HS2 under review

[phil-b259]

Point taken you all have made me decide to not to contribute to this thread anymore as it seems to upset you  I will follow it of course and hope you enjoy the first ride on the line.

 

In time I would hope you would re-consider that stance. As someone living close to the route you are in an ideal position to give us information about construction activities and the effects upon completion - be they good or bad. While its a different situation, the threads covering the rebuilding of the sea wall at Dawlish or Dover were greatly appreciated by members and I imagine similar updates as regards HS2 construction would be apreciated.

 

If construction activities do cause excessive travel disruption or noise pollution then it would be useful to know - however I would also hope you have the good grace to report if things are actually not as bad as you predict. I say this because there have been professional studies into the reactions of Kent residents to the construction of HS1 / CTRL before, during constriction and a few years into operation which show that their fears (many of which were the same as you have previously aired on this thread) have actually not materialised to anything like the degree they thought they would.

 

Given the emotions that this topic brings up and more importantly the determination from the Government to see it through, I do however tend to think that the time for discussion over whether HS2 should proceed etc has passed and we are now moving into the observational stage - which ultimately will either vindicate or demolish one of the key arguments those opposed to HS2 regularly espouse.

Edited December 20, 2016 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

My reading of the above is that the named places will lose their direct express services to London, which will be replaced by a semi-fast service. So the comments regarding journey times from anywhere other than the major centres are valid.

 

Trains compete with cars. A car offers a door-to-door service. HS2 means that passengers will either have to put up with slower journeys or have to change trains even more than at present, which will make rail a less attractive option for anyone living somewhere bypassed by HS2, which is most places on the WCML, MML and ECML - ie, quite a lot of places.

 

If, as stated previously, HS2 is actually all about capacity rather than speed, then firstly it should be re-branded. Goodness knows enough of that sort of thing goes on in an effort to convince the public that progress is being made. Secondly, it should be a new railway line that is part of the current network, to maximise resilience, flexibilty and choice of destinations, not a high-tech line that does what the Great Central main line used to do, going from A to B with very few junctions in between.

 

Trains do not solely compete with cars! Nor are the passenger flows between our major cities that small - Virgin could quite easily run (and fill) a non stop train services between Euston - Birmingham traffic at peak times if they wanted to, the reason why they don't is the WCML / ECML / MML are  too full to arrange separate trains for intermediate stations in addition to non - stop ones. This has led to many stations receiving long distance express calls when in reality the demand simply doesn't justify them - but it would otherwise leave big gaps in the timetable. Such stopping patterns also give rise to the situation* where it is easier for residents of say Grantham to travel to London or Doncaster than it is to get to Newark a short distance down the line (which is of far more use in terms of taking cars off local roads as long distance commuters are more likely to use the train anyway. If the line capacity was available what you would do is run any all station (north of Peterborough) stopper to Leeds with connections into Newcastle bound trains arranged at Doncaster.

 

You also need to bear in mind that for anyone living south or east of London, the only way they can access WCML / MML /  ECML services is precisely by changing trains (and usually using the tube between London termi as well) and that doesn't mean that people automatically jump in the car instead.

 

*On the WCML the introduction of a London Midland all stations stopper on the Trent Valley line (which extends to London if you are willing to put up with the slower journey time) allowed the removal of station calls by some Virgin services which had only been there since BR days to actually give said stations a half reasonable train service. Its all very well being able to get to Manchester quickly but if you are at Tamworth and simply want to go to Nuneaton or Stafford then an express to Manchester is not helpful

[edcayton]

One of the problems with any form of infrastructure be it rail,road or other transport systems they tend not to be for the benefit of those who will be affected by its presence/construction, but a greater number of others. Unfortunately a sad fact of life.

 

As I said have travelled twice to Italy in the past 18 mths by train and the channel tunnel link and the TGV main lines are stunning. Down to the French/Italian borders in a matter of a few hours. Do these lines benefit those who are close to the lines both sides of the tunnel, I guess not many. Those it does benefit may have to travel to get a connection to the trains that use it.  Does it mean these lines are not worth the trouble they have caused those affected the building of the lines of course not.

 

I can understand the upset and concern it is and will cause those living on the route, I believe it will benefit those both travelling long distance plus those on other lines which will have the shorter distance travelling enhanced using the slots which will move on to the faster lines.

 

 

 

Yes, but the French (and other EU mainland) TGV form a network of long distance high speed lines, and the Chunnel and HS1 form a logical extension to this.

 

I would like to see such a network in the UK but it ain't gonna happen. But a long distance line ( at least from Glasgow/Edinburgh) which joins HS1 would be a different proposition. This would be for political reasons (to make the Scots feel part of the UK), and, yes, for national pride if we do it better than the rest of the world.

