HS2 under review

[Northmoor]

Remember that the bare figures do not really compare like with like, as there were a lot more men working on the track in those days, and that a lot more work got done for each pound spent. How much of the GWML electrifications problems are down to the delays and expense of the modern safety culture.

 

While accidents at work are greatly to be regretted, remember that anything that pushes up costs and delays or stops improvement projects is going to move people and freight off the railway and onto the roads. The law of diminishing returns applies here, and each additional safety precaution is likely to cost more for less and less result. We have to be careful that in saving one staff members life we do not kill several people priced off the railway and onto the roads.

You are confusing cause and effect and - unless I've misunderstood you - imply that having fewer people working on the lines means the figures are "cheating" in some way.  People have been removed from railway lines precisely to reduce the numbers of people at risk; that has been the express intention of much long term H&S policy (in all industries, not just railways).

 

I would gladly retain the H&S culture that means anyone killed working on the railways is now news-worthy and not merely accepted with a shrug, and lose the costs associated with legal argument and trading of delay attribution.  Paying train operators compensation for delays resulting from conduct of normal maintenance, is like asking a garage to service your car then asking for a rebate afterwards because your car wasn't available that day.

[Edwin_m]

Paying train operators compensation for delays resulting from conduct of normal maintenance, is like asking a garage to service your car then asking for a rebate afterwards because your car wasn't available that day.

Each route has a set of rules known as the engineering access statement, which define the times of day/week/year or some combination for which that route is not available for service.  They can be found on the Network Rail website. 

 

The relevant operators are not able to schedule trains conflicting with these routes, so routine maintenance can go on without interruption or compensation to train operators.  It is only when something bigger is necessary that a "disruptive possession" will be necessary and compensation payable. 

[locoholic]

... People have been removed from railway lines precisely to reduce the numbers of people at risk...

 

If they removed the trains as well then the risk would disappear altogether, both for rail workers and passengers.

 

I hesitate to be so flippant, but when any problem is approached using dogma rather than rational thought, odd results often occur. And the recent results in terms of rail project delivery have given some very odd results.

[black and decker boy]

If they removed the trains as well then the risk would disappear altogether, both for rail workers and passengers.

 

I hesitate to be so flippant, but when any problem is approached using dogma rather than rational thought, odd results often occur. And the recent results in terms of rail project delivery have given some very odd results.

But GWEP has little to do with H&S dogma / rules etc but sheer incompetency at project management & procurement level.

 

Remember that NR invested heavily in MPV electrification factory trains that could work with adjacent lines open.

 

In the end, they have relied more on RRVs and MEWPs and total Blocks.

 

From my own involvement way back in 2014, the delays & cost overruns were inevitable based on the timing and nature of procurement of the contractors.

[billbedford]

The government tries some joined up thinking - again?

Edited January 28, 2019 by billbedford

[locoholic]

The government tries some joined up thinking - again?

"We apologise for the late running of this train. This is due to the wind dropping unexpectedly."

[ess1uk]

Put the turbines close enough and the turbulence would blow them round .

And if the train roof had solar cells.....

 

Better yet, put a gym in one coach and the exercise bikes could generate electricity

[jjb1970]

Powering electric trains using renewable electricity is commendable however I am not sure that shaking a political hornets nest is sensible when there is no reason not to increase offshore wind capacity which is much less contentious. Yes it is more expensive and there are transmission losses but the power output of the turbines can be higher offshore and costs have been dropping.

[locoholic]

Put the turbines close enough and the turbulence would blow them round .

And if the train roof had solar cells.....

 

Better yet, put a gym in one coach and the exercise bikes could generate electricity

Why not go the whole hog and put small wind turbines on each train? A perpetual motion train - you know it makes sense.

[Mike Storey]

The government tries some joined up thinking - again?

 

If locals did not like the tall, bulky F&F OLE looming over them, I am not sure what the Home Counties will think of this......

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

 

 

[lmsforever]

 Monday evening channel four the great train robbery sounds interesting all about a certain project not to sure which one.

[lmsforever]

Channel four Monday evening Dispatches the great train robbery should be interesting I think

[Mike Storey]

14 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

Channel four Monday evening Dispatches the great train robbery should be interesting I think

 

I hope it is more in depth and balanced than some of their recent offerings on a number of subjects. We shall see.

 

[Mike Storey]

Thanks for the pics Ronx3

 

The things I find most surprising about the announcement re- the design award to WSP are:

 

a) the new station is expected to handle c.250,000 passengers per day, at a date not specified after opening in 2026. That will make it the busiest station in the UK? I understand around 50% are expected to be transfers between HS2 and other lines served, primarily CrossRail 1. I also understand that some of this is expected to be from the re-opened outer West London Line proposed in TfL's/The Mayor's Strategy Document from 2017. I also understand that the regeneration plan suggests some 25,000 new dwellings on the Old Oak catchment. But, even if you accept the HS2 prediction, where do the rest come from?

