HS2 under review

[locoholic]

But the MP is right on one respect as the latest Govt proposal talks of a 'linear city' between Oxford and Cambridge with developments at a number of centres these being linked by a resurrected/part newly created rail route - which will pass beneath HS2 at Claydon.  The argument that an intermediate stop will steal a path is not exactly true as it depends on how a timetable is constructed and the length of the loops and turnout speeds used to serve the platforms at an intermediate station as well as the usual line speed, headway,  and train length factors.  In other words it is feasible to serve a correctly designed intermediate station and at a cost of only one part path per hour per train calling at it.  Depending on how recovery time might be included it could actually result in a cost of no paths at all (and I can't see them building a timetable without recovery time).

 

In any case the limiting element on HS2 capacity will be number of platforms and arrangements at Euston plus the amount of turnround time required for a train (which in turn might also have a timetable impact of recovery and pathing allowances).  Thus if the Euston layout doesn't allow full use to be made of theoretical line capacity (in the same way that St Pancras platform capacity and train turnround times prevent HS1 reaching its theoretical capacity for international trains) there might be no actual cost in terms of trains per hour if a properly designed intermediate station were to be provided towards the southern end of HS2.

 

But in the end it boils down as much to will (to do something) as anything else.

It will be very interesting to see what interchange facilities there will be between the WCML, ECML and the East West Line. Are they going to start stopping fast trains at Bletchley and Sandy (or wherever the line eventually crosses the ECML.

 

And I'll be very surprised if a station on HS2 isn't built at some point...

[Edwin_m]

You are wrong for the following reasons:

 

By significantly reducing journey times, HS2 will automatically create "new travel opportunities", because travellers will perceive that journeys they previously thought too time-consuming will be possible via HS2. Perhaps you propose that every potential HS2 passenger should sign an affidavit confirming that they would have made their journey on the WCML, and they were not persuaded by the reduced journey time?!

 

HS1 has an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet. it seems to manage quite well, and passengers from Paris and Brussels are not forced to have commuters from Kent sitting on their laps for the final run into St Pancras.

 

You seem willing to cope with some kinds of "mission creep" that has afflicted HS2 already - nowadays it is all about capacity, whereas the initial design (the legacy of which is the inflated costs arising from the ultra-high line speed) was most definitely about giving the UK a 21st century high speed rail service. And yet adapting the plan to reflect the major urban growth in the Oxford/Cambridge corridor you find utterly unthinkable! As if one extra station will ruin the entire scheme! In decades to come the sight of high speed trains rushing through an area of major population growth will rightly be seen as ridiculous, and the failure to provide a HS2 station will have to be rectified. It is telling that you think there are two species of human living in the UK - people who live in cities served by HS2 are passengers, whereas everyone else are "locals", an inferior species not to be taken seriously, however many of them there are living near the new line.

As someone else has pointed out, the change of emphasis from speed to capacity is solely presentational.  The speed and the capacity are the same as they always were. 

 

The creation of new journey opportunities - whether on the line itself or making use of released capacity on other routes - is the whole reason for building HS2.  The plain fact is that a station in Buckinghamshire would be counter to that objective, because the longer journey time between city centres would reduce the number of longer-distance passengers more than the number of shorter-distance passengers who would use the station.  There are established techniques for predicting both figures, based on experience back into BR days, which have no doubt been applied somewhere in the HS2 business case to demonstrate that an extra station is not worthwhile.  By contrast Old Oak Common is in a populated area in its own right and has enough public transport feeder services to make it a worthwhile place to stop HS2, so effectively fulfilling the same role as Ebbsfleet does for Eurostar.  I've explained previously why the East-West service would feed hardly anyone into HS2 at a Calvert interchange. 

 

You presumably have reasons to live in a rural area remote from any major city, but when doing so you also make the choice to have less good connectivity by public transport.  The only way a public transport network can serve all areas is by being a network, and that means that the main trunk route is going to have a strictly limited number of interchanges. 

[PhilJ W]

On the whole western arm, I think they say 12% in tunnels and 37% in cuttings (much of which will be for noise shielding).

That's 49% (half) the journey with no view.

 

Funnily enough, some conceptual/speculative artist's graphics show train windows being dispensed with and replaced with wall mounted information and video displays.

