HS2 under review

[Glorious NSE]

And why's that wrong?

You might, should you be so inclined, view it as the whole country being taxed to protect a rich minoritys real estate value.

[The Stationmaster]

And why's that wrong?

 

Well in one place it's a total nonsense because the HS2 route is along existing railway formation - but dug up and the new line buried underneath it just to appease the poor souls who will have to see trains using the railway line that was there before their houses were built.  Tunnelling will cost a large amount of money and has driven costs upwards - cutting out some of the tunnelling - such as that section - will help trim costs back.

 

Reducing the linespeed to 186mph (seems logical to me to use that speed) will reduce operating costs by saving on energy and would probably - albeit at the cost of redesign - reduce some construction costs as steeper gradients and tighter (in a very broad sense) curvature would probably be possible.

 

The big unavoidable cost is hoing to be in urban areas and terminals as in London and Birmingham there is little or no spare capacity at the existing termini so new build is unavoidable (and will be necessary to handle the longer trains envisaged).

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Whilst speed has been talked about a lot re-HS2, less has been said about abstraction of traffic from current routes.

 

Does anyone have any figures for HS1 re Ashford - London traffic and how much has left the "classic" routes to travel via HS1?

[Glorious NSE]

Whilst speed has been talked about a lot re-HS2, less has been said about abstraction of traffic from current routes.

 

Does anyone have any figures for HS1 re Ashford - London traffic and how much has left the "classic" routes to travel via HS1?

Surely the point of HS2 is to take traffic from the existing routes?

[edcayton]

Among the claims are that HS2 is 5x more expensive than French lines, but UK infrastructure is (almost) always many times more expensive than that built elsewhere! (Why?)

Even our standard 25kV electrification is far too expensive compared to many other countries.

 

We need to reduce our costs somehow so that we can do more with the same amount of cash.

 

 

Keith

 

Fences?

 

Ed

[edcayton]

I don't give a stuff about newts, but I wouldn't want this bl66dy railway anywhere near me. We were lied to once again by the politicians-High SPEED 2-the clue is in the name. Whilst we are at it we can invent a Northern Powerhouse with some s6dding big mountains in the middle.

 

Rant over

 

Ed

[phil-b259]

So what you're saying is that the design of HS2 was right all along, and silly politicians spun the PR wrong? Sorry, but THAT is utter nonsense. Why do speeds on HS2 have to be dictated by HS1? Why does HS2 need to be one of the fastest railways in Europe, when journey distances are so short? The UK has a railway network. A network has flexibility and resilience. More and more, new lines & trains are not compatible with the rest of the network, so when things fall over, everything grinds to a total standstill. Why are so many of the stations on HS2 in "out of town" locations that will increase local road traffic and compromise existing local rail networks? Instead of swallowing all the HS2 PR, perhaps you should engage in some critical thinking, rather than just bad-mouthing people who do not share your opinion?

 

what I am saying is that from a 'buildability' point of view professionals have been pointed out how it is much, much cheaper, easier and down right cost effective to build a brand new line than quadruple the entire Chiltern main line or 6 track the WCML  - which is what is required to provide a similar uplift in capacity. They also recognise that you don't build it to outdated standards and that removing high speed traffic from the current routes represents best - hence the need for gentle curves and tunnelling to get under obstacles which roads would simply swerve round (given their 70mph maximum limit)

 

As for the 'out of town stations' a large part of that is the desire not to demolish vast swathes of property unless absolutely unavoidable. I refer you to the French experience - they were quite happy to build 'parkway' stations at the likes of Lyon (conveniently located at the regions main airport) rather than in the city centre with the latter served by links from the LGV to the classic lines.

 

Finally its not bad mouthing people when they refuse to acknowledge the truth

 

(1) High speed is a complete red herring - and much hyped by the politicians, not the engineers

(2) If HS2 is cancelled the money does NOT go back into the rail network - it gets used by the chancellor to pay off our national debt.