 

b) the plan includes provision for a western link to the GWML. Presumably this is primarily for Heathrow, but what else?

 

c) the plan allows for 14 platforms. 6 are underground for HS2.  What are the other 8 for?

 

I have attempted find answers from a variety of sources, but little appears available. Does the panel have any good sources (as opposed to mere speculation)?

[Ron Ron Ron]

a) There has been some discussion about the passenger number capacity, with equal bewilderment, over on another forum.

One conclusion is they've included the through passenger numbers, from both HS2 and the GWML in those figures.

Other thoughts are that it provides future capacity because it will be very difficult, if nigh on almost impossible, too add to capacity at a later date.

Another consideration, I've not seen aired anywhere else, is that if Heathrow R3 is built and CR1 produces a % increase in model shift, the link to Heathrow will be handling 4 to 5 times the number of passengers than is currently the case.

 

b) I'm not sure what you're asking there?

 

c) 6x HS2 platforms...plus... 8x GWML platforms. i.e. 2 per track for the mains and reliefs (dwell times).

 

Not part of this project, but there's talk of a possible Chiltern link later on, which would require 1 or possibly 2 bay platforms, just to the west of the planned GWML platforms.

Whether that will amount to anything, I've no idea.

The crayonistas are drooling over that prospect elsewhere, thankfully not here.

 

 

 

.

 

[bimble]

3 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I hope it is more in depth and balanced than some of their recent offerings on a number of subjects. We shall see.

 

 

entitled "the great train robbery", I'm sure it'll be a balanced report...

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

a) There has been some discussion about the passenger number capacity, with equal bewilderment, over on another forum.

One conclusion is they've included the through passenger numbers, from both HS2 and the GWML in those figures.

Other thoughts are that it provides future capacity because it will be very difficult, if nigh on almost impossible, too add to capacity at a later date.

Another consideration, I've not seen aired anywhere else, is that if Heathrow R3 is built and CR1 produces a % increase in model shift, the link to Heathrow will be handling 4 to 5 times the number of passengers than is currently the case.

 

b) I'm not sure what you're asking there?

 

c) 6x HS2 platforms...plus... 8x GWML platforms. i.e. 2 per track for the mains and reliefs (dwell times).

 

Not part of this project, but there's talk of a possible Chiltern link later on, which would require 1 or possibly 2 bay platforms, just to the west of the planned GWML platforms.

Whether that will amount to anything, I've no idea.

The crayonistas are drooling over that prospect elsewhere, thankfully not here.

 

 

 

.

 

I can only presume that the GWML Main Lines platforms will be there for occasions when the Relief Lines are closed as there simply isn't capacity on the Main lines, especially in the peaks, to stop trains at Old Oak Common and in any case stops there would hit journey times on a rail route which is in significant competition with the M4 corridor.  In any case building platforms for the Main Lines in particular will require a significant slew of the entire GWML formation as there isn't room to build compliant platforms,  let alone platforms with disability compliant access, between the existing Down Main Line and the boundary fence of the Hitachi depot.  

 

Overall I get the distinct feeling that the artist's impression is a triumph of ambition over practicality in view of the constraints imposed by bridges and cuttings at both ends of the site but particularly at the west end.  I wonder if anybody has yet considered the level of disruption and cancellations to weekend train services in particular which constructing the GWML part of the station will involve although I can but presume that the budgetted cost takes into account compensation payments to GWR/successor and Crossrail both of which are likely to be significant.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Hi Mike, Answering your points....

 

Quote

I can only presume that the GWML Main Lines platforms will be there for occasions when the Relief Lines are closed as there simply isn't capacity on the Main lines, especially in the peaks, to stop trains at Old Oak Common and in any case stops there would hit journey times on a rail route which is in significant competition with the M4 corridor….. 

 

I don't think there is any firm plan yet on main line stopping patterns, other than the obvious contingency provision for Relief Line outage.

I expect there will be at least some services on the Main Lines stopping at OOC, facilitated by the dual island platforms per line.

 

 

Quote

….

In any case building platforms for the Main Lines in particular will require a significant slew of the entire GWML formation as there isn't room to build compliant platforms,  let alone platforms with disability compliant access, between the existing Down Main Line and the boundary fence of the Hitachi depot......

 

There is no plan to build a platform between the Down Main and the Hitachi depot.

Every outline plan, track diagram and artists renderings, show the GWML platforms as 4x islands.

 

Indeed the whole track formation north of the Down Main is going to be significantly slewed.

In fact I think slewed is rather understating the the scale of the actual relocation and replacement of the current track formation.

The outline diagrams shown so far, indicate the new Main Line platforms will cover the whole of the existing Main and Relief line footprint and extending just into the current depot area.

The new Relief Line platforms will be located in what is currently the OOC depot site.

 

 

Quote

…..Overall I get the distinct feeling that the artist's impression is a triumph of ambition over practicality in view of the constraints imposed by bridges and cuttings at both ends of the site but particularly at the west end.... 