 

 

I travelled on the Intercity 125 to York when they first went into service. On the journey it was not possible to take in much of the scenery as it was travelling too fast to do so. I was unable to identify the stations that we passed through as the speed made it impossible to read the nameboards.

[willjmitchell]

Whilst I am massively in favour of building a high speed line in the UK, HS2 seems to me to be poor value for money and sub-optimal in too many respects.

 

As some contributors have already observed, the line will operate at or near full capacity from inception. There is therefore little or no room for growth in future. Our neighbours in France now wish they had four-tracked the Paris-Lyon section of the LGV Sud Est as well as the LGV Nord; we appear not to have learned from their mistakes.

 

Journey times between most of the UK’s major cities will not be improved by HS2, a damning indictment of the line’s London-centric design and poor connectivity to the rest of the national rail network.

 

As the team at HSUK have argued, a better route, using the M1 corridor with spurs to Birmingham and Liverpool via Manchester would not only reduce journey times to and from London but would also provide a proper intercity network akin to that of Germany.

 

But surely the most egregious design flaw of all is the specification of terminus stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Who in their right mind would build a terminus station nowadays, except in a coastal city?

 

Unfortunately it seems that the HS2 juggernaught cannot and will not be stopped. But it has been interesting to watch as the various drawbacks of the design are brought into focus as they collide with reality: HS3; HS4; HS5; the specification of both classic-compatible and captive trains; a newly-proposed circuituous route serving Stoke; the provision of tram services to connect to a station located in the middle of nowhere; straightening the WCML north of Preston despite the excellent performance of pendular trains, to name but a few examples.

 

All of the above are illustrative of the muddled thinking of HS2. £100bn on a line which gets us to Manchester and Leeds but few places beyond. It’s a travesty.

[Hesperus]

I imagine the reason for the grand terminus stations is that the alternative would be to rebuild New Street, Piccadilly and Leeds Central to accommodate HS2 and the costs for that would be enormous.

[Edwin_m]

Whilst I am massively in favour of building a high speed line in the UK, HS2 seems to me to be poor value for money and sub-optimal in too many respects.

 

As some contributors have already observed, the line will operate at or near full capacity from inception. There is therefore little or no room for growth in future. Our neighbours in France now wish they had four-tracked the Paris-Lyon section of the LGV Sud Est as well as the LGV Nord; we appear not to have learned from their mistakes.

 

Journey times between most of the UK’s major cities will not be improved by HS2, a damning indictment of the line’s London-centric design and poor connectivity to the rest of the national rail network.

 

As the team at HSUK have argued, a better route, using the M1 corridor with spurs to Birmingham and Liverpool via Manchester would not only reduce journey times to and from London but would also provide a proper intercity network akin to that of Germany.

 

But surely the most egregious design flaw of all is the specification of terminus stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Who in their right mind would build a terminus station nowadays, except in a coastal city?

 

Unfortunately it seems that the HS2 juggernaught cannot and will not be stopped. But it has been interesting to watch as the various drawbacks of the design are brought into focus as they collide with reality: HS3; HS4; HS5; the specification of both classic-compatible and captive trains; a newly-proposed circuituous route serving Stoke; the provision of tram services to connect to a station located in the middle of nowhere; straightening the WCML north of Preston despite the excellent performance of pendular trains, to name but a few examples.

 

All of the above are illustrative of the muddled thinking of HS2. £100bn on a line which gets us to Manchester and Leeds but few places beyond. It’s a travesty.

I have no problem with people being opposed to HS2 but it so often seems that this is justified by citing "facts" which are clearly contradictory to what is intended. 

 

HS2 phase 2 will provide for high speed journeys from Birmingham to Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle as well as London services, drastically improving the rather slow times on the existing CrossCountry routes.  Journeys between the cities of the North are being looked at by another project (the sickly named Northern Powerhouse Rail), but it is likely to use at least parts of the HS2 routes.  I don't think a M1 corridor route would achieve this, and going through Manchester to get to Liverpool doesn't seem a particularly good idea. 

 

One of the HS2 reports looked at the possibility of four-tracking the London-Birmingham section and rejected it.  There would be no space at Euston to build more platforms for the extra trains, and it was concluded that if demand ever warranted more high speed infrastructure into London the better option would be a new route linking the north-east leg of HS2 down the eastern side of the country.  Trains between London and Leeds/Newcastle would be diverted onto this new route (and accelerated), freeing capacity on the western leg for trains between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Scotland.  I don't think they got as far as thinking about where this route would terminate in London, but to me it would have to be in the Stratford area simply because there's no space anywhere else. 

