HS2 under review

[Edwin_m]

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?

 

Last I saw the speed limit on the turnouts was planned to be 140mile/h.  The slowing/accelerating is possible within the 3min headway. 

 

As someone posted, this sort of turnout arrangement could be done with the intermediate station as long as the loops were long enough.  The problem, as I've posted several times but will post again in summary, is the capacity penalty. 

 

One of the 3min-interval trains could slow down to 140mph for the loop points and stop in a loop platform.  But when it re-started it would be 6min or possibly 9min later than if it had gone through non-stop.  This means there would have to be a gap in the passing trains 6min or 9min after the train that made the stop.  But there are no such gap!  There are two empty paths per hour but these are needed for recovery from disruption.  So for every stop at Calvert one through train would need removing from the timetable to give it a slot to continue its journey, unless Calvert was served every 6min or 9min so the next train to stop left the gap for the previous one to re-start. 

 

So a half-hourly service to Calvert would require a reduction of two trains per hour, or over 10%, in the capacity that is provided and needed for further north - plus two more trains every hour being 6min or 9min slower.  As a resident of "further north" and a taxpayer I don't think that is a good use of public funding. 

 

To give an example, someone in South London, say Drawing box from Orpington to Woking and down to the channel. Everyone in that box has a commute from home to Station, and a 30min -60 min journey to London plus another 30 minutes to cross london to Euston to catch a HS2 service without running, (forget OC no one from south london will ever go there)... a road rail interchange directly off a motorway with improved capacity puts this populace in <60 minutes drive from home with only one modal change..car to train... Ebbsfleet, with its 80% growth in passenger numbers in five years from 1mn to 1.8mn shows road rail interchanges make sense.

Until then this populace will continue doing what it does today..Heathrow, Gatwick, Euston and Kings Cross.

So let them take the Euston option and take advantage of the better service there? 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Edwin_m

[locoholic]

Last I saw the speed limit on the turnouts was planned to be 140mile/h.  The slowing/accelerating is possible within the 3min headway. 

 

As someone posted, this sort of turnout arrangement could be done with the intermediate station as long as the loops were long enough.  The problem, as I've posted several times but will post again in summary, is the capacity penalty. 

 

One of the 3min-interval trains could slow down to 140mph for the loop points and stop in a loop platform.  But when it re-started it would be 6min or possibly 9min later than if it had gone through non-stop.  This means there would have to be a gap in the passing trains 6min or 9min after the train that made the stop.  But there are no such gap!  There are two empty paths per hour but these are needed for recovery from disruption.  So for every stop at Calvert one through train would need removing from the timetable to give it a slot to continue its journey, unless Calvert was served every 6min or 9min so the next train to stop left the gap for the previous one to re-start. 

 

So a half-hourly service to Calvert would require a reduction of two trains per hour, or over 10%, in the capacity that is provided and needed for further north - plus two more trains every hour being 6min or 9min slower.  As a resident of "further north" and a taxpayer I don't think that is a good use of public funding. 

 

 

So let them take the Euston option and take advantage of the better service there?

 

So are there four running lines north of Birmingham Interchange station to the divergence of the Curzon St branch? If not, how do trains stopping there not interfere with the line capacity? I believe there are through, non-platform lines planned there, so not all trains will stop.

[lmsforever]

Do you think there would be a demand for a Calvert stop ?

[pete_mcfarlane]

The Times says they have a Cabinet Office report which mentions a 60% over spend, which they give as an eventual cost of £80bn

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-budget-will-balloon-to-80bn-says-secret-report-r9qtwpbpl 

 

Three points - firstly it's written by Andrew Gilligan, who on past form is definitely to be treated with caution when he makes claims based on leaked Government documents he allegedly has copies of.  

 

Secondly, £80bn isn't 160% of £56bn. That would be £90bn.

 

Lastly, surely a 60% overspend would be based on the £41bn projected cost and not include the £15bn or so already set aside for budget overruns? A 60% overspend on £41bn would end up as £66bn, which is a bit more believable. 

