HS2 under review

[Ron Ron Ron]

[Ron Ron Ron]

"The government has no convincing case for spending £50bn building the HS2 rail link between London and the North, a report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee says.

The government's main arguments in favour of HS2 - increasing railway capacity and rebalancing the economy - were still to be proven, peers said".

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32041167

 

 

 

 

.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Ron Ron Ron

[Reorte]

I thought the capacity argument was pretty firmly established, and since I've said before that I don't think that economic arguments should be the only ones that means there's still a case for it even if you don't think it adds up economically - there could be an overall benefit to everyone even if it's costing us money.

 

Gee, can't believe I just said that since I don't actually want the thing!

[Ron Ron Ron]

I thought the capacity argument was pretty firmly established.....

 

The House of Lords committee fully accept the capacity arguments, but challenge the lack of alternative solutions being properly explored and costed.

 

e.g. Train lengthening (e.g. the increase in Pendolino's from 9 to 11 cars is a 20% increase in capacity)

e.g. Use of in-cab signalling to reduce headways and provide more paths.

e.g. Infrastructure improvements to increase capacity.

 

They are fully aware of the excess capacity that exists throughout most of the week and working day and have highlighted where the trains are full to capacity.

All they are looking for is proper evidence to support, or disprove the case for HS2.

 

 

.

.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Ron Ron Ron

[melmerby]

 

e.g. Train lengthening (e.g. the increase in Pendolino's from 9 to 11 cars is a 20% increase in capacity)

 

Aren't some of the "full" ones already 11 cars?

 

One of the main arguments of the "antis" is just to increase train lengths without any thought of the consequences.

e.g. Where do the extra carriages come from?

Will the platforms be long enough? etc.

 

I thought the alternatives e.g further upgrades to infrastructure had already been considered but ruled out as not producing enough new capacity and would cause even more disruption to an already commonly disrupted network.

 

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

The House of Lords committee fully accept the capacity arguments, but challenge the lack of alternative solutions being properly explored and costed.

 

e.g. Train lengthening (e.g. the increase in Pendolino's from 9 to 11 cars is a 20% increase in capacity)

e.g. Use of in-cab signalling to reduce headways and provide more paths.

e.g. Infrastructure improvements to increase capacity.

 

They are fully aware of the excess capacity that exists throughout most of the week and working day and have highlighted where the trains are full to capacity.

All they are looking for is proper evidence to support, or disprove the case for HS2.

 

 

.

.

Yes - but the interesting thing too is that they are saying some of that evidence is currently lacking.  Does that mean it wasn't presented to them or does it mean it doesn't exist or does it mean they want a fully costed WCML capacity increase alternative presented (I haven't read the detail so it might well specify which it is).

 

Each of the alternatives comes with considerable work in developing costs to the extent of those developed for HS2 - for instance train lengthening means a study of every platform and stabling location to ascertain if they are long enough whereas it might possibly have been done on a very 'shot estimate' basis in order to reduce the cost of doing it.

 

Use of in-cab signalling and moving block or whatever in signalling terms is in many respect a red herring.  ERTMS in one form or another will be eventually be delivered for the WCML but such systems do not create wholly usable extra capacity unless all trains on a particular section of route have very similar speed & acceleration/deceleration characteristics.  The big hurdle to exploiting line capacity is not necessarily signalling but speed differentials between different types of train - the mixed traffic nature of the WCML (and various other UK trunk rail routes) is what consumes capacity to a far greater extent than any sort of in-cab signalling could mitigate and increasing the speeds of non-stop passenger trains only makes things worse.  I'm not sure that the advantage of HS 2 in delivering separation of types of traffic has been spelt out clearly enough to a layman (or a Lord) although it has been patently clear from the start although the emphasis on very high speed did, in my view, mislead.

 

Again the matter of 'infrastructure improvements' is a difficult one.  It would be very simple to say quadruple the entire WCML south of Crewe (still counting the Northampton Loop as the 'slow' lines) but then it gets messy - quadrupling in the West Midlands would probably be needed but who do you put it down to, local services or trains to/from London (or freight?).  And then you hit the same question in the London 'suburban area' - which probably extends out to Milton Keynes.

 

The interesting thing in all of this is that a lot of work was done at the time of the present WCML line capacity upgrade and it was clear then from overall traffic forecasts on number of trains that the southern end of the route would start to run out of capacity and hit increasing reliability problems by the 2020s, probably a little earlier in some spots.  Does all that work now have to be re-run or do any potential line capacity upgrades have to be re-assessed and re-costed?  Without looking at my records I can't say how long I spent on some of that work but I was only a very small cog in a number of probably quite expensive consultancy teams which were looking at stuff the network owners didn't have the manpower to handle and all we were doing was looking at the rate at which usage would cause stuff to need renewal and, to some extent, the capacity constraints that renewal work would create.  But I think it would be fair to say that even if the consultancy resources were available we are looking at probably a  year or more, and very considerable cost, to re-examine all that work and update any cost estimates which were done.