 

There is predicted to be enough demand to run dedicated trains between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds, and between Birmingham and Manchester/Leeds, so there is no need to build through stations.  As proposed the high speed access to Birmingham and Leeds is on the surface with only Manchester needing a long tunnel, but continuing "out the other side" would require long tunnels for all three cities. 

 

I'm not aware of any cost estimate remotely near £100bn.  If you have one please provide evidence.  And although high speed infrastructure will only go as far as Wigan and York there will be trains to Newcastle, Carlisle, Glasgow and Edinburgh - all of which will benefit from journey time savings even if the non-tilting trains are slightly slower on the northern WCML.  I don't think anyone is proposing straightening the WCML for non-tilting trains - if further journey time and capacity benefits are needed for Scotland then it would be better to build high speed bypasses of the slower or busier parts of the route. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Edwin_m

[Ron Ron Ron]

Journey times between most of the UK’s major cities will not be improved by HS2, a damning indictment of the line’s London-centric design and poor connectivity to the rest of the national rail network.....

To go back to the original rational for building HS2, there was no intention to link "most of the UK's major cities".

Neither was it intended to have widespread connectivity to the national rail network, although "mission creep" has resulted in more connectivity than originally planned.

 

 

As the team at HSUK have argued, a better route, using the M1 corridor with spurs to Birmingham and Liverpool via Manchester would not only reduce journey times to and from London but would also provide a proper intercity network akin to that of Germany.....

 

HS2 was not intended to provide any sort of HS network.

It is purely provision of much needed additional WCML long distance capacity. specifically between a limited number of the largest conurbations, which carry the heaviest flows.

 

 

But surely the most egregious design flaw of all is the specification of terminus stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Who in their right mind would build a terminus station nowadays, except in a coastal city?

In general terms that is true.

Large terminus stations are a wasteful, capacity sapping anachronism.

For example, the German's have addressed this by rebuilding Berlin Hauptbahnhof and now the large Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof terminus, into more efficient through stations. 

 

However, it is difficult to see how this could have been achieved in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, without even more massively expensive tunnelling.

It is doubtful that space could be found, or enough expensive city centre Realestate could be bought and demolished to make way for such a grand plan.

If HS2 project and construction costs weren't double or triple the costs of building a compatible LGV on the continent; maybe we could have afforded the expensive sub surface, through stations? But for what purpose?

 

 

Unfortunately it seems that the HS2 juggernaught cannot and will not be stopped.

Unfortunately this appears to be the case.

The cost has been massively inflated by the amount of tunnelling, environmental mitigation and "mission creep".

Much has deviated from the original concept. and there doesn't appear to be any chance of trimming back.

 

 

...the specification of both classic-compatible and captive trains;

"Classic compatible" was originally an add-on, as the original concept saw the core London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds services as the primary, main user of the line.

Now "classic compatible" dominates the requirement, as more cities off the route have been added to the plans.

The advantages of building a larger UIC gauge route may end up being largely wasted.

 

 

a newly-proposed circuituous route serving Stoke;

 

More of the wasteful "mission creep".

 

 

All of the above are illustrative of the muddled thinking of HS2. £100bn on a line which gets us to Manchester and Leeds but few places beyond. It’s a travesty.

I agree on the muddled thinking, but for completely different reasons.

HS2 should not be going beyond those original proposals.

 

 

.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[willjmitchell]

Hi Edwin,

 

Appreciate your responses.

 

Attaching hereto a letter from Lord Berkeley to Chris Grayling which estimates that the Phase 1 costs are spiralling towards £50bn.

 

Regarding the M1 corridor, it would almost certainly save a lot of money compared to tunneling under the Chilterns, money which could perhaps be better spent elsewhere.

 

Regarding cross country services, I suggest they are supposed to cross the country, rather than terminate in the middle, requiring a change of train and station in Birmingham in order to continue a journey.

 

The HSUK plans seem to me to be more holistic and better thought-through. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on them.