 

Who is the proposed line for? As Mike says most of the population will have to travel into London to get on it, and his Parkway station makes a lot of sense. As it is, someone suggested it will make life easier for people in Leeds to commute to London. Really? We can not continue this madness. We need to be saving energy and not inventing new travel by any method and that is why I am agin it.

 

Ed

[Colin_McLeod]

Everyone stay at home then.

 

I believe objectors to railways started with the construction of the Stockton and Darlington.

 

HS2 ( and hopefully HS3 etc) is progress for the greater good.

[caradoc]

'After several years' desperate and unrelenting opposition.....including intensive lobbying and carefully planted articles in the Press, the project has been approved'......

 

The above quote could perhaps be about HS2, but in fact it comes from Modern Railways dated July 1974 and concerns the first French TGV line, from Paris to Lyons. Not only was that line constructed but further routes to seemingly almost every point of the compass in France. Would anyone seriously argue now that the French TGV lines, and the other high speed passenger routes across Europe, are not needed and should not have been built ? We cannot afford not to build HS2. 

[locoholic]

But if you built HS2 as part of the present network, with multipul junction you would end up with the capacity of the new line being eaten up by little 4 car EMUs from every little contry station running through trains to everywhere and anywhere. Having through trains has proven to be the best way to increase ridership on trains, but not many places could fill full sized trains of the like that will be using the HS2, and that would be before you would let the civil servants in DaFT loose with the idea of running london commuter services from little contry stations just to gain votes from those that work in the city but don`t want to work there(we both know that there would be someone i the DaFT that would suggest this idea). This would negate the advantages that HS2 would bring to the rest of the UK, and turn even more of the home counties into London suburbia.

Your logic simply means that Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds will be turned into London suburbia instead. Which is a bad thing, as the economies of those places are doing OK already. Intermediate places like Stoke, Aylesbury or Rugby are hardly "little country stations", either.

[locoholic]

Trains do not solely compete with cars! Nor are the passenger flows between our major cities that small - Virgin could quite easily run (and fill) a non stop train services between Euston - Birmingham traffic at peak times if they wanted to...

 

You also need to bear in mind that for anyone living south or east of London, the only way they can access WCML / MML /  ECML services is precisely by changing trains (and usually using the tube between London termi as well) and that doesn't mean that people automatically jump in the car instead.

 

Firstly, HS2 will ONLY allow a non-stop service between London and Birmingham for many years. You seem to be saying that the demand is only at peak times, so the expense of HS2 would seem unjustified.

 

Secondly, changing trains in London is a total pain, especially if you have luggage, so yes, that does deter many people from the SE from using rail. Incidentally, the same applies to the much vaunted continental HS network - changing from HS1 to TGV in Paris is an unpleasant and time-consuming process which I do not intend to repeat. Elsewhere on this thread it has been stated that passengers like through journeys, but the scope for these on HS2 is severely limited. So the speed-orientated design of HS2, isolated from most of the other rail lines it crosses and settlements it bypasses, is actually significantly sub-optimal for the needs of UK rail passengers. The argument for new rail now relies on capacity and economic stimulus arguments, and the design of HS2 should be altered to reflect this.

[Edwin_m]

Firstly, HS2 will ONLY allow a non-stop service between London and Birmingham for many years. You seem to be saying that the demand is only at peak times, so the expense of HS2 would seem unjustified.

 

Secondly, changing trains in London is a total pain, especially if you have luggage, so yes, that does deter many people from the SE from using rail. Incidentally, the same applies to the much vaunted continental HS network - changing from HS1 to TGV in Paris is an unpleasant and time-consuming process which I do not intend to repeat. Elsewhere on this thread it has been stated that passengers like through journeys, but the scope for these on HS2 is severely limited. So the speed-orientated design of HS2, isolated from most of the other rail lines it crosses and settlements it bypasses, is actually significantly sub-optimal for the needs of UK rail passengers. The argument for new rail now relies on capacity and economic stimulus arguments, and the design of HS2 should be altered to reflect this.

Yet another opinion justified by "evidence" that flies in the face of the facts. 

 

With a minimum amount of research you would know that HS2 will allow through running onto existing lines in a similar way to the TGV.  In Phase 1, assuming current plans go ahead, this allows trains between London, North West England and Glasgow to benefit from the journey time saving (which becomes more important for these longer journeys).  With Phase 2, trains to the north-east and Scotland from both London and Birmingham will be able to use part of the HS network - the Birmingham to NE trains in particular will have a big journey time saving by avoiding the relatively slow route through Derby and Sheffield.  As several people have posted several times, the removal of the fastest trains from the WCML and ECML will release capacity for more trains to serve the smaller stations in between. 

 

If the capacity was available, the likes of Virgin would probably run non-stop trains from London to Birmingham today, and these would be equally "isolated" from the places in between by virtue of passing through without stopping (but would cause more noise in built-up areas). 