[62613]

Ester McVey   Work and Pensions minister have a look at her speeches just recently.  good enough?  Last Nov in apublicc meeting also said that the gov has written a blank checque  its there to see.She must  have a pretty good idea of the figures ?

Since Esther McVey is in denial about the effects of a major plank of her departmental brief, and has been consistently economical with the truth about that major plank (to the extent that the statistics authority have written to her pointing out her evasions) would you honestly believe a word she says?

[black and decker boy]

I’m not sure what legacy services people will get to use if all the fast trains are diverted into HS2 just leaving the much slower stoppers and semi-fasts (and yes they will be slowed down to make HS2 look even faster). Your cheap fare then reflects the slower service, much like the competition between Brum and London now. £££ via Virgin but quick, ££ via WMT but slower, £ by Chiltern but very slow.

 

In terms of cost, I fully expect the final cost to be in excess of £100BN in 2033 but when converted back to 2011 figures, it will remain under LMSF’s redline. In terms of effect on the Treasury and NHS, HS2 will cost maybe £0.5 to £0.6bn per year to build. Highways England plan to spend £2bn per year ‘improving’ the trunk road network. By comparison the NHS budget is £115bn per year and rising and the benefits (DWP) budget is in the region of £265bn per year.

 

HS2 is small change. They are not going to cancel it on the basis it will save the NHS.

 

Cancelling it will create lots of Legal fees and Consultants fees on how you can ‘fix’ the WCML. It will not save £100bn, not now, not ever.

[phil-b259]

So are there four running lines north of Birmingham Interchange station to the divergence of the Curzon St branch? If not, how do trains stopping there not interfere with the line capacity? I believe there are through, non-platform lines planned there, so not all trains will stop.

 

Yes!

 

Please revisit this site where you can find such details https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hs2-plan-and-profile-maps-between-london-and-the-west-midlands

 

Birmingham Interchange station will have 2 through lines and 4 loop tracks serving 2 island platforms.

 

In fact the 4 tracking extends from south of Birmingham Interchange to the split for the East Midlands branch all the way through the junctions for the Birmingham spur. This means that lots of simultaneous movements can be made. For example a non stop Euston - Crewe service can pass through the area wile a second Birmingham service calls at the interchange station at the same time as a third service runs from Birmingham onto the East Midlands branch

Edited October 15, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Do you think there would be a demand for a Calvert stop ?

 

Its not whether anyone 'thinks' there would be demand, when spending such large sums of money its a question of whether the statistics add up to a positive business case. So far this has not happened. If you have access to statistics which prove the many months of analysis by experts in the field are wrong then please share them with us. Its always possible you might spot a flaw - though I doubt HS2 would have got this far if it was that fundamental.

 

For example the Government were planning to build a Milton Keynes on steroids at Calvert with tens of thousands of new houses there, then the statistics would change and a positive business case for a station might well be made.

 

However although you have now got your station, you also have thousands of acres of countryside now urbanised - which I would suggest is much more ruinous than a double track railway.

Edited October 15, 2018 by phil-b259

[GoingUnderground]

Do you think there would be a demand for a Calvert stop ?

The GC ran through that area and never managed to build up passenger traffic in the way that it hoped, and that was in the days before private cars came on to the scene in large numbers. The Met tried the same with the line to Verney Junction, but even John Betjeman had to admit that the Buckinghamshire countryside wasn't conducive to commuting to London, or anywhere else on the GC line come to that as the population was too low. That's why when the Metropolitan Line beyond Rickmansworth was electrified, they only went as far as Amersham and Chesham, and cut back the Met services between Amersham and Aylesbury as the BR Marylebone services could cope with the passenger traffic beyond Amersham.

[Glorious NSE]

I’m not sure what legacy services people will get to use if all the fast trains are diverted into HS2 just leaving the much slower stoppers and semi-fasts (and yes they will be slowed down to make HS2 look even faster). Your cheap fare then reflects the slower service, much like the competition between Brum and London now. £££ via Virgin but quick, ££ via WMT but slower, £ by Chiltern but very slow.