 

Regards,

Will

[Mike Storey]

But the MP is right on one respect as the latest Govt proposal talks of a 'linear city' between Oxford and Cambridge with developments at a number of centres these being linked by a resurrected/part newly created rail route - which will pass beneath HS2 at Claydon.  The argument that an intermediate stop will steal a path is not exactly true as it depends on how a timetable is constructed and the length of the loops and turnout speeds used to serve the platforms at an intermediate station as well as the usual line speed, headway,  and train length factors.  In other words it is feasible to serve a correctly designed intermediate station and at a cost of only one part path per hour per train calling at it.  Depending on how recovery time might be included it could actually result in a cost of no paths at all (and I can't see them building a timetable without recovery time).

 

In any case the limiting element on HS2 capacity will be number of platforms and arrangements at Euston plus the amount of turnround time required for a train (which in turn might also have a timetable impact of recovery and pathing allowances).  Thus if the Euston layout doesn't allow full use to be made of theoretical line capacity (in the same way that St Pancras platform capacity and train turnround times prevent HS1 reaching its theoretical capacity for international trains) there might be no actual cost in terms of trains per hour if a properly designed intermediate station were to be provided towards the southern end of HS2.

 

But in the end it boils down as much to will (to do something) as anything else.

If I have understood the existing E-W catchment correctly, upon which the outline BC was originally based, the announcement by HMG about the new "linear city" (which is in fact five rather smaller and disconnected new developments) will raise total catchment by less than 1.5%, even if all are eventually built. Quite how that makes a devastating difference to calculations already done, and thus prompts the MP into repeat action, remains a mystery. Platform capacity at Euston is planned to be 11 dedicated HS platforms, which suggests an optimum TT can be operated at regular intervals at common speeds. Thus the "will" has no greater compulsion than before, and the knock-on effects remain disproportionate.

 

But as you imply, political decisions may override the prima face case for reliability, overall costs and total capacity in the end (as was the case with Sheffield).

[Mike Storey]

Hi Edwin,

 

Appreciate your responses.

 

Attaching hereto a letter from Lord Berkeley to Chris Grayling which estimates that the Phase 1 costs are spiralling towards £50bn.

 

Regarding the M1 corridor, it would almost certainly save a lot of money compared to tunneling under the Chilterns, money which could perhaps be better spent elsewhere.

 

Regarding cross country services, I suggest they are supposed to cross the country, rather than terminate in the middle, requiring a change of train and station in Birmingham in order to continue a journey.

 

The HSUK plans seem to me to be more holistic and better thought-through. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on them.

 

Regards,

Will

 

Fascinating stuff.

 

Tony Berkeley has had a "thing" about HS2 right from the start. This letter is almost a replica of the one he published in Rail Technology about a year ago (and discussed at some length in earlier "revelations" in the papers in 2016). He quotes figures by Michael Byng (see below). The NAO had already examined HS2's most recent re-estimation in 2016 and pronounced it likely to be around £200m over budget for Phase 1 (at 2015 prices). The subsequent PAO report focused almost exclusively on the business case, rather than cost inflation, and the assumptions of associated works being funded by others, in order to realise the full benefits claimed. A technical point in almost all cases, as HS2 has used extant plans, or third party and separately funded plans declared conditional on HS2 being built.

 

If you take time to study the HSUK schemes (for it is most certainly not one project, but a whole series of associated projects), it is extremely dependent on "what-if?" associated schemes for it to realise all the claimed benefits. Just take the London map page alone (which I have just done to make sure I wasn't dreaming). HSUK claim all sorts of benefits to freight, to cross-London journeys, to linkeage to HS1, Heathrow and so on. You will note the routes shown on that map. Just look at the link to HS1 from HSUK. Then read the extensively detailed options report on that link provided by HS2 Ltd (now in gov archives) which could not find any reasonable way to arrive at the same level as HS1 in that area without re-building most of the other infrastructure, including the MML, part of St Pancras, the Regent Canal, and a swathe of housing and industry, let alone preventing the current redevelopment of the area (long overdue) already underway. HS2 dropped the plans for a link as far too expensive for the benefit. HSUK have claimed the benefit but no costings. HSUK have also proposed routing part of the new services via the MML into St Pancras, but as with the HS1 link, have failed to explain (AFAIK) how an already full and bursting station could possibly be used, without complete re-building, but without, as far as I can see, any plans or costings, other than an allowance. The two, estimable, ex-BR engineers, late of consultancy, but completely under-resourced team that make up HSUK, working from an old farmhouse in North Yorkshire, have been punting this massive conglomeration of individual projects for years, many lifted from old BR schemes that never saw the light of day (I distinctly recall a couple on the ER).

