HS2 under review

[caradoc]

I regularly travel between Glasgow and Oxford, and given that I have to change trains somewhere anyway would certainly consider going via Old Oak instead of Birmingham.

[Siberian Snooper]

Several people I know who work in Plymouth,but live in the Newcastle area, travel via London as they know that they will get there usually on time and in more comfort than using cross country and I'd put a bet on the using Old Oak to avoid crossing London.

[phil-b259]

Firstly, can I say thank you for arguing your case using facts / statistics and not doing the equivalent of a child throwing a hissy fit because they don't get their way.

 

 

Compare apples to apples...
EasyJet isn’t competing against Cars, boats and trains when it comes to flights... it’s competing against other airlines.
 

 

Easy jet is still a transportation company though and competes with Eurostar. Other airlines compete for domestic travel within the UK with trains and cars too and they also offer a wide range of fares depending on how early you book.

 

More broadly if 'airline' style flexible purchasing is for irrelevant when it comes to surface why do coach operators like National express use it, or Stena line, or SNCF use it? Why do some car parks offer discounts for pre-bookings?

 

HS1 is not competing against Network Rail, similarly South Eastern operates both franchises on NR and HS1. Eurostar is private and runs as a monopoly.
This isn’t the case on HS2.
 

 

Erm, the Government have already said that the next WCML franchise will also be responsible for getting phase 1 of HS2 up and running! See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/582779/west-coast-partnership.pdf

 

True in the long term it may be HS2 operations are spun off into a stand alone franchise - but its equally true the services could remain aligned to the current franchises.

 

 

If it’s all about capacity being needed, then the implication demand exists (and the market is growing), if it’s purpose is to take ridership away from other routes... then without demand money is being lost... the government is competing against itself by stealing Network Rails business for HS2.

If the government does indeed compete against Network Rail services, it may look HS2 good, but it will end up subsidising the WCML/ ECML routes and franchisees further.

But £50bn is a big cost, with big rates of interest, even say over 30years at 4%.. that’s £85bn to repay... that’s £7.8mn per day premiums from those expected 300k passengers a day... that’s £25.87 per head just to stand still... plus regular train fare, plus operating costs, plus profit (and tax)... and that £85bn is accruing more interest every day until the first train runs and some money rolls in.

It therefore shouldn’t need to be discounting fares, unless of course a state run monopoly is seeking to undermine its tax paying business infrastructure by taking on the airlines ? - but with bad LHR / HS2 connections and LHR gaining a new short haul runway and terminal I don’t see that to be the case, the winner will be BA/ LHR in that one, as I said earlier those protections are in place.

I’d like to see where an extra 300k people are, who want to travel to London daily, especially as figures tell us people are brexiting the UK and were supposedly locking the borders.. are we all supposed to be getting freaky to grow the populace ?

There is of course another target, the business car driver. If the tax allowance for a car is removed, they are forced to the Rails. The problem is a massive drop in company car ownership will follow.. as will the car factories and those tax paying employees who make them. Additionally there’s the loss of that valuable Petrol and Road tax revenue. It’s risky as HS2 only goes to cities, where as business is everywhere, or at least it was until the loss of a car makes it no-longer viable to go there... like it or not, the success of our post war economy survives due to the car, it’s no coincidence the highest car ownership countries are the economically stronger ones.

 

I don't doubt that continued growth in passenger numbers is necessary for HS2 to produce a good return on the money invested, however predicting the future is not exactly straight forward.

 

Its worth remembering that since the business case for HS2 was prepared we have seen the following happen (which HS2 were unable to predict with any certainty):-

 

A softening of the economy due to the EU referendum result and continued uncertainty as to what the UK trading environment will be post Brexit

Changes to VED which mean most 'average' cars cost less in real terms to run than 4 years ago.

Prolonged industrial action on a number of TOCs (It is a provable fact that a significant chunk of the Southern commuter base had such a wretched time getting into London that they were forced to give up their jobs or abandon the trains)

Fuel duty frozen for 8 years in a row (predicted to be 9 years come Novembers budget) while rail fares have continued to increase above inflation.

 

All of the above will have affected the number of rail passengers in the recent past - and are likely to still do so for a number of years to come unless Government policy changes.

 

More widely we know that rail travel is more environmentally friendly the travel by car or plane. While the Treasury may favour the automotive travel due to the income from fuel duty and a lack of the need to subsidise it directly** from public funds, if we as a society wish to encourage modal shift then growth in rail passenger numbers needs to be planned for and accommodated by building new infrastructure.