If you take somewhere like York for example, the present half hourly Edinburghs (one of which is non stop from York already) will transfer to HS2, LNER already do an every other hour 'stopper' that starts from York, (Doncaster, Retford, Newark, Grantham, Peterborough, Stevenage) which takes maybe 25mins longer than the fastest trains.

 

They aren't likely to make it slower than that timing, as it'll still need to be a competitive service to and from the intermediate points.

 

The only way they could force you not to use it as a through service would involve something like a Kings Cross to Doncaster service and York to Stevenage service, which seems unlikely as it would seem to be very wasteful of stock, line capacity, crews...

[phil-b259]

If you take somewhere like York for example, the present half hourly Edinburghs (one of which is non stop from York already) will transfer to HS2, LNER already do an every other hour 'stopper' that starts from York, (Doncaster, Retford, Newark, Grantham, Peterborough, Stevenage) which takes maybe 25mins longer than the fastest trains.

 

They aren't likely to make it slower than that timing, as it'll still need to be a competitive service to and from the intermediate points.

 

The only way they could force you not to use it as a through service would involve something like a Kings Cross to Doncaster service and York to Stevenage service, which seems unlikely as it would seem to be very wasteful of stock, line capacity, crews...

 

This is very true - in a post HS2 world, I would suggest there will be very little alteration to Virgin's current Euston - Birmigham service (not least because of the need to provide a decent express service to Coventry and Wolverhampton). On the other hand Virgin's Euston - Manchester / Liverpool trains will probably have some more stops added (Note to HS2 opposer's - this is NOT the same as calling at all stations) as end to end journey time becomes less important in favour of intermediate demand.

 

However given we are still many years away from needing to decide on the post HS2 WCML timetable then there will be ample opportunity for rail users and campaign groups to influence whatever emerges.

[Edwin_m]

So are there four running lines north of Birmingham Interchange station to the divergence of the Curzon St branch? If not, how do trains stopping there not interfere with the line capacity? I believe there are through, non-platform lines planned there, so not all trains will stop.

Yes. 

[Davexoc]

The GC ran through that area and never managed to build up passenger traffic in the way that it hoped, and that was in the days before private cars came on to the scene in large numbers. The Met tried the same with the line to Verney Junction, but even John Betjeman had to admit that the Buckinghamshire countryside wasn't conducive to commuting to London, or anywhere else on the GC line come to that as the population was too low. That's why when the Metropolitan Line beyond Rickmansworth was electrified, they only went as far as Amersham and Chesham, and cut back the Met services between Amersham and Aylesbury as the BR Marylebone services could cope with the passenger traffic beyond Amersham.

Bucks is a little bit more populated these days, with Buckingham, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes all extending beyond their boundaries, as is Bicester. They all also fit in what is being called the UK Silicon valley, so it doesn't really compare with when it was the GCR.

 

Dave

[Kelly]

In terms of cost, I fully expect the final cost to be in excess of £100BN in 2033 but when converted back to 2011 figures, it will remain under LMSF’s redline. In terms of effect on the Treasury and NHS, HS2 will cost maybe £0.5 to £0.6bn per year to build. Highways England plan to spend £2bn per year ‘improving’ the trunk road network. By comparison the NHS budget is £115bn per year and rising and the benefits (DWP) budget is in the region of £265bn per year.

 

 

That DWP budget includes Pensions remember, which is the vast majority of its budget, so the size of budget is a bit of a red herring often.

[locoholic]

The Times says they have a Cabinet Office report which mentions a 60% over spend, which they give as an eventual cost of £80bn

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-budget-will-balloon-to-80bn-says-secret-report-r9qtwpbpl

 

Three points - firstly it's written by Andrew Gilligan, who on past form is definitely to be treated with caution when he makes claims based on leaked Government documents he allegedly has copies of.

 

Secondly, £80bn isn't 160% of £56bn. That would be £90bn.

 

Lastly, surely a 60% overspend would be based on the £41bn projected cost and not include the £15bn or so already set aside for budget overruns? A 60% overspend on £41bn would end up as £66bn, which is a bit more believable.