 

HS2 was promoted from the start as a capacity enhancer for services from and to the North via the West Midlands, with the PR spin that it would also be high speed (which is cost neutral over time). HSUK is a proposal for something rather different, whose stated cost estimate is fanciful to say the least, and whose construction and disruption period (given the huge number of interfaces with and dependence on existing infrastructure,) is, in the opinion of the vast majority of rail professionals, probably twice the timescale for HS2. Which means some time between 2050 and 2060.

 

Michael Byng is a QS, disciplined and dismissed from RICS in 2010 for malpractice, who has a history of company dissolution, who has attempted to buy Coventry City FC using unnamed Chinese and other far east investors (whilst at the same time also claiming he had these investors ready to fund the re-opening of a fast line from Coventry to link up with HS2 at Birmingham International, which never happened either). He claims he invented and supplied the RMM (Rail Method of Measurement - the newly adopted attempt to standardise cost estimation for rail construction projects) to Network Rail, but RICS (of whom Byng is still not a member) and NR have published their work in developing this in conjunction with various suppliers plus ORR and only released Section 1 last year for general use (seven years after Byng was kicked out of RICS). Byng claims he was "commissioned" by the DfT to produce a revised estimate for HS2 Phase 1, using "his" new method. Yet DfT continue to state they have full confidence in the HS2 Ltd estimates and have not publicly acknowledged any legitimacy to Byng's numbers.

 

I do not doubt that there will be some shocks to come on HS2 costs, and political decisions (cynicism has to be a healthy attitude after GWIP) and as a member of the Lords, Tony Berkeley has the right (and the duty) to continue to question them. But I seriously question whether his use (and the use by others) of somewhat questionable sources and alternatives, really gives sufficient integrity or gravitas to his cause. He has form on this. See his history in Modern Railways and any other part of the meeja he could collar over the past 20 years.

 

What I really hope does not happen, is that, yet again, the UK defers, or cancels, a major project, which most people agree is needed in some form or another, on the basis of alternative, minority views, which have far less information behind them, than the 8 years and £1.4 billion already spent on optioneering, land purchase, legal costs and design costs. We had all these debates about what HS2 should be, around 10 years ago and for some years. Re-opening that debate is not only pointless, but expensive. Examination of what the present scheme will cost etc. is perfectly relevant, and needs to continue but perhaps with more robust evidence than an untried costing method, utilised by a somewhat colourful character in an attempt to rescue his career?

[lmsforever]

With the predicted rise in building costs the line operators are going to have to carry a heck of a lot of passengers to make it pay and the DFT will want an enormous sum for the franchise thus increasing the chance of a key handing back senareo.I do wonder what effect will manifest itself on the other franchises on associated lines surely long distance ones will experience a drop in traffic if as predicted everyone jumps on an HS2 train and will anyone want to risk their money on these lines.Commuter is still a win win situation and perhaps the routes of these services will be extended with new flows appearing.You couls even see an Oxford Euston service or the same from Bedford HS2 might be the catalyst for some real imaginative services .

[phil-b259]

Whilst I am massively in favour of building a high speed line in the UK, HS2 seems to me to be poor value for money and sub-optimal in too many respects.

 

As some contributors have already observed, the line will operate at or near full capacity from inception. There is therefore little or no room for growth in future. Our neighbours in France now wish they had four-tracked the Paris-Lyon section of the LGV Sud Est as well as the LGV Nord; we appear not to have learned from their mistakes.

 

As the team at HSUK have argued, a better route, using the M1 corridor with spurs to Birmingham and Liverpool via Manchester would not only reduce journey times to and from London but would also provide a proper intercity network akin to that of Germany.

 

 

 

Take a look at a map of the UK - the M1 corridor is actually heavily built up these days and any new railway along it would require Large amounts demolition of property. Given the opposition to HS2 when it deliberately passes through the most sparsely populated bit of England between London and Birmingham, you are deluded in the extreme if you think that there is any way the M1 corridor would be acceptable the the public at large or their MPs.

 

As it happens I actually agree that the M1 corridor is the most logical one - but there is a pressing need for more WCML capacity and its much better to have it go through the Chilterns than nothing at all!