(3) With demand for our rail transport (passenger and freight) set to outstrip demand on the WCML in the next two decades something has to be done, Namely:-

 

     (a.) Make people travel less through sky high fares to suppress demand (and similar moves to constrain freight)

     (b.) Subject those living alongside the WCML or the Chiltern line to decades of misery while you totally rebuild them.

     (c.) Build HS2 (or a variant of it)

 

If you disagree with HS2 as proposed the onus is on you to address the problems HS2 is designed to solve. Simply saying you don't like it is not good enough, or disputing that a problem exists is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Come up with some reasoned, sensible and buildable proposals that can fully meet the objectives HS2 is designed to solve (of which journey time reduction is one) and I will be more than happy to listen to them.

Edited May 26, 2016 by phil-b259

[Fat Controller]

Of course, we could just convert the M40 to a railway..

[locoholic]

what I am saying is that from a 'buildability' point of view professionals have been pointed out how it is much, much cheaper, easier and down right cost effective to build a brand new line than quadruple the entire Chiltern main line or 6 track the WCML  - which is what is required to provide a similar uplift in capacity. They also recognise that you don't build it to outdated standards and that removing high speed traffic from the current routes represents best - hence the need for gentle curves and tunnelling to get under obstacles which roads would simply swerve round (given their 70mph maximum limit)

 

As for the 'out of town stations' a large part of that is the desire not to demolish vast swathes of property unless absolutely unavoidable. I refer you to the French experience - they were quite happy to build 'parkway' stations at the likes of Lyon (conveniently located at the regions main airport) rather than in the city centre with the latter served by links from the LGV to the classic lines.

 

Finally its not bad mouthing people when they refuse to acknowledge the truth

 

(1) High speed is a complete red herring - and much hyped by the politicians, not the engineers

(2) If HS2 is cancelled the money does NOT go back into the rail network - it gets used by the chancellor to pay off our national debt.

(3) With demand for our rail transport (passenger and freight) set to outstrip demand on the WCML in the next two decades something has to be done, Namely:-

 

     (a.) Make people travel less through sky high fares to suppress demand (and similar moves to constrain freight)

     (b.) Subject those living alongside the WCML or the Chiltern line to decades of misery while you totally rebuild them.

     (c.) Build HS2 (or a variant of it)

 

If you disagree with HS2 as proposed the onus is on you to address the problems HS2 is designed to solve. Simply saying you don't like it is not good enough, or disputing that a problem exists is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Come up with some reasoned, sensible and buildable proposals that can fully meet the objectives HS2 is designed to solve (of which journey time reduction is one) and I will be more than happy to listen to them.

I note that you haven't addressed two of the most important issues: why is the design speed of HS2 have to be dictated by HS1 or French lines? Why, when journey distances are short, is HS2 designed to be one of the fastest railways in Europe?

 

And just because the French have built out of town LGV stations (which always look pretty empty when I've seen them, just like Ebbsfleet), doesn't make them appropriate for cities in the UK.

 

I believe England needs new build rail, but ridiculous gold-plated HS2 is rubbish value for money, and is not what is needed, regardless of how much bold type is employed in its defence.

[The Stationmaster]

Fences?

 

Ed

 

I wonder if French fences are cheaper than British fences - probably not and the labour to erect them might be more expensive (especially if it's SNCF direct labour although it will probably be contractors).  From what I can see on the 'net - and have seen on the various routes - the fencing on HS 1 (and presumably therefore on HS2 as well) is little different in height from that on the LGVs and in some places the LGV Nord fencing is higher in order to try to keep deer out.

[Glorious NSE]

I note that you haven't addressed two of the most important issues: why is the design speed of HS2 have to be dictated by HS1 or French lines?

 

As most of Europe is building railways to a similar range of speeds, you can get all the technology "off the peg". Designing for up to 200mph is pretty logical if you're building a brand new line for "Intercity" use.

Faster trains attract more of the market.

Faster trains also mean you need to buy fewer trains to run a given service frequency.

 

Why, when journey distances are short, is HS2 designed to be one of the fastest railways in Europe?

 

And that point I agree with - pushing beyond 200mph it's probably a step further than is needed...