 

When elsewhere in the UK they are busy scrapping brand new unused OHLE meant for the GWML, nothing is too bizarre to be true these days. Edited October 15, 2018 by locoholic

[GoingUnderground]

Bucks is a little bit more populated these days, with Buckingham, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes all extending beyond their boundaries, as is Bicester. They all also fit in what is being called the UK Silicon valley, so it doesn't really compare with when it was the GCR.

 

Dave

When I drove up through Rickmansworth, Amersham and Wendover to get to Railex at Stoke Mandeville, and then on through the outskirts of Bicester up to the East Midlands earlier this year, and then a couple of weeks ago via Calvert and Buckingham much of it still looked pretty rural to me. It won't be quite the same as it was 80 or even 50 years ago, nowhere is, but it will still have starting from a more rural base.

 

If the folks that really want stations in the Vale of Aylesbury are serious, then perhaps they should be lobbyimg for HS2 to be quadruple tracked, with the extra pair of tracks being for semi-fast Javelin style services. Then serving these local stations so close, in high speed terms, to London, and for that matter to Birmingham, don't take away the one main advantage that HS2 will have over driverless cars - speed.

 

Where I live, I won't benefit from HS2, it's quicker for me to get to the ECML than over to Toton, but I support high speed rail as it modernises the railways. Our roads have been modernised over the last 80 years with thousands of miles of dual carriageways and motorways being built, not to mention road straightening and widening schemes and bypasses, being built to cope with the volume of traffic and allow shorter journey times. There has been no corresponding programmes to improve the tracks to give higher speeds and shorter journey times, and the network is still largely as built by the Victorians. We've papered over the cracks with tilting trains on the WCML, but the next step must be to the track configuration. To me, HS2 is just a very small, and very long overdue, step in that direction.

Edited October 15, 2018 by GoingUnderground

[phil-b259]

When elsewhere in the UK they are busy scrapping brand new unused OHLE meant for the GWML, nothing is too bizarre to be true these days.

This is what you get when ministers start telling NR what to do (i.e. sell off as much as possible to generate funds).

 

Granted, had NR not made such a pigs ear of electrification, then there would be less of a hole in the finances to fill, but the decision to cancel various electrification plans was done by Ministers and Civil Servants.

 

Regrettably without a BR style board to push back, when the politicans tell NR to ‘jump’ the response from NR is always ‘yes sir’ even if those within the organisation are fully aware that the proposed measures a detrimental in the long term.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Where I live, I won't benefit from HS2, it's quicker for me to get to the ECML than over to Toton, but I support high speed rail as it modernises the railways. 

 

I'm guessing you'll be driving to Grantham or Newark to use the ECML, so surely you'll benefit from more ECML services stopping at those stations in the post-HS2 timetable? 

[The Stationmaster]

Last I saw the speed limit on the turnouts was planned to be 140mile/h.  The slowing/accelerating is possible within the 3min headway. 

 

As someone posted, this sort of turnout arrangement could be done with the intermediate station as long as the loops were long enough.  The problem, as I've posted several times but will post again in summary, is the capacity penalty. 

 

One of the 3min-interval trains could slow down to 140mph for the loop points and stop in a loop platform.  But when it re-started it would be 6min or possibly 9min later than if it had gone through non-stop.  This means there would have to be a gap in the passing trains 6min or 9min after the train that made the stop.  But there are no such gap!  There are two empty paths per hour but these are needed for recovery from disruption.  So for every stop at Calvert one through train would need removing from the timetable to give it a slot to continue its journey, unless Calvert was served every 6min or 9min so the next train to stop left the gap for the previous one to re-start. 

 

So a half-hourly service to Calvert would require a reduction of two trains per hour, or over 10%, in the capacity that is provided and needed for further north - plus two more trains every hour being 6min or 9min slower.  As a resident of "further north" and a taxpayer I don't think that is a good use of public funding. 

 

So let them take the Euston option and take advantage of the better service there? 