 

Similarly on signalling it is now probably a case of assessing the impact of whatever level of ERTMS delivers the best increase but it would also involve a major timetabling exercise, which would have to feed into the infrastructure review, to give a detailed assessment of what needs to be done.  And I suspect a lot of the work would have to be done to 'fully finished' standards (which takes longer and would cost more) because of the extremely tight timescales to implementation should the politicos decide to go for it instead of HS2.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Aren't some of the "full" ones already 11 cars?

Indeed Keith, but it's only fair to point out that only 60% (approx.) of the fleet have been extended.

IIRC, the baseline figures for HS2 used the pre-lengthened capacity of the Pendolino's, but I may be wrong.

 

 

One of the main arguments of the "antis" is just to increase train lengths without any thought of the consequences.

e.g. Where do the extra carriages come from?

Will the platforms be long enough? etc.

 

I thought the alternatives e.g further upgrades to infrastructure had already been considered but ruled out as not producing enough new capacity and would cause even more disruption to an already commonly disrupted network.

As I read it, the committee are reporting that actual detailed work on the alternatives has not been done to the required degree to prove it, one way or the other.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....I'm not sure that the advantage of HS 2 in delivering separation of types of traffic has been spelt out clearly enough to a layman (or a Lord) although it has been patently clear from the start although the emphasis on very high speed did, in my view, mislead.......

 

Along with the rest of your post, I totally agree Mike.

However, I'm not sure why platform lengthening would be such a cost issue in the big scheme of things. Tens or even hundreds of ££millions are a tiny amount compared with £50 billion.

 

On the existing capacity; it's all very well showing that off-peak loadings are only 40-50%, whilst admitting that there is overcrowding, but only in part of the weekly peak periods; but that doesn't solve anything. 

The peaks with the most demand are the problem that has to be addressed with solutions beyond the usual pricing mechanisms and other tinkering.

 

Personally, I totally buy into the capacity justification for HS2. I just don't buy into about 80% of the business case presented, which is largely garbage.

Having said that, I'm sure there are alternative justifications that could help build a better business case, even if it's still not a 100% convincing.

 

 

.

[edcayton]

Yes, but that's the point. It was sold initially as a high speed line. When people said that it wasn't worth all that money just to save 10 minutes (or whatever) from London to Brum then the supporters produced the capacity argument. My understanding is that the Lords have said, well, if increasing capacity was the intended purpose then the alternatives have not been fully investigated.

 

In my view the thing should have been sold as London-Scotland, where it would have been a genuine alternative to air. Other than that I don't think the distances are sufficient in this country.

 

Ed

[Ron Ron Ron]

In my view the thing should have been sold as London-Scotland, where it would have been a genuine alternative to air. 

 

The problem with that Ed, is that any business case gets weaker the further north you go. Basing it purely on London-Scotland would present the the weakest and most tenuous business case of all.

 

The original NR HS2 study made very interesting reading and presented quite compelling arguments.

The case for London-Birmingham being very strong, extending to Manchester and Leeds cementing it.

However, once you extend further than that, the business case gets progressively weaker, with the huge expense of the extensions not being supported by the potential market and need.

 

 

.

[Reorte]

My take on that is that it's always really been about capacity but the high speed part was promoted in the hope people would buy into that when they might not for more mundane-sounding reasons. There may also be a bit of other countries have them, keeping up with the Joneses about it.

[lmsforever]

The WCML has capacity you have only to watch by the lineside at various points south and especialy the north ,cab signalling must be put in place and the other Pendolinos lengthened DAFT will have to bite the bullet on this.If improved speeds could be gained then the white elephant can be put back in the cupboard and we can all get on with our lives. 

[Reorte]

The danger of WCML improvements (trains or line) is that even if they are sufficient now that may turn out to be short-lived, so in a few years' time a lot of money has been spent and we're back to where we are now, but with no further options down that path (I hope that isn't the case though).

[rovex]

Whilst I do accept the need to improve mainline services, I can see no benefit in my getting from Brum to London faster than I can now.

 

I can see a benefit to improvements to and reinstatement of commuter lines into our major cities. For example reinstating the line from Leeds to Wetherby to reduce road congestion.

[runs as required]

The only positive I've heard coming out of all the pre-election ballyhoo is the SNP proposal to start building HS2/3 from the top downwards.

 

Presumably it would carry on from the new Borders line through to the North London line, Stratford HS1 and onto.......

 

dh

[pete_mcfarlane]

The danger of WCML improvements (trains or line) is that even if they are sufficient now that may turn out to be short-lived, so in a few years' time a lot of money has been spent and we're back to where we are now, but with no further options down that path (I hope that isn't the case though).