[Kelly]

Yet another opinion justified by "evidence" that flies in the face of the facts. 

 

With a minimum amount of research you would know that HS2 will allow through running onto existing lines in a similar way to the TGV.  In Phase 1, assuming current plans go ahead, this allows trains between London, North West England and Glasgow to benefit from the journey time saving (which becomes more important for these longer journeys).  With Phase 2, trains to the north-east and Scotland from both London and Birmingham will be able to use part of the HS network - the Birmingham to NE trains in particular will have a big journey time saving by avoiding the relatively slow route through Derby and Sheffield.  As several people have posted several times, the removal of the fastest trains from the WCML and ECML will release capacity for more trains to serve the smaller stations in between. 

 

If the capacity was available, the likes of Virgin would probably run non-stop trains from London to Birmingham today, and these would be equally "isolated" from the places in between by virtue of passing through without stopping (but would cause more noise in built-up areas). 

 

Virgin already have been pushing to drop Coventry and Rugby from their services to speed up journey times, so far that pressure has been resisted, but they were pushing for it to be allowed as part of a new franchise. From Coventry I much prefer to use Virgin over London Midland when going to London, as the Pendolinos I find more comfortable for my back compared to the London Midland 350s with their much stiffer seating. Losing that would be a pain, but if I had to I'd just have to go to Birmingham to change rather than to Coventry to change trains when I travel to London.

[olivegreen]

Secondly, changing trains in London is a total pain, especially if you have luggage, so yes, that does deter many people from the SE from using rail. Incidentally, the same applies to the much vaunted continental HS network - changing from HS1 to TGV in Paris is an unpleasant and time-consuming process which I do not intend to repeat. Elsewhere on this thread ….

 

Slightly off-topic, but I agree with you on that - changing stations in Paris, especially by metro, is a ghastly experience.  

Nevertheless, the station at Lille Europe was designed with that in mind - all you need to do (in theory, at least) is take a Eurostar which stops at Lille and do an easy change there for TGVs that go to the four corners of France, avoiding Paris….

….except that, in my (long) experience of such travel, SNCF has never managed to get the timetabling right to reduce waiting time between trains at most times of the day to a consistently acceptable period for the traveller, which is a disincentive to use that route.  (Yes, I am aware of the issues concerning paths and so on). By choosing your train timings carefully, it can be done, though, without having to wait for several hours.

 

Back to topic...

[hayfield]

I guess it may well be a bit of a wasted opportunity like every other major project, where compromises occur due to both costs and local pressure groups.

 

I believe we need an arterial system for trains for mass fast long distance travel, having strategically placed hubs allowing either connections to the slower mainlines or for trains to leave/join the system

 

We need the equivalent of a motorway system for trains, leaving the existing fast routes as A routes and a suburban routes. But then we have not got a joined up railway under one ownership (not necessarily nationalisation) where the services on all routes complement each other. The current system seems to benefit businesses and their shareholders rather than one designed for the benefit of the country and the passengers

[phil-b259]

Firstly, HS2 will ONLY allow a non-stop service between London and Birmingham for many years. You seem to be saying that the demand is only at peak times, so the expense of HS2 would seem unjustified.

 

Secondly, changing trains in London is a total pain, especially if you have luggage, so yes, that does deter many people from the SE from using rail. Incidentally, the same applies to the much vaunted continental HS network - changing from HS1 to TGV in Paris is an unpleasant and time-consuming process which I do not intend to repeat. Elsewhere on this thread it has been stated that passengers like through journeys, but the scope for these on HS2 is severely limited. So the speed-orientated design of HS2, isolated from most of the other rail lines it crosses and settlements it bypasses, is actually significantly sub-optimal for the needs of UK rail passengers. The argument for new rail now relies on capacity and economic stimulus arguments, and the design of HS2 should be altered to reflect this.

 

Have you actually read any of the information relating to HS2?

 

I say this because only the seriously uninformed would come out with such a statement - it has been very clear from day one that as well as hosting a self contained London - Birmingham service, Phase 1 will also see the transfer of London - Liverpool, London - Manchester and London - Scotland services to HS2, with said trains returning to the WCML just to the north of Lichfield via a spur to the Trent valley line. These services will continue to provide station calls at Crewe and Stoke etc as occurs now - and given most such services run non stop over the southern leg of the WCML any disbenefits are minimal compared to the benefits of more services and faster running times.This move avoids such services having to use the most congested part of the WCML and simultaneously frees up more slots for extra trains to the likes of Milton Keynes.