 

 

 

 

Apparently, the bridges on the western approach to the station are all in the pipeline to be widened.

Someone has posted some info on another forum, showing the proposed, significant widening of the Old Oak Common Lane and Central Line bridges.

 

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9L4C88xQieE/XExzaVWvW_I/AAAAAAAArxI/AhBEZ2Jb1IEwEqxwKf-AqIk0J97T-ryfACLcBGAs/s1000/2019-01%2BOld%2BOak%2BCommon%2BLane%2Bbridge.png

 

 

Quote

…….I wonder if anybody has yet considered the level of disruption and cancellations to weekend train services in particular which constructing the GWML part of the station will involve although I can but presume that the budgetted cost takes into account compensation payments to GWR/successor and Crossrail both of which are likely to be significant.

 

No doubt there will be a lot of disruption over quite a time frame.

Then again Mike, how else are they going to build a new station on a busy main line?

At least half of the new GWML station can be built clear of the existing running lines.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Ron Ron Ron

[The Stationmaster]

If the Mains are going to be  be either side of an island that means the Up Maine will have to be slewed at least 14 feet (depending on the width of the footbridge base and the width of any buildings) which will put it almost on top of where the Down Relief is currently sited.  So not impossible by any stretch of the imagination and the curve would work out well at the west end although both underbridges would need to be rebuilt as you've said but I don't think the Up Relief would end up too far north of the existing Up Loop.  The girder bridges over what is nowadays the Central Line must be getting on a bit and they need no longer allow for quadruple track underneath which might ease construction.

 

Overall there will be considerable disruption while the work is done and to be honest I can't see any point in stopping GWR/successor longer distance services at Old Oak - in timetabling terms the impact would, for example,  be massively more damaging than building an HS2 station at Calvert.  One reason why the Slough stops were taken out of FGW long distance trains was their impact on journey times and capacity on the Main Lines and the effect here, only 3 miles from Paddington, would be even worse.  And the Main lines are far more heavily used today than they were in the days of the Slough stops  and with the frequency of trains  at times being right on the theoretical headway capacity.  

 

I'm also puzzled about what sort of journey patterns such stops would serve as I can't see anybody from west of Reading (or Reading come to that) wanting to change at Old Oak Common for Birmingham (or places further north) when many of them would have quicker, and in some cases direct, journeys via other routes.   Equally I can't see anybody wanting to change there to Crossrail when they can do so relatively easily at Paddington with only one lot of stairs etc, albeit to a greater depth, to negotiate.  In the opposite direction westbound passengers from Crossrail will inevitably change at Paddington because there will always be a greater chance of getting a seat at a train's originating station than at an intermediate station and generally more time in which to do so - again particularly in the peaks.  I can more than see the logic of Crossrail connecting with HS2 and that makes considerable sense even if - as is now being said within the industry - the Old Oak stops will have an impact on HS2 capacity.

[lmsforever]

Spending by HS2 is getting crazy if only this money could be spent on the real network ,new stations ,tracks ,trains that is a far more sensible idea .The people in charge have grandiose ideas and are pushing them rough shod over everybody this is not good for the country or anybody in the way .There are a few people working around my locale not sure whats going on .

[black and decker boy]

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

Spending by HS2 is getting crazy if only this money could be spent on the real network ,new stations ,tracks ,trains that is a far more sensible idea .The people in charge have grandiose ideas and are pushing them rough shod over everybody this is not good for the country or anybody in the way .There are a few people working around my locale not sure whats going on .

Lots of information here:

 

https://hs2inbucksandoxfordshire.commonplace.is/overview

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Much more about the OOC station.....

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-files/hs2inoldoak/HS2+OOC+Leaflet+v12+FINAL-compressed.PDF

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

If the Mains are going to be  be either side of an island that means the Up Maine will have to be slewed at least 14 feet (depending on the width of the footbridge base and the width of any buildings) which will put it almost on top of where the Down Relief is currently sited.  

So not impossible by any stretch of the imagination and the curve would work out well at the west end although both underbridges would need to be rebuilt as you've said but I don't think the Up Relief would end up too far north of the existing Up Loop.  The girder bridges over what is nowadays the Central Line must be getting on a bit and they need no longer allow for quadruple track underneath which might ease construction.

 

 

One of the earlier schematic drawings, showing the proposed station superimposed over the current lines, suggests you are way, way out.

There will be two lines for each of the Down and Up, Mains and Reliefs.

Where you reckon the Up Main will be slewed "at least 14 feet", hasn't accounted for where the 2nd Down Main line will be located.

The Up Main island platform sits more or less over the existing Up Loop, to the north of the current Up Relief, with its pair of Up Main lines situated either side.

 

The 2 Relief  line island platforms (4 platforms) and their associated pairs of Up & Down lines, are located over the current depot yard, at the eastern end of the HEX depot's tracks.

 

 

 

.

.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Ron Ron Ron