 

And just because the French have built out of town LGV stations (which always look pretty empty when I've seen them, just like Ebbsfleet), doesn't make them appropriate for cities in the UK.

 

I think there is some logic to them, as they will do better at attracting folk who don't live somewhere with easy access to existing links who's first choice these days is to drive - a station that's easy to drive to is an advantage to that market...

 

Both should offer good connections to the existing city stations (Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield) to start with, the HS3 idea's may add to the connectivity for Sheffield beyond what HS2 proposes.

 

I believe England needs new build rail, but ridiculous gold-plated HS2 is rubbish value for money, and is not what is needed, regardless of how much bold type is employed in its defence.

 

Apart from the speed issue, which i'm clearly not alone in finding a little odd - and the additional tunnels, which I think have been forced on the project, where do you think it's gold plated?

 

From what I can see it's refreshingly being built with plenty of capacity and lots of expansion possibilities in mind. Hopefully that means we won't have to immediately start rebuilding it once it opens, which is historically the way many transport projects in the UK have worked...cut all the costs till it doesn't do what it's supposed to, then spend way more than you saved trying to correct that later.

 

If doing it right first time is "gold plating" then bring it on.

 

 

 

[Fat Controller]

On the subject of out-of-town TGV stations; some, such as Vendome, Le Creusot and Frethun, are busy at peak times with commuter traffic, but would appear quiet outside of these times. This isn't that different from many UK stations, where one might wander up during late morning and think it would be economic to replace the trains with taxis. St Exupery is in fact the third of Lyon's stations, built to serve the region's airport and the growing urban area east of Lyon on the Lyon 'by-pass' that was constructed as part of TGV-Med. The other two remain very much in service; Part-Dieu, which replaced Brotteaux when LGV-SE opened, has several trains per hour to and from Paris, as well as workings from Strasbourg, Lille and Bruxelles, almost all of which continue southwards. Perrache serves as a starting/terminating point for trains that originate in Lyon, as there is space there for trains to stand between workings.

[Edwin_m]

HS2 is designed for 400km/h where this is sensibly possible, because who knows what might be the best speed when it opens in ten years or so, let alone in 100+ years time when it will still be in use.  If a lower speed had been chosen then lots of people would be complaining about lack of future-proofing. 

 

In open country building for higher speed costs very little more than building for conventional speeds - the alignment is a bit wider, tunnels are a bit bigger but most of the costs are the same.  Where building for 400km/h would be impractical a lower speed has been adopted, as for example where tighter curves are needed to fit Phase 2 between the scattered towns around Warrington.  A few minutes more or less doesn't make much different to ridership within England where HS2 will be the quickest means of travel between the city centres it serves regardless of maximum speed - although slower may cost more because a train can do fewer journeys in a day.  But for many journeys involving Scotland flying will still be the quickest option so the train journey time is important in winning market share from airlines. 

 

I'd say providing city centre stations was most important for the UK.  In theory trains could join existing lines into cities, but most of the main stations and approaches are full so doing this would mean HS2 created no extra capacity.  This is different from much of the Continent where city stations were probably bigger than ours in the first place and never "rationalised".  Out-of-town stations are OK for nearby residents who have access to a car, but not much good to inward visitors who are then faced with a difficult onward journey so many would choose to drive all the way instead.  Not providing city centre stations would probably increase the risk of HS2 drawing prosperity into London rather than the opposite. 

[Titan]

Faster trains also mean you need to buy fewer trains to run a given service frequency.

 

 

I wonder how many people have realised that's exactly the tactic Gerry Fiennes used to persuade the board to buy the Deltics instead of a lesser diesel?

 

Because of the Deltics speed, they had time to haul more trains in a day than any other loco could, which compensated for their higher capital costs and running costs. But that was not the most significant cost saving. Deltics were just fast enough that a crew could work Kings Cross to Newcastle and back in a single shift, which meant that not only did it not need to be a lodging turn, but crews could work two trains instead of one which of course meant a big increase in productivity. And of course that included guards, catering staff etc as well as drivers and second men so the cost saving in using Deltics was very significant. At least significant enough for the accountants of the time to agree and let Gerry get his Deltics!