 

Its worth remembering that monetary return is not the sole arbiter of happiness or well being and the return to society / the environment / the planet is just as important. Granted you can say rather than building HS2 we could all travel less* - but that rather goes against the prevailing economic thinking for the past 40 odd years and which shows no sign of changing.

 

One thing that would be interesting to see is a comparison between the justification for HS2 and the French / German / Spanish / Dutch LGVs. They do not posses 'magic money trees' any more than the UK does so must have incurred significant debt to construct their lines. What initial assumptions were made about rail passenger growth? how long was the 'payback' period? etc.

 

Such an analysis may prove that those big numbers you quote (including in post #2665) are not as alarming as it appears.

 

Of course in many of these countries a higher value is placed on social benefits of said schemes  - such as keeping folk in employment, seeking to subsidise alternatives to motor car use etc, keeping walk on fares lowish*** - all factors the British have a habit of ignoring / dismissing in pursuit of short term goals / having narrow minded obsession with the money spent.

 

* Note if those opposed to HS2 were suggesting sound ways of doing this through radical changes to the tax system say, then I would take them a lot more seriously

 

** road building or 'Smartifying' motorways is not cheap but the Government insist on viewing such activities as 'investing' rather than 'subsidising' the road network.

 

*** though the UKs 'airline' style setup means that our advance purchase tickets are the cheapest in Europe.

Edited October 14, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Back on the topic of Old Oak, the following articles on the London Reconnections website are worth a read.

 

As I said earlier, the intention of the London Mayor / TfL / the GLA is for a comprehensive redevelopment of the area and while the stations on the various lines may be physically separate, interchange looks alot more pleasant when not surrounded by railway lines / depots.

 

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/old-oak-common-a-vision-and-a-challenge-for-crossrail-part-1/

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/old-oak-common-part-2/

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/old-oak-part-3/

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/old-oak-common-consultations-galore/

 

The GLAs vision as of 2015

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/osd29_old_oak_and_park_royal_oapf.pdf

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/osd29_old_oak_and_park_royal_oapf.pdf

http://www.oldoakpark.co.uk/OOP-Summary-Booklet.pdf

Edited October 14, 2018 by phil-b259

[adb968008]

Firstly, can I say thank you for arguing your case using facts / statistics and not doing the equivalent of a child throwing a hissy fit because they don't get their way.

Inserting Personal comments in a discussion are the first sign of weakness in a negotiation point, and introduces to the opposition the initiative to introduce terms avourable to ones self as prelude to making a deal.

 

In 1 page weve gone from an economic argument, to a capacity requirement to a social, environmental and humanistic argument for HS2.

 

So if HS2 is purely a scheme to provide the unemployed with work, transport for the transportless, provides more trees than it fells as reason for construction then who am i to argue.

 

But at the least the government should be upfront about it and end all pretence that its being built to meet an obvious need, promoted as the best design and publishing figures to suggest its going to give maximum return.

 

I am in overall favour of HS2, i dont think it will pay for itself.

I dont believe OC gives value for time, money and will fail to achieve its passenger numbers. Missing out a tube station, road connections and TFL interchange is also a mistake, but as none of these deliver any South East, South West, North East or North West london connections it alienates itself from the majority of Londoners.

To me, (and looking at your profile suggesting West Sussex, i assume yourself) majority usage of HS2 would be via Euston, not OC. Its profile is accurately designed to bring people to London from across the UK, but not those in the South to the North.

As long as the M5 exists, the desire to go from the South West to the midlands in a straight line will always be more logical and appealing than going via London, which we are educated to try to avoid.

 

Finally, I would assume this HS2 charity will then at somepoint not be sold, re-leased or re-franchised at massive loss or subsidy to the private sector for profit, next time the country or HS2’s current operators is on its uppers ? - of course it will, because this projct is not about social, environmental and humanistic..they are just design considerations they are not in the business case.

Edited October 14, 2018 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

The firebreaks are unused paths, two per hour I think, provided to allow recovery from disruption (eg a late train can use them without delaying all later trains until the end of the day).  If you use one for a train calling at Calvert then it's no longer serving as a firebreak.  A delayed train with no path would have to travel to Calvert in the first half of the firebreak path then wait 24min for the rest of the path. 