And that's the irony - the Government have done their job properly and come up with a long term strategic solution, and are being criticised for not thinking about the short term bodges. 

 

I'd love to know how lengthening Pendolinos on the WCML will free up train paths for more commuter trains on the ECML. Because HS2 will do that. 

[Glorious NSE]

The only positive I've heard coming out of all the pre-election ballyhoo is the SNP proposal to start building HS2/3 from the top downwards.

Hang a wire, get some girders to prop it up, put some rails down, then some sleepers, then build the right of way, and finally lay some drainage? 

[The Stationmaster]

The WCML has capacity you have only to watch by the lineside at various points south and especialy the north ,cab signalling must be put in place and the other Pendolinos lengthened DAFT will have to bite the bullet on this.If improved speeds could be gained then the white elephant can be put back in the cupboard and we can all get on with our lives. 

I bet if you go to certain places on the WCML at particular times of day (and I don't just mean the commuter peaks) you will find it working to as near 100% of line capacity as makes little difference.  Adding ERTMS won't make freight trains run any faster and it won't result in stopping passenger trains not calling at their intermediate stops any more although where you have a flight of trains with similar characteristics it might allow you to get in an extra one with those characteristics.  Simple fact is that when I was looking at and working on the detail 12-13 years ago the traffic forecasts turned into train paths made it very obvious that the WCMl was going to run out of capacity at the then predicted rates of growth; some of those growth estimates have turned out to be somewhat conservative.

 

But then equally if you really wanted to increase capacity all you need to do is change some of the speed differentials.

 

However, I'm not sure why platform lengthening would be such a cost issue in the big scheme of things. Tens or even hundreds of ££millions are a tiny amount compared with £50 billion.

 

 

.

It certainly wouldn't cost billions but it has a nasty habit of turning out far more expensive than initial thoughts usually suggest.  Platform lengthening costs on parts of the Southern (for 12 car trains)shot way up as details emerged as it isn't just the physical work but the need, often, to alter signalling which can sometimes turn into a major job as it involves moving more than one signal and if pointwork starts getting involved you start at around a quarter of a million and the just watch the numbers roll in.  I did a SPAD risk assessment for 'platform starting signals' on Great Western Zone back in the early 2000s and it gradually turned into a feast of moving signals and providing various repeaters without even considering longer trains - all of that, or the equivalent, would be just another little job to add on.

 

So agree absolutely - no way is it billions but over a route it could very rapidly turn into a lot more millions than might be thought.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Simple fact is that when I was looking at and working on the detail 12-13 years ago the traffic forecasts turned into train paths made it very obvious that the WCMl was going to run out of capacity at the then predicted rates of growth; some of those growth estimates have turned out to be somewhat conservative.

 

 

As I see it, the worst case is that the Government has overestimated the growth figures and so has HS2 ready a few years earlier than it's needed. So a little bit of my taxes has to go on subsidising a slightly underutilised train service for a few years until is becomes more heavily used. And that's not a massive problem. 

[Richard E]

Surely Mike's post also confirms that we will run out of capacity earlier than originally expected so we need to get building sooner rather than later. And all that will happen is that the NIMBY section will cause far more disruption and misery than might otherwise have occurred.

[Reorte]

Surely Mike's post also confirms that we will run out of capacity earlier than originally expected so we need to get building sooner rather than later. And all that will happen is that the NIMBY section will cause far more disruption and misery than might otherwise have occurred.

I'm afraid anyone who uses the word "NIMBY" almost always sounds like they've got a chip on their shoulder and appear to be trying to simply dismiss anyone who opposes what they want.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Without looking it up, I suspect all the various growth forecasts were made before the recent revelations on immigration and population growth were announced.

With a population now growing faster than previously forecast, increased migration and an increasing birthrate, it's likely that public transport, like the health service, are at the risk of being caught short.

London's population continues to grow the fastest.

[Reorte]

Which is an outright frightening, depressing thing altogether and is a much wider problem that needs addressing ASAP. The last thing this country needs is more people.

[martin_wynne]

The last thing this country needs is more people.

 

We are all pensioners now. Without more young people who is actually going to build HS2?

[Reorte]

We are all pensioners now. Without more young people who is actually going to build HS2?

I'm not even 40 yet!

 

More young people means more pensioners in the future, which needs more young people, etc. Anything based on continued growth of anything is unsustainable, and even before that point is reached we have to do more and more things that make the place a bit less pleasant to live in but are necessary just to stay where we are (HS2 being a good example - individually they may not seem too much but they all add up). This is not an improvement and is why, as I've said elsewhere, I view the future with dread (whereas I once looked at it with enthusiasm).

 

Anyway, getting rather off-topic.