[PaulRhB]

If doing it right first time is "gold plating" then bring it on.

 

Quite right, look to the future and beyond what we know now when planning. Traffic Management has stalled because it can't currently deal with the 'Victorian' railway legacy of crossings and more recent restrictions left by over-rationalisation.

Looking at only the next five years is the curse of politicians sticking their noses in.

If HS2 frees up capacity for freight on existing lines, oh and actually getting a chance to maintain the railway then it has a lot of point.

Our guys are increasingly finding all but the most basic jobs have to be done at night, in relatively poor light even with lamps, as the gaps in the daytime just aren't long enough to service points or change a rail. New tech is speeding things up but we then squeeze the times around the blocks so we only achieve the same work not use the time for more. This is why the 24hr railway has gone on the back burner, unlike roads, we just don't have enough diversionary routes for regular big blocks over months. You can close half a motorway and stick a 40 or 50 limit on it for months but you can't easily do that to a railway that runs on a timetable

Increasing capacity and routes, but not filling them to capacity to allow diversionary use is the key.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I would disagree, there's not much point in building a high speed line from Great Missenden to Water Orton, we *have* to build the expensive bits too as we don't have the spare capacity into the cities on existing tracks that the French will doubtless be using.

 

I am sure that someone has worked out the CBA for the whole scheme. But what if you split it down into sections? I suspect that the CBA for Curzon St would not be all that good. It does not have good connectivity with other public transport in Brum (except tram which is being extended there) so for many business users it will be more convenient to drive from their suburban home to International or get there by suburban rail services. The only real advantage to Curzon St is an opportunity for property developers to improve a particularly poor part of Birmingham.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Fences?

 

Ed

No, French TGV lines are fenced as well.

[locoholic]

Apart from the speed issue, which i'm clearly not alone in finding a little odd - and the additional tunnels, which I think have been forced on the project, where do you think it's gold plated?

 

Sadly, it's the speed issue which dictates the alignment, power supply design, train design, etc., so the "gold-plating" runs through the whole project at present. The other problems I have are the massive cost of the last few miles into Euston, and building the Birmingham station as a terminus.

 

With the UK in the threadbare state that it is currently in, we simply can't afford some top-of-the-range future-proofed project.

 

And using the Deltics as an example is hardly a ringing endorsement: fine machines, but an engineering dead-end.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Of course, we could just convert the M40 to a railway..

Yes, that would be really popular with the residents of the Chilterns!

 

Might need rack and pinion to get up the hill at Stokenchurch. Not sure what the maximum achievable speed is for rack and pinion but should be interestingly noisy at 200mph.

[jjb1970]

I think if designing and building HS2 to be able to accommodate extremely high speeds (400kph) does not add that much to the cost then it is sensible to do so as it does offer options in the future. However, in practical terms I do not really anticipate anybody solving the aerodynamic issues that mean that at those sort of speeds power demand is well up the exponential curve. Yes, it is relatively straight forward to increase speeds if you have enough power and take a blunderbuss approach (for example some military combat aircraft can achieve ridiculous speeds but need an awful lot of power and as such burn an awful lot of fuel for the odd occasions they exploit the capability which looks impressive on paper but is of limited utility in reality). I appreciate that an aerodynamic breakthrough is possible but given that the aerospace sector has poured biblical amounts of money into aerodynamic optimisation and efforts to defeat drag and have been in the territory of marginal gains for a long time it is unlikely. If we really did want to boost speeds well above the sort of 320kph figure which seems to have become the benchmark for high speed rail then I think Ellon Musk’s super loop concept (or whatever it is called) has more potential. I really cannot decide whether that concept is genius or mad, or perhaps it is both genius and mad.

[locoholic]

Quite right, look to the future and beyond what we know now when planning. Traffic Management has stalled because it can't currently deal with the 'Victorian' railway legacy of crossings and more recent restrictions left by over-rationalisation.

Looking at only the next five years is the curse of politicians sticking their noses in.