 

You don't add lots of economic opportunities by making every train stop at every intermediate station - however nice that may be for local residents, you do it by catering for the flows that exist - and the basic truth is the numbers wishing to go from city centre to city centre are far grater than those joining at intermediate stations. HS2 enables the former to be catered for without detriment to the latter rather than the current fudge of stopping long distance services simply to fill gaps in the timetable.If you want an example of this on a more traditional scale then "economic connectivity" would no doubt be improved by stopping every train on the BML at Haywards Heath - but that doesn't happen because there are far more people wanting to get from Brighton to London (or Croydon) than there is to HH

 

Later on Phase 2 will see Birmingham - Liverpool / Manchester / Scotland / Sheffield / Leeds / Newcastle opportunities become available (which could be extended towards Bristol from Birmingham if a currently missing connection was added to the classic network on the Birmingham approaches) as well as London - Birmingham / Manchester (direct and via Stafford / Stoke / etc due to the Litchfield connection) / Liverpool / Blackpool / The Lakes / Scotland / Sheffield / Leeds / York / Newcastle, plus if wires are ever extended you could add Chester / North Wales / Hull / Teeside, etc

 

As for the standards HS2 is being built too - unlike the French our Victorian network cannot accommodate long nor double deck trains - both of which have proven to work well when large numbers of travellers are present in mainland Europe. If Euston or Birmingham were in France then its quite likely that the existing station sites would already be big enough to accommodate the trains as well as being ready made for double deck trains. However just because the UK lacks such luxuries, it doesn't mean building HS2 to accommodate such features is foolish as we really don't want to replicate the problems of the current network. To do so represents traditional British small mindness and penny pinching at its worst - having to go back and alter something when it is operational always costs more, causes extensive disruption and requires awkward compromises.

Edited December 21, 2016 by phil-b259

[Colin_McLeod]

 

 

As for the standards HS2 is being built too - unlike the French our Victorian network cannot accommodate long nor double deck trains - both of which have proven to work well when large numbers of travellers are present in mainland Europe. If Euston or Birmingham were in France then its quite likely that the existing station sites would already be big enough to accommodate the trains as well as being ready made for double deck trains. However just because the UK lacks such luxuries, it doesn't mean building HS2 to accommodate such features is foolish as we really don't want to replicate the problems of the current network. To do so represents traditional British small mindness and penny pinching at its worst - having to go back and alter something when it is operational always costs more, causes extensive disruption and requires awkward compromises.

That makes perfect sense.  After all trucks and double decker buses are not built to go under every low bridge in the country.  They live with route restrictions perfectly well and so would UIC gauge trains on HS2.

[Glorious NSE]

Have you actually read any of the information relating to HS2?

Clearly he has, as he has referenced that in his posts. And exactly the points made back to him have been made many times, with factual backup. 

But he's back to making statements that are plainly lies.

 

Don't feed the troll?

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

If you want to see people telling porkies about HS2, then check out http://stophs2.org 

 

A lot of the myths about HS2, such as the one about smaller stations having a worse service, seem to originate there. They don't appear to give any source for this claim. 

[locoholic]

Have you actually read any of the information relating to HS2?

 

I say this because only the seriously uninformed would come out with such a statement - it has been very clear from day one that as well as hosting a self contained London - Birmingham service, Phase 1 will also see the transfer of London - Liverpool, London - Manchester and London - Scotland services to HS2, with said trains returning to the WCML just to the north of Lichfield via a spur to the Trent valley line. These services will continue to provide station calls at Crewe and Stoke etc as occurs now - and given most such services run non stop over the southern leg of the WCML any disbenefits are minimal compared to the benefits of more services and faster running times.This move avoids such services having to use the most congested part of the WCML and simultaneously frees up more slots for extra trains to the likes of Milton Keynes.

 

You don't add lots of economic opportunities by making every train stop at every intermediate station - however nice that may be for local residents, you do it by catering for the flows that exist - and the basic truth is the numbers wishing to go from city centre to city centre are far grater than those joining at intermediate stations. HS2 enables the former to be catered for without detriment to the latter rather than the current fudge of stopping long distance services simply to fill gaps in the timetable.If you want an example of this on a more traditional scale then "economic connectivity" would no doubt be improved by stopping every train on the BML at Haywards Heath - but that doesn't happen because there are far more people wanting to get from Brighton to London (or Croydon) than there is to HH

 

Later on Phase 2 will see Birmingham - Liverpool / Manchester / Scotland / Sheffield / Leeds / Newcastle opportunities become available (which could be extended towards Bristol from Birmingham if a currently missing connection was added to the classic network on the Birmingham approaches) as well as London - Birmingham / Manchester (direct and via Stafford / Stoke / etc due to the Litchfield connection) / Liverpool / Blackpool / The Lakes / Scotland / Sheffield / Leeds / York / Newcastle, plus if wires are ever extended you could add Chester / North Wales / Hull / Teeside, etc

 

As for the standards HS2 is being built too - unlike the French our Victorian network cannot accommodate long nor double deck trains - both of which have proven to work well when large numbers of travellers are present in mainland Europe. If Euston or Birmingham were in France then its quite likely that the existing station sites would already be big enough to accommodate the trains as well as being ready made for double deck trains. However just because the UK lacks such luxuries, it doesn't mean building HS2 to accommodate such features is foolish as we really don't want to replicate the problems of the current network. To do so represents traditional British small mindness and penny pinching at its worst - having to go back and alter something when it is operational always costs more, causes extensive disruption and requires awkward compromises.