 

So ignoring the firebreaks there will be trains every 3min.  If one of then stops, how do you re-start it without having an unused path a few minutes after the original path?  Am I missing something here?  How do you arrange calls at Calvert without each one costing an extra path? 

 

The Old Oak stop doesn't cost as much time as a Calvert stop would, because being so close to Euston trains would be passing more slowly if they didn't stop than they would at Calvert. 

 

A stop at Calvert would give - assuming a constant 3 minute headway - the equivalent of one unused path, but split into two pieces separated by six minutes.  Two stops per hour would thus give two unused theoretical paths.  but it is critically important to remember that we are talking about theoretical paths and not a real running railway.  If you are giving two paths per hour as 'firebreaks' you are only creating two 3 minute breaks come what may and we are probably only talking about designed headway at a particular speed and not achievable headway.  

 

All you need to do in theoretical terms is vary the speed and that varies the number of theoretical paths, so equally if theoretical speed speed alters on the day - perhaps due to strong winds (the most likely cause) the paths and timetable immediately assume a different shape - which is exactly what happens on the Channel Tunnel which is probably the closest approach any mainline railway yet has to matching actual and theoretical capacities and available number of paths.  If you are going to computer model it you would only get a realistic assessment of actual capacity by modelling all potential variables to take account of the most common in developing a trainplan, software has long existed to do that but can be very cumbersome (still I suspect) to programme to the level of detail required.  for example on LGV Nord path capacity varies, and the trainplan is influenced by, whatever factors are taken account when deciding the achievable headway as opposed to the theoretical headway thus the timetable is, in detail, subject to adjustment for such things as track renewal and consequent restrictions of speed (although such speeds are still high of course).

 

If there is a stated theoretical capacity for HS2 - which there obviously is - my first question would always be exactly what it has been based on.  Which takes us some way from Calvert Junction/Parkway but it would be very relevant in assessing the real impact of providing such a station.  If you base the HS2 trainplan 100% on theoretical headway, obviously at a stated speed of course, there will be times when it won't work unless the speeds used are below the officially stated normal linespeeds. 

[The Stationmaster]

While there are indeed many airports north of London with flights to many destinations they don't go everywhere so a regular stream of people will need to get to Heathrow from all over the country.

 

If all of the southbound high speed services are being funnelled down one route it makes a lot of sense for them to stop at OOC as easy connections to Crossrail and the GWML would see most travellers changing here rather than Euston.  This in turn makes OOC a major station meaning that all GWML services will need to stop there. Once things are up and running a great deal of journeys between destinations north of Birmingham to/from destinations west of London will be passing through OOC.  This will help to some degree with overcrowding on Crosscountry and save passengers from stressful journeys accross London.

 

Simple question - how many times would you like to transfer your luggage and would you like to do it yourself?  e.g. Regional flight to connect long distance at LHR means one luggage transfer - handled by airport staff.  HS2 via OOC connection to LHR means two luggage transfers that you have to do yourself one at OOC and one at LHR.  Free choice which would you do?  I suspect somebody is looking fora market which won't exist.  The business traveller might buy it but will work largely on time and cost in any event.  and of course there is a well know and often overlooked fact when it comes to rail travel - passengers do not like having to change trains - it confuses them,  can create uncertainty, and interrupts what they see as a sensible journey made throughout in the same seat; and that's why Cross Country's trains are popular notwithstanding it involves a trip on a Voyager but above all they ab void London.  Old Oak Common has the disadvantage of being in London and in reality is no more than a sop to not taking HS2 via LHR.

 

Enforced loss of regional air connections at LHR gives the passenger less choice and forces the onto HS2 or they choose a different destination in the case of leisure travellers.  BTW anyone travelling from west of London on the GWMl will change at reading to the western link to LHR if that happens or they'll stillgo on the coach with part of their transfer at Reading taken care for them by a reassuring human presence.

[Edwin_m]

Even if it's possible to find room amongst all the other things beneath Heathrow for a high speed station 600m or so long, it would be vastly expensive - so any station would probably end up being outside the airport and then you're back to connecting services.  And it was estimated early in the planning of HS2 that the number of passengers heading to Heathrow was only 8% IIRC of the number heading to London overall.  It doesn't justify the extra construction cost and journey time for everyone else, when the OOC option is nearly as good for Heathrow and makes various other connections too (GWML and possibly Chiltern, potentially Overground too). 