 

Similarly with you comments about it needing to be four tracks - while this may be true the public opposition to the increase in land take, the extra cost of duplicating all the tunnels and the vast increase in station costs to actually be able to make use of the extra capacity (the planned Euston would have to be twice as large again) makes it very poor value for money. Even if you did make it a 'through line' there is the little matter of where you are going to end up - because like the M1 corridor, the South East is heavily built up and the hostility by the residents of Surrey, Sussex, and Kent would make the opposition in the Chilterns look like nothing!

 

 

Journey times between most of the UK’s major cities will not be improved by HS2, a damning indictment of the line’s London-centric design and poor connectivity to the rest of the national rail network.

 

But surely the most egregious design flaw of all is the specification of terminus stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Who in their right mind would build a terminus station nowadays, except in a coastal city?

 

 

If its so London centric - why is there a north bound chord being built at Birmingham?

 

While the maximum number of train paths on the Southern leg is 18tph, because the route splits into 2 legs and because a few trains are due to terminate in Birmingham,  that allows for a further 18tph to start from Birmingham for destinations further north!

 

Any sane analysis of the Cross Country network shows that it is at its busiest on the Birmingham - Sheffield leg, a journey which HS2 will be able to help with. Similarly Birmingham - Manchester / Liverpool / Scotland will see a boost.

 

As for terminal stations - that is because there is a desire to make sure it can handle 2 Duplex TGV style, continental loading gauge trainsets coupled together. There is NO WAY ON EARTH that our current crop of city centre stations can take trains of such a length nor be rebuilt to do so without extensive demolition and decades of disruption.

 

Through services can be done by application of suitable chords - and here I agree there are a number of omissions. The most obvious is on the approach to Birmingham at Washford Heath where it would allow 'classic compatible trainset for Wolverhampton to couple to another service at Birmingham Interchange . Other opportunities could come from chords in the Totton area allowing further splitting and joining of services, particularly following the decision to serve Sheffield via a link to the current network. A parkway station between Sheffield and where the Leeds branch diverges could also act as a splitting / joining location

[jjb1970]

HS2 have identified the reduction of environmental train noise, as a key design requirement.

 

Here is an earlier document (I believe they've progressed this much further since 2013)....

 

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consultation_library/pdf/P2C29_Noise.pdf

 

 

.

Noise and vibration attenuation are amongst those things that can be achieved very effectively if you are willing to spend the necessary ££££'s. People still dismiss under floor engines for DMU trains based on older trains but these days the technology is there to bring noise and vibration right down. And many of the techniques are neither high tech or new (although that isn't the same as saying cheap).

[locoholic]

...As for terminal stations - that is because there is a desire to make sure it can handle 2 Duplex TGV style, continental loading gauge trainsets coupled together. There is NO WAY ON EARTH that our current crop of city centre stations can take trains of such a length nor be rebuilt to do so without extensive demolition and decades of disruption.

 

Through services can be done by application of suitable chords - and here I agree there are a number of omissions. The most obvious is on the approach to Birmingham at Washford Heath where it would allow 'classic compatible trainset for Wolverhampton to couple to another service at Birmingham Interchange . Other opportunities could come from chords in the Totton area allowing further splitting and joining of services, particularly following the decision to serve Sheffield via a link to the current network. A parkway station between Sheffield and where the Leeds branch diverges could also act as a splitting / joining location

 

A couple of points - firstly, the role of "classic compatible" trains is becoming more important as the detail of HS2 crystallises, so a gold-plated design to accomodate long, double-deck trains is looking increasingly extravagant.

 

Secondly, why is it that you want extra "suitable chords" to be built (thus making my point above even more valid), but in an earlier post you stated that HS2 was not designed to make "new" journeys possible and should be built exactly as originally proposed, to relieve the southern WCML? You seem to hold two contradictory opinions. And if you are OK with extra chords being tacked on to the design, why not an extra station north of Aylesbury?

[Edwin_m]

The classic compatible trains are the same length as the proposed UIC gauge trains (either can be coupled to run in pairs).  Nobody is proposing double deck at present but it might be an option if demand exceeded expectations, but it isn't possible in a classic compatible so if those are being used the need to accommodate longer trains is more important.  For a new railway the extra cost of UIC gauge versus UK gauge is very small so this seems a sensible bit of future-proofing. 