If HS2 frees up capacity for freight on existing lines, oh and actually getting a chance to maintain the railway then it has a lot of point.

Our guys are increasingly finding all but the most basic jobs have to be done at night, in relatively poor light even with lamps, as the gaps in the daytime just aren't long enough to service points or change a rail. New tech is speeding things up but we then squeeze the times around the blocks so we only achieve the same work not use the time for more. This is why the 24hr railway has gone on the back burner, unlike roads, we just don't have enough diversionary routes for regular big blocks over months. You can close half a motorway and stick a 40 or 50 limit on it for months but you can't easily do that to a railway that runs on a timetable

Increasing capacity and routes, but not filling them to capacity to allow diversionary use is the key.

 

This is a fantastic argument AGAINST HS2 in its current form. It won't be available as a diversionary route if there's a big block on a parallel route.

 

Increasing capacity and high speed are two totally separate issues. A new rail route (4-track?) across the territory previously served by the Great Central, with a couple of local stations around Brackley, etc, and the capacity to deal with freight, would address all the important issues, except the vanity of the politicians and other HS2 hangers-on.

[cheesysmith]

Looking at the flyby of the hs2 and I was surprised by the length of tunnelling in the London suburbs which is just following a existing rail line alongside a road as well. This does raise the question of why?

 

Also, with Sheffield city council wanting a city centre station at Victoria but hs2 wanting one at meadow hall, has anybody at hs2 had the idea of building the line through Sheffield to Manchester via the wood head instead of the "y" being further south? With a high speed triangular junction, you would then have a high speed line connecting Manchester-Sheffield-Leeds without the difficulty of trying to build another high speed line for the north transpennine route. If it was extended to Liverpool and a connection at Nottingham, and extended at the other end to the ECML near York, you then would have a high speed high capacity connection between the major connerbations of the north (satisfying the northern powerhouse bit) and where some of the biggest passenger flows are.

[PaulRhB]

This is a fantastic argument AGAINST HS2 in its current form. It won't be available as a diversionary route if there's a big block on a parallel route.

 

Increasing capacity and high speed are two totally separate issues. A new rail route (4-track?) across the territory previously served by the Great Central, with a couple of local stations around Brackley, etc, and the capacity to deal with freight, would address all the important issues, except the vanity of the politicians and other HS2 hangers-on.

But removing the long distance traffic to HS2 does remove it from other lines allowing them to be used for diversions IF they don't just fill up that gap with more. I wasn't suggesting using HS2 as a normal diversion to the existing lines but using it to free up capacity on existing lines so they can be used to provide diversions to each other.

It needs to be considered though what trains can be cancelled from existing routes and not cramming those and HS2 to capacity so both can deal with engineering access without undue disruption.

Edited May 27, 2016 by PaulRhB

[Glorious NSE]

 

 

 

I am sure that someone has worked out the CBA for the whole scheme. But what if you split it down into sections? I suspect that the CBA for Curzon St would not be all that good. It does not have good connectivity with other public transport in Brum (except tram which is being extended there) so for many business users it will be more convenient to drive from their suburban home to International or get there by suburban rail services. The only real advantage to Curzon St is an opportunity for property developers to improve a particularly poor part of Birmingham.

I'm not sure the connectivity is quite as bad as some parties make out.

 

Don't get confused by the continual references to the original station building which is currently a long way from anything - that's not where the train stops!

 

The new station goes way past that. It effectively makes an almost end-on connection to Moor St station, it'll be a short (I suspect one stop) tram ride for the less active (or a 6 minute walk for the more active) from Curzon St station to the entrance to New St station.

 

For folk not connecting by rail, it'll be no further than New St is from (for example) the Bullring shopping centre, or the overall centre of Birmingham.

 

Given your argument is based on it costing way too much as it is now - how much more would It have cost to have either had to deep tunnel or bulldoze a new station into existence next to New St?