[GoingUnderground]

Firstly, can I say thank you for arguing your case using facts / statistics and not doing the equivalent of a child throwing a hissy fit because they don't get their way.

 

 

 

Easy jet is still a transportation company though and competes with Eurostar. Other airlines compete for domestic travel within the UK with trains and cars too and they also offer a wide range of fares depending on how early you book.

 

More broadly if 'airline' style flexible purchasing is for irrelevant when it comes to surface why do coach operators like National express use it, or Stena line, or SNCF use it? Why do some car parks offer discounts for pre-bookings?

 

 

Erm, the Government have already said that the next WCML franchise will also be responsible for getting phase 1 of HS2 up and running! See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/582779/west-coast-partnership.pdf

 

True in the long term it may be HS2 operations are spun off into a stand alone franchise - but its equally true the services could remain aligned to the current franchises.

 

 

 

I don't doubt that continued growth in passenger numbers is necessary for HS2 to produce a good return on the money invested, however predicting the future is not exactly straight forward.

 

Its worth remembering that since the business case for HS2 was prepared we have seen the following happen (which HS2 were unable to predict with any certainty):-

 

A softening of the economy due to the EU referendum result and continued uncertainty as to what the UK trading environment will be post Brexit

Changes to VED which mean most 'average' cars cost less in real terms to run than 4 years ago.

Prolonged industrial action on a number of TOCs (It is a provable fact that a significant chunk of the Southern commuter base had such a wretched time getting into London that they were forced to give up their jobs or abandon the trains)

Fuel duty frozen for 8 years in a row (predicted to be 9 years come Novembers budget) while rail fares have continued to increase above inflation.

 

All of the above will have affected the number of rail passengers in the recent past - and are likely to still do so for a number of years to come unless Government policy changes.

 

More widely we know that rail travel is more environmentally friendly the travel by car or plane. While the Treasury may favour the automotive travel due to the income from fuel duty and a lack of the need to subsidise it directly** from public funds, if we as a society wish to encourage modal shift then growth in rail passenger numbers needs to be planned for and accommodated by building new infrastructure.

 

Its worth remembering that monetary return is not the sole arbiter of happiness or well being and the return to society / the environment / the planet is just as important. Granted you can say rather than building HS2 we could all travel less* - but that rather goes against the prevailing economic thinking for the past 40 odd years and which shows no sign of changing.

 

One thing that would be interesting to see is a comparison between the justification for HS2 and the French / German / Spanish / Dutch LGVs. They do not posses 'magic money trees' any more than the UK does so must have incurred significant debt to construct their lines. What initial assumptions were made about rail passenger growth? how long was the 'payback' period? etc.

 

Such an analysis may prove that those big numbers you quote (including in post #2665) are not as alarming as it appears.

 

Of course in many of these countries a higher value is placed on social benefits of said schemes - such as keeping folk in employment, seeking to subsidise alternatives to motor car use etc, keeping walk on fares lowish*** - all factors the British have a habit of ignoring / dismissing in pursuit of short term goals / having narrow minded obsession with the money spent.

 

* Note if those opposed to HS2 were suggesting sound ways of doing this through radical changes to the tax system say, then I would take them a lot more seriously

 

** road building or 'Smartifying' motorways is not cheap but the Government insist on viewing such activities as 'investing' rather than 'subsidising' the road network.

 

*** though the UKs 'airline' style setup means that our advance purchase tickets are the cheapest in Europe.

The big unknown on long distance ridership is the evenual introduction of self-driving vehicles. Lorries are likely to be first as the savings in replacing human drivers with computer control are likely to be substantial as that would allow much greater utilisation as they wouldn't be subject to the limits on driver hours.

 

Coaches might be next, allowing people get used to travelling on driverless road vehicles.

 

The introduction of driverless cars will probably take longest as the financial incentive will be lower, and probably come in the form of lower insurance premiums initially, whilst the first generation of driverless vehicles trickle down into the secondhand market, and prices drop as they become mainstream standard equipment, the way that heaters, radios, heated rear windows, servo assisted disc brakes, etc

did.

 

Will people want to travel long distances in the relativrly cramped confines of a car as opposed to the slightly greaterspace in a train? I think they will just for the benefit of having their own car at their destination. The edge that rail has is speed, but will it be enough?

Edited October 14, 2018 by GoingUnderground

[phil-b259]

In 1 page weve gone from an economic argument, to a capacity requirement to a social, environmental and humanistic argument for HS2.

