing out would have drowned out the Nimbys!

[GoingUnderground]

But do leisure travellers need every last minute shaved off their journey time?

 

Wouldn't a new freight railway from Felixstowe to Birmingham be of greater advantage to the economy and the environment than a new passenger railway from London to Birmingham? After all there are already two rail routes and a motorway for that journey. And for the real leisure travellers, a canal.

 

Martin.

 

If what you are saying is true then we'd still be walking everywhere or flying the Atlantic in Bristol Britannias or Lockheed Constellations and not Dreamliners or Airbuses. Why should leisure automatically equate with slow and business with speed? There would be no need for any dual carriageways or motorways. The London to Birmingham Railway was built over 175 years ago and its alignment was appropriate for the technology of its day. It is time we had a new line compatible with modern technology, not one built for the low powered steam engines of the 1830s.

[martin_wynne]

Why should leisure automatically equate with slow and business with speed?

 

I wouldn't call the current WCML slow.

 

My point is that if the object of the exercise is to provide more capacity for freight, why not actually build a new freight railway? Possibly an entire network with a bigger loading gauge?

 

I'm in favour of building new railways, but not a segregated aircraft-on-wheels for a route which is already well provided for. There are lots of places with no railway at all.

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

I wouldn't call the current WCML slow.

 

My point is that if the object of the exercise is to provide more capacity for freight, why not actually build a new freight railway? Possibly an entire network with a bigger loading gauge?

 

I'm in favour of building new railways, but not a segregated aircraft-on-wheels for a route which is already well provided for. There are lots of places with no railway at all.

 

Martin.

The whole point is Martin that the scheme is based on increasing passenger train capacity to meet an expected continued increase in demand.  To be honest I seriously doubt if the anticipated growth in freight would justify a new line - look at the GC scheme which fell through for that very reason some years ago.  And by getting passenger trains, especially the fastest ones, off the existing network you create more freight (or whatever) capacity relatively inexpensively compared with a new freight route which would require a mass of connecting lines to be of real value.

 

The 'segregated aircraft on wheels' has to do several things - including providing capacity (which usually nowadays means big trains - provided the terminals etc can handle them) and running fast enough to create attractive journey times to encourage people to switch to using them.  The fares will - obviously - also have to be competitive and attractive otherwise people will not use them, even when not all journeys are price sensitive.

 

While France is a much larger country than England experience there shows that segregated high speed lines can be commercially attractive and increase rail usage by attracting passengers from other modes.

[martin_wynne]

The whole point is Martin that the scheme is based on increasing passenger train capacity to meet an expected continued increase in demand.  To be honest I seriously doubt if the anticipated growth in freight would justify a new line - look at the GC scheme which fell through for that very reason some years ago.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Doesn't passenger demand simply increase to fill the available capacity? Folks are going furiously to and fro between London and Birmingham because they can. If you built a brand new high-speed railway to say Swansea, they would all go there instead.

 

Freight growth surely depends on the arbitrary taxing regime decided by the government? Increase the lorry road tax and spend the proceeds on a subsidy to rail freight, and the A14 becomes a pleasant drive across England instead of the present environmental hell.

 

Martin.