 

A half hourly interval in Calvert stops means two stops per hour.  Assuming the cost of the stop is 6 minutes in total that means a skip of one path but it also creates, in two parts, a spare/unused path.  Thus two calls per hour at Calvert Interchange leaves =two unused paths in each but they are in two separate pieces.  The total time cost of the stop has, obviously, to be in multiples of three minutes but that is how skip stops work - they have to come out of then back into a different place in the regular path pattern (I know, I've planned the things on a real railway with rather more complications than dropping back into a simple pattern of regular intervals between all paths).

 

However it still remains the case that we don't really know how the constricted (in terms of parallel moves) layout at Euston will work with 3 minute intervals in both directions nor do we know the turnround times which will be achievable within whatever constraints are, or aren't, set by the design of the station and - ideally - the need to separate the flows of arriving and departing passengers.  It is going to be those factors - far more than anything else other than signalling design - which will decide whether or not a service using near 100% of a 3 minute headway throughout every operating hour of the day will or won't be practically achievable.  

 

On HS1, even with its original far greater approach flexibility to St Pancras than is planned at Euston it was impossible to achieve 100% use of the specified headway due to extended turnround times resulting from the design of the station.  While Euston obviously has more platforms (eventually) than the HS1 side of St Pancras it only appears to have three points of escalator access to/from each platform and they do not seem to be evenly spaced and service access is not very clear on the sketches I can find.  The train spec requires 2x200m long units coupled carrying a.maximum of 1,100 passengers and I do wonder if trains that busy could be turned round in the required time.  interestingly one spec states 'a minimum of one platform face per two trains per hour' which indicates a proposed turnround time of 27 minutes assuming 3 minutes is allowed for platform reoccupaption.  So the station design has to cater for a train being emptied, turnround cleaned, restocked with consumables in toilets and catering areas, and then loaded, in a time of 27 minutes - I wonder if it does?  (don't forget the same process with a 387 metre long Class 373 carrying c.800 passengers took 35 minutes at a station designed to offer a quick turnround including all the above.  With a single 200 metre train it should be easy, provided it comes to a stand at the right place to distribute its passengers to the escalators and lifts.

[melmerby]

 the competition between Brum and London now. £££ via Virgin but quick, ££ via WMT but slower, £ by Chiltern but very slow.

 

 

Check your timetables and fares

WMT are the slowest and cheapest for normal purchase tickets (not limited offer savers)

WMT quickest is 1h 56m, typically up to 2h 25m, Chiltern (Moor Street) 1h 48 to 2h 13m.

 

Keith

[black and decker boy]

Check your timetables and fares

WMT are the slowest and cheapest for normal purchase tickets (not limited offer savers)

WMT quickest is 1h 56m, typically up to 2h 25m, Chiltern (Moor Street) 1h 48 to 2h 13m.

 

Keith

I wasn’t far off :-) I only use Chiltern living on their route but Father uses Virgin down from NWest though has used WMT north of Brum for similar reason ofcost

[GoingUnderground]

I'm guessing you'll be driving to Grantham or Newark to use the ECML, so surely you'll benefit from more ECML services stopping at those stations in the post-HS2 timetable?

There's already a reasonably frequent service from/to Newark Northgate with stops at Stevenage and/or Peterborough and/or Grantham. My concern would be that HS2 could result in fewer fast services and leave us with more stopping trains and a slower service. But the door to door would still probably be faster for me via the ECML than HS2 via Toton, or MML which is my other route.

 

Because much of the ECML is so straight and flat, there might be a case for realigning parts of it, especially north of York, and increasing the loading gauge to allow higher speed running with a view to making it HS3 with dounle deck trains at some point in the future. Or perhaps that should be HS4 as I think some refer to upgraded trans-pennine routes as HS3.