 

So if HS2 is purely a scheme to provide the unemployed with work, transport for the transportless, provides more trees than it fells as reason for construction then who am i to argue.

 

But at the least the government should be upfront about it and end all pretence that its being built to meet an obvious need, promoted as the best design and publishing figures to suggest its going to give maximum return.

 

 

 

Please be careful about assuming that HS2 has to definitively only be about one thing or another. The whole is more than the sum of its parts as it were.

 

Take employment for example - if HS2 employs folk who would otherwise be needing the state to pay them benefits then tax revenues increase. The debt of construction can then be mitigated by an increase in taxes that would otherwise not occur. Similarly if we cut pollution by educing vehicle emissions then experts tell us it will save the NHS millions on treating people for responsary illness - again the extra Debit in building HS2 results in savings elsewhere.

 

Thus while the main reason for building HS2 is to provide additional capacity (without which the ability to encourage certain desirable things to happen isn't there) there are a whole host of fringe benefits which it can unlock that might not be obvious at the outset. The problem all Governments have is how do you account for those and this is again area where the British are notoriously bad at getting right in my view.

 

Thats why I questioned how other countries do the sums.

 

Taking the subject off topic for a moment, I recall a Channel 4 News piece in the run up to Brexit examining the plight of Fishermen on both sides of the Channel. In the UK it seems most of the EU quotas are auctioned off by HM Government to the highest bidder (in accordance of Treasury rules that require getting maximum monetary value for such things) netting substantial sums for the Government. All well and good you might think, BUT.... what that means is the small independent fishermen are not given the opportunity to go out and catch enough to make a decent living from it.

 

By contrast the French Government excludes big corporations / international conglomerates and allocates its quotas to local fishermen, provides financial help to buy boats and equipment etc and generally seeks to exclude the big commercial companies where possible. Now this action means that in financial terms, the French state loses out big time from the big profits it could make by following the UK example. However what the French realise is that if you keep the local independent fishermen gong, not only do you not have to pay them state welfare benefit, but you also keep small fishing ports busy places, which then keeps other business going which increases the tax take, etc, etc etc.

 

So return to railways and a more relevant example of British attitudes.

 

If you recall much of the delay in ordering the new 700 trains for Thameslink centred around the Treasury getting the 'best value for the taxpayer'. At the time Bombardier were running out of work and looking at having to lay off staff - yet the calculations the Treasury used didn't properly reflect the fact that if the order went outside the UK then they Government would have to start paying benefits to those in Derby put out of work as a result.

 

Now of course in the end the Government saved itself from this fate coming to pass virtue of Bombardier then getting the Crossrail rolling stock order plus further Electrostars of the GWML but the fact that they allowed the situation to occur in the first place speaks volumes..

[phil-b259]

Finally, I would assume this HS2 charity will then at somepoint not be sold, re-leased or re-franchised at massive loss or subsidy to the private sector for profit, next time the country or HS2’s current operators is on its uppers ? - of course it will, because this projct is not about social, environmental and humanistic..they are just design considerations they are not in the business case.

 

No HS2 is not a charity, but equally why does it have to be viewed as a profit making business to be sacrificed to the highest bidder?

 

I accept that given the demographics, historical decisions, political structures and tribal nature of UK politics the UK establishment see HS2 as a business and will try to recoup as much of taxpayers money as possible

 

I personally believe public transport is there first and foremost to provide a social service to society - and should be managed as such. Nothing wrong in it being run by private sector organisations per say (and certainly given the incompetence of Whitehall, Nationalisation is most definitely not the answer) - but as with the basic utilities it should be on a concession / mutual basis where the service outcomes / profits are either reinvested in that service or they go towards making our country and planet a better place to live - NOT THE CHEAPEST PLACE TO LIVE please note!

[phil-b259]

 

If there is a stated theoretical capacity for HS2 - which there obviously is - my first question would always be exactly what it has been based on.  Which takes us some way from Calvert Junction/Parkway but it would be very relevant in assessing the real impact of providing such a station.  If you base the HS2 trainplan 100% on theoretical headway, obviously at a stated speed of course, there will be times when it won't work unless the speeds used are below the officially stated normal linespeeds. 

 

I believe that this is partly why the official line is that although HS2 is being built as a 250mph railway trains will be timetabled on the basis of a maximum speed of 200mph.