Yes, I have read the information, thanks. The Manchester services will have to be provided by trains built to the normal network loading gauge. If those trains were also used for the Birmingham services, and HS2 was built so that it didn't end at a terminus at Birmingham, then HS2 would have the capacity to offer direct services to the Black Country, Wolverhampton, Telford and Shrewsbury, and also Coventry, if a spur was provided near Kenilworth. That's the kind of service that passengers actually want. No-one in their right mind would suggest building a new motorway from London to Birmingham with no intermediate junctions, but that inflexibilty is designed into HS2 from the outset, despite the need for the line being for more capacity and economic regeneration, not ultra-high speed. The settlement density in England means that a long isolated high speed line does not meet the needs of the travelling public and is therefore poor value for money. It is especially stupid since the area that HS2 will traverse was left with little or no rail service post-Beeching, a situation that HS2 will do nothing to help, despite the need for new development in those areas to ease overcrowding in London and the South East.

Edited December 21, 2016 by locoholic

[phil-b259]

Yes, I have read the information, thanks. The Manchester services will have to be provided by trains built to the normal network loading gauge. If those trains were also used for the Birmingham services, and HS2 was built so that it didn't end at a terminus at Birmingham, then HS2 would have the capacity to offer direct services to the Black Country, Wolverhampton, Telford and Shrewsbury, and also Coventry, if a spur was provided near Kenilworth. That's the kind of service that passengers actually want. No-one in their right mind would suggest building a new motorway from London to Birmingham with no intermediate junctions, but that inflexibilty is designed into HS2 from the outset, despite the need for the line being for more capacity and economic regeneration, not ultra-high speed. The settlement density in England means that a long isolated high speed line does not meet the needs of the travelling public and is therefore poor value for money. It is especially stupid since the area that HS2 will traverse was left with little or no rail service post-Beeching, a situation that HS2 will do nothing to help, despite the need for new development in those areas to ease overcrowding in London and the South East.

 

You raise the example of motorways - well then back in the 1950s when the M1 was being built from Watford to Rugby there is no way it justified being built with 3 lanes - 2 would have done perfectly well based on the traffic predictions of the time. However the designers knew that it would not stay this length forever and that this section was just the INITIAL phase of a much larger project. As such they built it as 3 lanes from the outset to accommodate the traffic due to generated when the M1 extended into the East Midlands and ultimately on to Yorkshire and the M6 was extended south to meet it. In fact part of the problem with our motorways is precisely the number of intermediate junctions, including those that have no strategic function but whose existence has spawned lots of development and have allowed said routes to become overburdened with commuter traffic that was never intended when the network was being drawn up. This is one of the disadvantage of not tolling roads - in an era (1950s - 1990s) when that meant staffed toll booths (rather than using ANPR technology and pre payment etc) the desire for a junction had to be compared against the costs of staffing it. As a result distances between junctions in counties such as France (where lots of motorways are tolled) are generally grater than ours and said motorways are rarely used a de-facto by-passes of intermediate towns as they tend to be in the UK.

 

Thus HS2 is NOT just a London to Birmingham line - like the M1 (and the southern bit of the M6) the completed route will stretch from London to Lancashire and Yorkshire and THAT is what it is being designed around. Adding lots of intermediate connections or stations to phase one would cause a significant reduction in the ability of HS2 to do its job - which is long distance services to the North West and North East of England. Birmingham is merely an important mid point en route, but as with the M1, represents a useful destination to aim for and thus allowing construction of the entire line to be phased and resources not overstretched by trying to do too much at once. Once the full network is built there simply will not be any space for trains from 'local connections' as it will be fully utilised by express services to the north. Between London and Birmingham you will have 18TPH to play with so assuming say 4TPH to Birmingham, 4TPH to Leeds 4TPH to Manchester (2 TPH (2 possibly transferring to the WCML at Crewe / Lichfield to serve the likes of Stoke), 2TPH to Liverpool, 2TPH to Scotland via Preston and 2 TPH to Newcastle there is no room for extras*.

 

So yes phase one on its own may seem sub optimal and bereft of connections - but that is deliberate and in no way devalues the HS2 project AS A WHOLE - which includes the Manchester and Leeds legs plus the relief they can provide to cross country services.

 

Yes you could add 'temporary' services from extra local connections until the project is completed - but one thing the Thameslink project in London showed is that regular users get VERY upset if you muck around with their train services - to the extent that they are willing to forgo the doubling of the frequency and improved service reliability just so they can get out at City Thameslink rather than the preceding stop (Blackfrairs) As such filling up phase 1 with services that will have to be removed a few years later is not a good idea - nor is it good value for money to provide lots of local connections that will only be used for a short period.