 

And I think in Birmingham's case if traffic growth on the existing network continues they might have to do a project to put a lot of the suburban traffic in deep tunnel anyway, which would give you an opportunity to either site deep level platforms in such a way that New St, Moor St and Curzon St all became one connected station (in the same vein as Crossrail is doing in London) - or provide a directly connecting suburban lines station at the East end of the site.

 

 

Also, with Sheffield city council wanting a city centre station at Victoria but hs2 wanting one at meadow hall, has anybody at hs2 had the idea of building the line through Sheffield to Manchester via the wood head instead of the "y" being further south? With a high speed triangular junction, you would then have a high speed line connecting Manchester-Sheffield-Leeds without the difficulty of trying to build another high speed line for the north transpennine route. If it was extended to Liverpool and a connection at Nottingham, and extended at the other end to the ECML near York, you then would have a high speed high capacity connection between the major connerbations of the north (satisfying the northern powerhouse bit) and where some of the biggest passenger flows are.

In a similar way to Birmingham, you will not get *perfect* connectivity. A rebuilt Sheffield Victoria is probably the most practical way to get the station capacity you'd need in the city centre, (regardless of how you best access it) - but it offers no connection to existing services which at least Meadowhall does.

 

Balancing what's practical, affordable and desirable on this project must be an unenviable task.

 

At least for Leeds and Manchester they have space to put the station both handy for the city and next to existing main stations without too much disruption. 

 

 

The other problems I have are the massive cost of the last few miles into Euston

Yes it's a massive cost. But what's your realistic alternative suggestion?

 

A new rail route (4-track?) across the territory previously served by the Great Central, with a couple of local stations around Brackley, etc, and the capacity to deal with freight, would address all the important issues, except the vanity of the politicians and other HS2 hangers-on.

Firstly - why do you think that would be fundamentally cheaper? It'll use the same amount of land, possibly more. The route will be at least as long. The actual cost to build it should be little different.

 

The bit in the middle is (relatively) the cheap bit, and the bit that's relatively easy to build for high speed running.

 

The expensive bits are getting in and out of the cities. Not just London, any of them.

 

Unfortunately you still need to do the expensive bits irrespective of what the bit in the middle looks like. You'd still need to add substantial station capacity in London, and capacity to access it, and you'd need to do the same in Birmingham, and the same in Manchester, and the same in Leeds - none of the existing stations there have loads of spare capacity as it stands. If you want it to go into the middle of Sheffield rather than Meadowhall you'd need to do it there too...

 

And then ultimately you've spent the same kind of money, but you've got a railway that has no advantages over the present one except for capacity. The folk that currently drive, or fly, as it's quicker and more convenient for their journey (especially on Anglo Scottish routes) haven't changed mode, as your new railway has made absolutely no difference to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DavidLong]

With the UK in the threadbare state that it is currently in, we simply can't afford some top-of-the-range future-proofed project.

 

And using the Deltics as an example is hardly a ringing endorsement: fine machines, but an engineering dead-end.

The Deltics in themselves are not really the point of the argument. Only four years after the modernisation plan there was already some disquiet about the cost and disruption that the total route modernisation was going to cause on the WCML and it was becoming obvious that the similar work on the ECML was going to be pushed out into the future. What the redoubtable Mr Fiennes knew was that a step-change in performance on the ECML was required for exactly the reasons given by Titan in his post. Rapid acceleration and 100mph speed was not possible with any other form of steam or diesel power that was available at the time. Those principles are as valid now as they were then and, if Gerry was around now and in the same position, he would bite your hand off for 300 or even 400kph capability.

Seventy years before Gerry Fiennes, Edward Watkin was espousing similar principles in the design of the MS&L's southern extension with a fast route that could exploit the abilities of the motive power as existed at the time. The other benefit which Sir Edward had was that it was still possible to drive a new railway through the centres of Nottingham, Leicester, Rugby and London with barely a murmur although I think he did have some problems with the MCC!

I really think that the comment about our 'threadbare' country is a bit of British self-flagellation. I can think of a lot of countries in the world that would like to be attending the G7 talks if only their economies were just a tad larger . . .

I can't help thinking that you really don't like this project, do you?

 

David