 

No different to what the French are currently doing on the LGV-Est where 186mph remains the timetabled speed under normal conditions with an increase to 200mph only happening where timetable disruption occurs and there is a need to regain time.

[jjb1970]

Putting politics aside, the demolition of the carriage shed has made a huge difference to the approach into Euston.

[locoholic]

I am curious about the three-minute headway.

 

1. How will the station throat at Euston be capable of handling this frequency, as there will be conflicting movements? How near to Euston does the double-track start?

 

2. How does the junction where the Birmingham route splits from the Trent Valley link cope with this frequency? And if that junction can cope, why couldn't there be a junction for a four-track section to allow for a passenger station near Aylesbury?

Edited October 14, 2018 by locoholic

[Neil]

.... And if that junction can cope, why couldn't there be a junction for a four-track section to allow for a passenger station near Aylesbury?

 

Unless I'm much mistaken doesn't Aylesbury already have a railway station? What possible benefit would there be in having a station on HS2 at Aylesbury? Though I would quite like to see HS2 extended to Tywyn (see my previous post) I know this wouldn't be a viable or sensible thing to do. There's a danger of getting a bit wish list-y about the whole HS2 provision. I think we need to be realistic about what it will do and let it do that well rather than compromising that with a whole range of service add-ons which will make it less attractive to its core users.

[locoholic]

Unless I'm much mistaken doesn't Aylesbury already have a railway station? What possible benefit would there be in having a station on HS2 at Aylesbury? Though I would quite like to see HS2 extended to Tywyn (see my previous post) I know this wouldn't be a viable or sensible thing to do. There's a danger of getting a bit wish list-y about the whole HS2 provision. I think we need to be realistic about what it will do and let it do that well rather than compromising that with a whole range of service add-ons which will make it less attractive to its core users.

Without wishing to repeat a load of previous posts, some folk (including me) think that having a station perhaps that connected with the East-West Rail route would be a good idea, to open up more travel opportunities and reflect the plans for major housing development in the area.

[black and decker boy]

Unless I'm much mistaken doesn't Aylesbury already have a railway station? What possible benefit would there be in having a station on HS2 at Aylesbury? .

Yes, Aylesbury has 2 stations. You cannot go north as it’s the end of the line. To go to Birmingham or beyond, you need to drive across to the Chiltern Line but even then, it involves minimum 1 change.

 

With the planned expansion of housing provision through Aylesbury Vale and the building of East West Rail, I can see why people are suggesting a HS2 station at Calvert to be served by HS1 Javelin style services.

 

Whether Birmingham generates enough commuters is the bit I struggle with as when I commute north, there are few doing the same from Risborough or Thame until you get to Banbury & Leamington.

[lmsforever]

Nice to see my town suggested for an HS2 station but there probably wont be a market for it ,if any residents travel its to Luton Airport to go to Spain not Scotland!

[phil-b259]

Yes, Aylesbury has 2 stations. You cannot go north as it’s the end of the line. To go to Birmingham or beyond, you need to drive across to the Chiltern Line but even then, it involves minimum 1 change.

 

With the planned expansion of housing provision through Aylesbury Vale and the building of East West Rail, I can see why people are suggesting a HS2 station at Calvert to be served by HS1 Javelin style services.

 

Whether Birmingham generates enough commuters is the bit I struggle with as when I commute north, there are few doing the same from Risborough or Thame until you get to Banbury & Leamington.

 

Which is kind of the problem. Every single HS2 train path you use for a Javalin style commuter operation means one less train for Manchester / Liverpool / Birmingham / Sheffield / Leeds etc.

 

Alternatively, if you merely stop HS2 trains at Calvert Parkway, then they will fill up with commuters (stopping long distance folk from using them) and virtually empty north of Calvert.

 

Hence IF a HS2 station were to be provided it would act as a pick up point for north bound travellers and a drop off point for those heading south.

 

Analysis of the numbers who might potentially use Calvert for that purpose suggests its not worth doing when all the other knock on consequences are considered.

 

In time you will be able to go north from there via the rebuilt east - west rail line to Milton Keynes. It would also potentially be possible to devise a way of getting to Bicester and Banbury if suitable south to west and west to north chords were added at suitable places

Edited October 14, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

I am curious about the three-minute headway.

 

1. How will the station throat at Euston be capable of handling this frequency, as there will be conflicting movements? How near to Euston does the double-track start?