 

The only connection that is lacking is one on the approch to the Birmingham terminus itself. While its clear New Street can never be rebuilt to accommodate double deck trains the equivalent length of two coupled TGVs (Hence the Curzon Street HS2 station), it would be possible for the proposed 'Classic compatible' trains to pass through new street onto Wolverhampton or South West towards Worcester and Cheltenham (amusing that route eventually gets wired).

 

* Note:- if you think this sounds low, its worth remembering that many experts consider the proposed 24 TPH for Thameslink as being unachievable and 18TPH actually compares quite well with what ONE of the WCML tracks (remembering there are two pairs) can reliably provide. Hence the reason for HS2 being designed to accommodate long double decked trains as this allows for continued passenger growth even when the actual number of trains that can run has peaked.

Edited December 21, 2016 by phil-b259

[edcayton]

You raise the example of motorways - well then back in the 1950s when the M1 was being built from Watford to Rugby there is no way it justified being built with 3 lanes - 2 would have done perfectly well based on the traffic predictions of the time. However the designers knew that it would not stay this length forever and that this section was just the INITIAL phase of a much larger project. As such they built it as 3 lanes from the outset to accommodate the traffic due to generated when the M1 extended into the East Midlands and ultimately on to Yorkshire and the M6 was extended south to meet it. In fact part of the problem with our motorways is precisely the number of intermediate junctions, including those that have no strategic function but whose existence has spawned lots of development and have allowed said routes to become overburdened with commuter traffic that was never intended when the network was being drawn up. This is one of the disadvantage of not tolling roads - in an era (1950s - 1990s) when that meant staffed toll booths (rather than using ANPR technology and pre payment etc) the desire for a junction had to be compared against the costs of staffing it. As a result distances between junctions in counties such as France (where lots of motorways are tolled) are generally grater than ours and said motorways are rarely used a de-facto by-passes of intermediate towns as they tend to be in the UK.

 

Thus HS2 is NOT just a London to Birmingham line - like the M1 (and the southern bit of the M6) the completed route will stretch from London to Lancashire and Yorkshire and THAT is what it is being designed around. Adding lots of intermediate connections or stations to phase one would cause a significant reduction in the ability of HS2 to do its job - which is long distance services to the North West and North East of England. Birmingham is merely an important mid point en route, but as with the M1, represents a useful destination to aim for and thus allowing construction of the entire line to be phased and resources not overstretched by trying to do too much at once. Once the full network is built there simply will not be any space for trains from 'local connections' as it will be fully utilised by express services to the north. Between London and Birmingham you will have 18TPH to play with so assuming say 4TPH to Birmingham, 4TPH to Leeds 4TPH to Manchester (2 TPH (2 possibly transferring to the WCML at Crewe / Lichfield to serve the likes of Stoke), 2TPH to Liverpool, 2TPH to Scotland via Preston and 2 TPH to Newcastle there is no room for extras*.

 

So yes phase one on its own may seem sub optimal and bereft of connections - but that is deliberate and in no way devalues the HS2 project AS A WHOLE - which includes the Manchester and Leeds legs plus the relief they can provide to cross country services.

 

Yes you could add 'temporary' services from extra local connections until the project is completed - but one thing the Thameslink project in London showed is that regular users get VERY upset if you muck around with their train services - to the extent that they are willing to forgo the doubling of the frequency and improved service reliability just so they can get out at City Thameslink rather than the preceding stop (Blackfrairs) As such filling up phase 1 with services that will have to be removed a few years later is not a good idea - nor is it good value for money to provide lots of local connections that will only be used for a short period.

 

The only connection that is lacking is one on the approch to the Birmingham terminus itself. While its clear New Street can never be rebuilt to accommodate double deck trains the equivalent length of two coupled TGVs (Hence the Curzon Street HS2 station), it would be possible for the proposed 'Classic compatible' trains to pass through new street onto Wolverhampton or South West towards Worcester and Cheltenham (amusing that route eventually gets wired).

 

* Note:- if you think this sounds low, its worth remembering that many experts consider the proposed 24 TPH for Thameslink as being unachievable and 18TPH actually compares quite well with what ONE of the WCML tracks (remembering there are two pairs) can reliably provide. Hence the reason for HS2 being designed to accommodate long double decked trains as this allows for continued passenger growth even when the actual number of trains that can run has peaked.