 

The Washwood Heath chord would potentially allow HS2 trains that would otherwise terminate at Birmingham to continue elsewhere, so wouldn't increase the number of trains on HS2.  Connections in the Toton area would probably be for trains using the northern part of HS2 where there is spare capacity available - similarly for those proposed by Northern Powerhouse.  By contrast extra chords near Aylesbury would need extra paths on the busiest part of the HS2 route. 

[locoholic]

I do not doubt that there will be some shocks to come on HS2 costs...

 

What I really hope does not happen, is that, yet again, the UK defers, or cancels, a major project, which most people agree is needed in some form or another, on the basis of alternative, minority views, which have far less information behind them, than the 8 years and £1.4 billion already spent on optioneering, land purchase, legal costs and design costs. We had all these debates about what HS2 should be, around 10 years ago and for some years. Re-opening that debate is not only pointless, but expensive. Examination of what the present scheme will cost etc. is perfectly relevant, and needs to continue but perhaps with more robust evidence than an untried costing method, utilised by a somewhat colourful character in an attempt to rescue his career?

 

What is most likely to kill HS2 isn't "alternative, minority views", but lack of money as the UK struggles to deal with the after-effects of Brexit.

[62613]

What is most likely to kill HS2 isn't "alternative, minority views", but lack of money as the UK struggles to deal with the after-effects of Brexit.

Alternatively, it might just be the sort of thing that would bring benefits all round after Brexit.

[PhilJ W]

What is most likely to kill HS2 isn't "alternative, minority views", but lack of money as the UK struggles to deal with the after-effects of Brexit.

 

 

Alternatively, it might just be the sort of thing that would bring benefits all round after Brexit.

That all depends if the EU cash that is a considerable part of the finance of HS2 is still forthcoming after Brexit.

[Ron Ron Ron]

What is most likely to kill HS2 isn't "alternative, minority views", but lack of money as the UK struggles to deal with the after-effects of Brexit.

 

 

It's probably too late to kill phase 1, as contracts are being let and some early preparatory work is well underway.

Money is already allocated to get the actual construction work rolling and diggers are actually working at various locations on things like wildlife refuges, ponds and sanctuaries.

 

In London, properties that will be demolished to make way for the Euston expansion and redevelopment, are being vacated and boarded up ready for demolition. 

See the video link in post 2316 (page 93).

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

[Joseph_Pestell]

To go back to the original rational for building HS2, there was no intention to link "most of the UK's major cities".

Neither was it intended to have widespread connectivity to the national rail network, although "mission creep" has resulted in more connectivity than originally planned.

 

 

 

HS2 was not intended to provide any sort of HS network.

It is purely provision of much needed additional WCML long distance capacity. specifically between a limited number of the largest conurbations, which carry the heaviest flows.

 

 

However, it is difficult to see how this could have been achieved in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, without even more massively expensive tunnelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

I can think of quite an easy way to build a through station for HS2 in Birmingham. It's called Snow Hill. Diverting the existing services there into tunnel would surely be easier than the cost of building tunnels to accommodate the high speed trains.

[Mike Storey]

I can think of quite an easy way to build a through station for HS2 in Birmingham. It's called Snow Hill. Diverting the existing services there into tunnel would surely be easier than the cost of building tunnels to accommodate the high speed trains.

 

From HS2 Ltd "Command Paper" 2010, recommendations in which were approved by HMG :

 

6.44 Whilst in principle the option of the high speed line running from London

directly through Birmingham city centre appears attractive, none of the

options for a through-station was assessed by HS2 Ltd to be workable in

practice. Any new through-station would have to be built below surface

level, as no appropriate surface site could be identified. This would entail

prohibitive costs, relative to other options, and unacceptable townscape

and land take impacts.

 

6.45 There is also little scope for redesigning Birmingham New Street to

accommodate high speed services. The station is already operating at

close to capacity and is closely bounded by tunnels and city infrastructure,

making expansion exceptionally difficult and expensive, and impossible

without having to relocate a large number of the existing services to a new

station built elsewhere.

 

The actual, detailed analysis of this (and almost all the other optioneering undertaken at the time), is available via the gov.uk archives site. I do not intend to copy all of that, but it clearly shows that Snow Hill was considered in stage 1 of the optioneering, both for a through-station design and as a terminus. It was rejected, along with New Street as a through option. Moor Street on the other hand, was considered worth further investigation, as were Warwick Wharf and Fazelely Street, but Curzon Street, as a terminus, came out top on virtually all considerations of cost, environment, and disturbance to listed buildings, communities and existing transport. Convenience was less well scored, but considered adequate as a compromise.