Edited October 16, 2018 by GoingUnderground

[hayfield]

A couple of questions

 

If our forebears suffered the same nimby attitude would we have a railway network like we have now

 

Contradicting what I have said above, the effects of the landed gentry in the past have caused several abnormalities to the rail infrastructure, (example the Metropolitan line in Watford stopping a couple of miles short of the West coast main line) should we not learn from the lessons of the past, where the benefits of the majority should take priority over the wishes of the few

 

Certainly in and around London commuters desperately need higher capacity on trains, anything which can separate high speed intercity traffic from slower commuter traffic so that more and better services can be given to both commutors and long distance travellers must be a good thing 

[PaulRhB]

If our forebears suffered the same nimby attitude would we have a railway network like we have now

 

Contradicting what I have said above, the effects of the landed gentry in the past have caused several abnormalities to the rail infrastructure,

 

Isn’t that NIMBYism by the landowners? The difference is that the ‘common man’ had very little say in parliament at that time. The actual decisions were very much the lobbying and wealth of the upper classes and great swathes of housing were demolished for the railway companies they had interests in. It just wasn’t called corruption because they were the power. Only general strikes and movements like the Suffragettes really made a stir and frequently were fairly brutally controlled by the police with little legal recourse.

So in this modern world of globalisation and internet why do we need more transport links? Why are more people moving for work every day when the much vaunted technology is supposed to make remote working easier? There’s a certain irony that more people are using transport to live where they want rather than close by then moaning about new rail transport passing their new country home!

This wealthy middle class have now become the power of politics with the big vote and media access to shout their opinions

So are we pandering to the few or doing the best for the masses? The masses are probably commuting relatively short distances not on HS2

[Mike Storey]

A half hourly interval in Calvert stops means two stops per hour.  Assuming the cost of the stop is 6 minutes in total that means a skip of one path but it also creates, in two parts, a spare/unused path.  Thus two calls per hour at Calvert Interchange leaves =two unused paths in each but they are in two separate pieces.  The total time cost of the stop has, obviously, to be in multiples of three minutes but that is how skip stops work - they have to come out of then back into a different place in the regular path pattern (I know, I've planned the things on a real railway with rather more complications than dropping back into a simple pattern of regular intervals between all paths).

 

However it still remains the case that we don't really know how the constricted (in terms of parallel moves) layout at Euston will work with 3 minute intervals in both directions nor do we know the turnround times which will be achievable within whatever constraints are, or aren't, set by the design of the station and - ideally - the need to separate the flows of arriving and departing passengers.  It is going to be those factors - far more than anything else other than signalling design - which will decide whether or not a service using near 100% of a 3 minute headway throughout every operating hour of the day will or won't be practically achievable.  

 

On HS1, even with its original far greater approach flexibility to St Pancras than is planned at Euston it was impossible to achieve 100% use of the specified headway due to extended turnround times resulting from the design of the station.  While Euston obviously has more platforms (eventually) than the HS1 side of St Pancras it only appears to have three points of escalator access to/from each platform and they do not seem to be evenly spaced and service access is not very clear on the sketches I can find.  The train spec requires 2x200m long units coupled carrying a.maximum of 1,100 passengers and I do wonder if trains that busy could be turned round in the required time.  interestingly one spec states 'a minimum of one platform face per two trains per hour' which indicates a proposed turnround time of 27 minutes assuming 3 minutes is allowed for platform reoccupaption.  So the station design has to cater for a train being emptied, turnround cleaned, restocked with consumables in toilets and catering areas, and then loaded, in a time of 27 minutes - I wonder if it does?  (don't forget the same process with a 387 metre long Class 373 carrying c.800 passengers took 35 minutes at a station designed to offer a quick turnround including all the above.  With a single 200 metre train it should be easy, provided it comes to a stand at the right place to distribute its passengers to the escalators and lifts.

 

My teams at Kings Cross were booked to achieve turnrounds on 9 car MkIV's and HST's inside 25 minutes (including passengers off and on), as a matter of course, and that was when reservation labels had to be planted on almost every seat back too. That was all with mobile units working from one end of the platform, and not the sort of provision you could design in from scratch. The length of train and number of passengers is only of marginal difference if organised and resourced properly. They were very slick. I also did a study of how it was done at Euston, and by BA landside staff at Gatwick (airlines are penalised for late departures, not arrivals). No reason to believe that could not be achieved routinely for HS2, especially with a new platform layout and not the hideously narrow ones we had at the Cross.