 

Please stop comparing UK and France. Their area is 2.5x ours and I'm guessing their "through" traffic is much greater. Transport "needs" are very different. You talk about long distance services from London to the NW and NE of England, but these are not long distances and I don't believe the French would have built the TGV network for two branch lines

 

Ed

 

Ed

Edited December 21, 2016 by edcayton

[locoholic]

 

The only connection that is lacking is one on the approch to the Birmingham terminus itself. While its clear New Street can never be rebuilt to accommodate double deck trains the equivalent length of two coupled TGVs (Hence the Curzon Street HS2 station), it would be possible for the proposed 'Classic compatible' trains to pass through new street onto Wolverhampton or South West towards Worcester and Cheltenham (amusing that route eventually gets wired).

 

Well, at least we agree about something! Although, of course, I would dispute the "only".

[phil-b259]

Please stop comparing UK and France. Their area is 2.5x ours and I'm guessing their "through" traffic is much greater. Transport "needs" are very different. You talk about long distance services from London to the NW and NE of England, but these are not long distances and I don't believe the French would have built the TGV network for two branch lines

 

Ed

 

Ed

 

 

Landmass is irrelevant due to the reason HS2 is being built.

 

A little history here lesson , why do you think the French went and built their first TGV line?

 

Outright Speed? Nope (though increases were obviously useful)

Massive reduction in journey times? - Nope (though any savings would obviously be welcomed)

to provide extra 'Connectivity? - Nope,

A lack of capacity on the original PLM route between their two most important centres (and beyond)? YES!

 

Naturally if you are building something new it is best to use the latest technology - which is why the TGV lines were built as high speed ones BUT the ORIGINAL reason for the PSE line was capacity needs, so they decided to build a new line to remove the long distance services.

 

As such the PSE line studiously avoided gong through existing population centres or littering it with stations - with TGVs extending beyond Lyon on classic lines to the Rivera etc there was plenty of traffic to fill it - just as there will be with HS2 with the proposed services beyond Birmingham..

 

Its the same with the TGV Nord - is full of trains going BEYOND Lille be it Belgium, the Netherlands or Calais - there is no way such a density of service could be accommodated on the classic lines between the two even if the French had wanted to (in fact Eurostar pathing first and foremost has to fit round the paths available on that line first, then through the tunnel with HS1 paths in the UK being very much dependent on the other two). Again stuffing the TGV nord full of stations, spurs and 'local services would have crippled its main business - which was to get as many trains to Lille as possible for onwards distribution.

 

HS2 is designed to achieve the same results and even it was being built as a 60mph conventional line the reasoning for NOT providing loads of connections and stations on phase 1 to Birmingham still stands. In other words the reason HS2 exists is to simply shift trains destined for Birmingham or points north off the most congested buts of our existing network. You cannot do this if you stuff your new 'trunk' full of other stuff to get in the way - as occurs on the WCML / MML / ECML at present.

Edited December 22, 2016 by phil-b259

[Edwin_m]

Yes, I have read the information, thanks. The Manchester services will have to be provided by trains built to the normal network loading gauge. If those trains were also used for the Birmingham services, and HS2 was built so that it didn't end at a terminus at Birmingham, then HS2 would have the capacity to offer direct services to the Black Country, Wolverhampton, Telford and Shrewsbury, and also Coventry, if a spur was provided near Kenilworth. That's the kind of service that passengers actually want. No-one in their right mind would suggest building a new motorway from London to Birmingham with no intermediate junctions, but that inflexibilty is designed into HS2 from the outset, despite the need for the line being for more capacity and economic regeneration, not ultra-high speed. The settlement density in England means that a long isolated high speed line does not meet the needs of the travelling public and is therefore poor value for money. It is especially stupid since the area that HS2 will traverse was left with little or no rail service post-Beeching, a situation that HS2 will do nothing to help, despite the need for new development in those areas to ease overcrowding in London and the South East.

Latest indications are that the entire fleet for HS2 phase 1 will be "classic compatible" meaning it can run on existing lines in the UK.  This appears to be a change from the original plan to split the fleet with some being standard European-spec trains for London-Birmingham that are captive to the HS2 infrastructure.  Captive trains might still be bought for Phase 2 when they will be able to serve Manchester and Leeds too, with the classic compatibles re-deployed for destinations such as Newcastle. 

 

There's a lot of detail still to be decided on through services, with places such as Stoke and Sheffield being talked about.  I do agree that providing a connection somewhere near Washwood Heath would open up a lot of opportunities for through north-east to south-west services as well as Wolverhampton and beyond.  Unfortunately the poor record of Network Rail means that those routes that aren't already electrified probably won't be electrified by 2032 and therefore won't get through high speed service.  There's also the question of whether these places can justify a train 200m long, and the fact that if these run as coupled pairs they would be too long for most existing stations.

[Pete the Elaner]

Everyone stay at home then.

 

I believe objectors to railways started with the construction of the Stockton and Darlington.

 

HS2 ( and hopefully HS3 etc) is progress for the greater good.

This seems to have been forgotten by many. One of the 'facts' being argued against it back then were that you would suffocate if you travelled faster than 20mph.