[Mike Storey]

As someone else has pointed out, the change of emphasis from speed to capacity is solely presentational.  The speed and the capacity are the same as they always were. 

 

The creation of new journey opportunities - whether on the line itself or making use of released capacity on other routes - is the whole reason for building HS2.  The plain fact is that a station in Buckinghamshire would be counter to that objective, because the longer journey time between city centres would reduce the number of longer-distance passengers more than the number of shorter-distance passengers who would use the station.  There are established techniques for predicting both figures, based on experience back into BR days, which have no doubt been applied somewhere in the HS2 business case to demonstrate that an extra station is not worthwhile.  By contrast Old Oak Common is in a populated area in its own right and has enough public transport feeder services to make it a worthwhile place to stop HS2, so effectively fulfilling the same role as Ebbsfleet does for Eurostar.  I've explained previously why the East-West service would feed hardly anyone into HS2 at a Calvert interchange. 

 

You presumably have reasons to live in a rural area remote from any major city, but when doing so you also make the choice to have less good connectivity by public transport.  The only way a public transport network can serve all areas is by being a network, and that means that the main trunk route is going to have a strictly limited number of interchanges. 

 

To emphasise this and the contention elsewhere that an extra stop would not necessarily lose a path, this was the conclusion of the HS2 Ltd study into that possibility - 

 

Intermediate Stations

 

6.55 As well as identifying options for city centre stations in London and

Birmingham and for an interchange with Crossrail in West London, HS2 Ltd

was asked to consider the case for providing an intermediate station between

London and the West Midlands – for instance, to provide access to high

speed rail services for major towns such as Milton Keynes or Oxford.

 

6.56 HS2 Ltd examined the potential benefits and disbenefits of such a station

and considered a number of options for its location in the light of potential

demand. It concluded that an intermediate station between London and the

West Midlands would be detrimental to the overall business case.

 

117

 

6.57 The main disbenefits, besides the cost of construction, are the journey time

penalties to through passengers and the loss of capacity on the overall high

speed network. These arise both through the need to run trains part way

with empty seats reserved for passengers joining mid-route, and through

the train paths that are foregone as a result of stopping trains on a section

of the line that would otherwise be operating at the highest speed. On the

latter issue, HS2 Ltd concluded that even with carefully designed junctions

and separate approach tracks to and from the intermediate station, the loss

of line capacity would still be considerable.

 

6.58 Furthermore, many of the towns which might benefit from such an

intermediate station will already see improvements to existing services on

the conventional network over the coming years, such as the benefits for

Oxford commuters from investment in the Great Western and Chiltern lines.

If High Speed Two was constructed as recommended by HS2 Ltd, many

of them, including Milton Keynes, would be likely to benefit from the use of

capacity released on the West Coast Main Line as a consequence.

 

6.59 For these reasons, the Government agrees with HS2 Ltd’s recommendation

that no intermediate station between London and the West Midlands should

be included in the further development of options for the High Speed Two line.

[Mike Storey]

That all depends if the EU cash that is a considerable part of the finance of HS2 is still forthcoming after Brexit.

 

Not so sure about that? I believe Grayling has emphasised only recently that it would have amounted to only between 2 to 4% of the total. (Around £140m has already been claimed and used.)

[Mike Storey]

What is most likely to kill HS2 isn't "alternative, minority views", but lack of money as the UK struggles to deal with the after-effects of Brexit.

 

Always a possibility, as with many other things. But the annual, average spend of around £3.5 billion (with some large peaks and a few troughs) over 15 years, if we assume the total remains at around £50 billion at 2015 prices, and almost all that related to capital account investment (which money markets like, and thus borrowing costs are significantly lower - I would assume there will be some attempt to off-set direct tax spend with a financial model, only underwritten by HMG, as for HS1, at some stage).  This is about 3% of the annual costs of the NHS, and only about 0.18% of total government spending. It is is not insignificant to you and I, but I would suggest it is not the most obvious target for cost saving in future, unless costs rise exponentially, which then takes us into a different ball game.

 

It is of note, and a pleasant surprise to me, that a Conservative coalition, then government, has protected a major piece of public transport investment for 8 years, despite all the other austerity measures already taken.