 

2. How does the junction where the Birmingham route splits from the Trent Valley link cope with this frequency? And if that junction can cope, why couldn't there be a junction for a four-track section to allow for a passenger station near Aylesbury?

 

1 :- As the tracks approach Euston there are a set of grade separated junctions (much like at St Pancras) to remove conflicts between departing and arriving trains. Effectively Euston HS2 is operationally 2 sets of platforms each with their own final approach allowing for simultaneous arrivals and departures

 

2 :- The junction on the Trent Valley line will (as with all HS2 connections) be fully grade separated

Edited October 14, 2018 by phil-b259

[lmsforever]

Dont think many people would bother traveling to Calvert when are plenty of alternatives much closer to settlements were they live.

[Hesperus]

Simple question - how many times would you like to transfer your luggage and would you like to do it yourself?  e.g. Regional flight to connect long distance at LHR means one luggage transfer - handled by airport staff.  HS2 via OOC connection to LHR means two luggage transfers that you have to do yourself one at OOC and one at LHR.  Free choice which would you do?  I suspect somebody is looking fora market which won't exist.  The business traveller might buy it but will work largely on time and cost in any event.  and of course there is a well know and often overlooked fact when it comes to rail travel - passengers do not like having to change trains - it confuses them,  can create uncertainty, and interrupts what they see as a sensible journey made throughout in the same seat; and that's why Cross Country's trains are popular notwithstanding it involves a trip on a Voyager but above all they ab void London.  Old Oak Common has the disadvantage of being in London and in reality is no more than a sop to not taking HS2 via LHR.

 

Enforced loss of regional air connections at LHR gives the passenger less choice and forces the onto HS2 or they choose a different destination in the case of leisure travellers.  BTW anyone travelling from west of London on the GWMl will change at reading to the western link to LHR if that happens or they'll stillgo on the coach with part of their transfer at Reading taken care for them by a reassuring human presence.

 

Your theoretical passenger with luggage isn't necessarily starting that close to their local airport though.  I grew up in Durham, to get to Heathrow will be one change of train with HS2.  It would Involve a train and a Metro to get to Newcastle airport and Durham Tees Valley is rather tricky by train.

[locoholic]

I regularly travel between Glasgow and Oxford, and given that I have to change trains somewhere anyway would certainly consider going via Old Oak instead of Birmingham.

I bet you would get to Glasgow quicker if you could go from Oxford to Calvert, and then catch an HS2 train to Glasgow. You are proof that there is demand for a Home Counties HS2 station!

[locoholic]

 

2 :- The junction on the Trent Valley line will (as with all HS2 connections) be fully grade separated

Presumably there is a speed limit at the points? With a 3-minute headway, merging the Birmingham and North trains is not going to leave any margin of error. If they can do this, why can't they separate out trains to stop at an intermediate station?

[phil-b259]

Presumably there is a speed limit at the points? With a 3-minute headway, merging the Birmingham and North trains is not going to leave any margin of error. If they can do this, why can't they separate out trains to stop at an intermediate station?

 

I assumed the poster was referring the the connection near Lichfield to the current WCML - and yes the junction at that location is aligned so that trains may pass over it at line speed, which will be around 120mph at that point.

 

On the wider issue of points, the French (amongst others) already have facing points capable of being traversed at 186mph in both directions on their LGV network so thats not an issue. 3 minute headways are indeed tight but I doubt that figure has been plucked from thin air or that it is not achievable in service. Indeed French LGVs usually work on 15 TPH as their maximum (only 3 TPH less) so it does not follow that high linespeeds are a barrier to tight headways

 

For avoidance of doubt its not engineering that prevents an intermediate station in the Chilterns - in fact to add one is pretty straightforward as you simply copy the Birmingham Parkway design (i.e. platforms on very long loops so as to allow trains to diverge and merge from the mainline at 200mph)

 

The issues with putting a station in the Chilterns is more about stopping patterns (as I illustrated in post #2581), the number of prospective travellers (given it has to exclude commuter use to / from London as mentioned in post #2694) plus the extra civil engineering + landtake required for those long loops necessary. Given one of you principle objections was visual intrusion, making (the embankments and so on) wider is not going to be helped by the addition of an intermediate station.

 

So in summary, the lack of a station in the Chilterns is because all analysis done to date indicates it is poor value for money and is the equivalent of those French LGV parkway stations serving nothing but Beetroot fields - not that it cannot be done from an engineering perspective.

Edited October 14, 2018 by phil-b259