 

Our Victorian railways were ahead of their time & changed the country beyond belief. HS2 is 21st century progress.

[Reorte]

Our Victorian railways were ahead of their time & changed the country beyond belief. HS2 is 21st century progress.

No wonder I find the future looks like an ever-more depressing place.

 

I'm not trying to say it isn't needed (can't find any arguments against the capacity arguments), just don't expect me to like it or insist that I'll find the future a better place to live in than now.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Reorte

[phil-b259]

Latest indications are that the entire fleet for HS2 phase 1 will be "classic compatible" meaning it can run on existing lines in the UK.  This appears to be a change from the original plan to split the fleet with some being standard European-spec trains for London-Birmingham that are captive to the HS2 infrastructure.  Captive trains might still be bought for Phase 2 when they will be able to serve Manchester and Leeds too, with the classic compatibles re-deployed for destinations such as Newcastle. 

 

There's a lot of detail still to be decided on through services, with places such as Stoke and Sheffield being talked about.  I do agree that providing a connection somewhere near Washwood Heath would open up a lot of opportunities for through north-east to south-west services as well as Wolverhampton and beyond.  Unfortunately the poor record of Network Rail means that those routes that aren't already electrified probably won't be electrified by 2032 and therefore won't get through high speed service.  There's also the question of whether these places can justify a train 200m long, and the fact that if these run as coupled pairs they would be too long for most existing stations.

 

True, but Newcastle / Stoke / Sheffield will not be able to cope with double trainsets either. This is why clever design of the junctions near Birmingham is essential as it may well be necessary to split services there - say one train from London splits into two portions - one to head off to the WCML at Litchfield and the second to come off at Crewe. This can be done because once HS2 has split to serve the NW and NE each northern leg will only have 7 or so services from London with a theoretical capacity of 18TPH available leaving plenty of space for such splitting operations.

 

Similarly it should be possible to combine Captive and Classic Compatible units (in the same way single and double deck TGVs have operated) in the past. This could run as a combined train to the Birmingham Parkway station then split, with One half going to Curzon street and the other set joining the classic lines to Wolverhampton (though it might be necessary to skip New street to avoid everyone for Birmingham piling onto that set rather than the higher capacity Captive sets). This however requires a connection to classic lines to be provided in the vicinity of Washford Heath that is currently lacking.

 

Another possibility for the East Midlands leg might be for Classic compatibles to join HS2 in the vicinity of Totton - while there may not be any spare paths for direct London services (unless some form of splitting takes place at the East Midlands Parkway station with Sheffield /Leeds services)  that doesn't mean you couldn't run Derby - Leeds via HS2 for example. However at present the lack of connections and electrification of the MML means this is merely personal speculation - though one would hope there is still time for it to be considered.

Edited December 22, 2016 by phil-b259

[Richard E]

But, surely, comparisons between France and the UK are, to some extent, valid since the population of each country is not dissimilar, France at 66m and the UK at 64m. Assuming a similar age demographic then the number of people wishing to travel will be similar.

 

Looking at distances Dover to Inverness is 630 miles, which is exactly the same as Paris to Nice. By road the journey is around an hour longer in the UK than in France taking over 10 hours in the UK. By train the French journey is 5h 41m at a cost of £21 by TGV, in the UK it is 8h 52m with a change of train in Glasgow, the cost, £75 is the cheapest fare. If you only want to go to Glasgow then it takes 4h 30m and costs £134. The distance is 405 miles and by car it is still about 7.5 hours driving.

 

Whilst I suspect more people might want to travel to Nice than to Glasgow or Inverness I suspect it is a good comparison. It also highlights how expensive our train services seem to be, my season ticket cost is eyewatering!

 

The figures do show that we need better transport infrastructure. It is very difficult in the UK to achieve this as we are a crowded country and inevitably any new rail line or major road will cause upset and disruption to people to a greater extent than some other countries.

 

We all speak or write of the 'digital revolution' and how we should be using teleconferences far more. Whilst it is a few years ago now the company I then worked for used to have a daily teleconference between London, Glasgow and Peterborough offices. It was awful at times, stop motion video, garbled audio etc.

 

The company I currently work for has teleconference facilities direct from desk or using video equipped rooms. They will not equip all PC with webcams as standard due to cost (30,000 webcams are not cheap) and the impact that video calling has on the bandwidth demands on the network. And that is one clue to why we have not moved forward as far as some expect - we simply do not have the broadband infrastructure in this country to support any real increase in remote working.

 

At home I get faster broadband by tethering my phone than I do by landline. And I live in a city that professes to have broadband that is 100 times faster than the UK average. Mind you that turns out to be for a handful of business users that are prepared to pay for the service. I get about 4.5Mb at home now, it was less than 1Mb in January, if I go to a nearby village pub I can get 32Mb. What is the sense in that?