HS2

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

..........and I think we can all be quietly confident that whatever else travel on HS2 will be, it WON'T be cheap. ....

 

 

I'm curious as to why you make that assumption? 

On what assumption(s) ?

Just asking?

 

 

.

[meil]

8 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I agree, but the government and HS2 created the perception. If something is called HS2 for high speed,  and a lot of the marketing and political sales pitch was about shorter journeys, high speed etc then I really don't blame normals who aren't interested in trains for thinking it's all about speed. 

The economic justification relied heavily on the time saving. It's contribution to the ability of the project to meet the Government's investment criteria (every pound spent results in £2 of value) was heavily dependent on it. Even then the project barley met the criteria and it's main benefit was heavily slewed towards London.

 

If the project was to create extra WCML capacity that could have been achieved by a much simpler, and hence lower cost, solution by providing a 140mph route.

 

HST was nothing more than a glamour project of the last labour government. The failure of the Conservatives was to allow it to proceed.

[jamie92208]

Can we try to stay away from the party politics.  We have to live with the decisions that have been made,, in some cases quite a time ago. Contrary to popular belief the Northern leg has not been cancelled, just paused and no further work funded for the time being. As I understand it more legislation is required to actually cancel it and with the current feverish state if Westminster there may noypt be time to rush a cancellation bill through.  In the meantime a lot of long term projects are doing well.  The Chiltern tunnels wil break through by March.  The Thame Valley viaduct is coming on fast and the Colne Valley viaduct is getting close to two thirds complete. 

 

Jamie

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by jamie92208

[Mark Saunders]

18 minutes ago, meil said:

The economic justification relied heavily on the time saving. It's contribution to the ability of the project to meet the Government's investment criteria (every pound spent results in £2 of value) was heavily dependent on it. Even then the project barley met the criteria and it's main benefit was heavily slewed towards London.

 

If the project was to create extra WCML capacity that could have been achieved by a much simpler, and hence lower cost, solution by providing a 140mph route.

 

HST was nothing more than a glamour project of the last labour government. The failure of the Conservatives was to allow it to proceed.

Too many people and politicians think the understand railways and transport but in reality do not and a lot of them are frightened of big numbers.

Maintenance is also an oxymoron to many as they only see repairs rather than maintenance!

[62613]

10 minutes ago, meil said:

The economic justification relied heavily on the time saving. It's contribution to the ability of the project to meet the Government's investment criteria (every pound spent results in £2 of value) was heavily dependent on it. Even then the project barley met the criteria and it's main benefit was heavily slewed towards London.

 

If the project was to create extra WCML capacity that could have been achieved by a much simpler, and hence lower cost, solution by providing a 140mph route.

 

HST was nothing more than a glamour project of the last labour government. The failure of the Conservatives was to allow it to proceed.

When you have trains in the UK running at 200mile/hour already, why not design it for 240 mile/hour? This is part of the fiasco of the last big WCML upgrade; the Pendolinos were designed to run at 140 m.p.h., and indeed, we were told originally that this would be the maximum operating speed, but because of the problems getting the cab signalling to work correctly, they're restricted to 125. 

 

HS2 as an idea was originally developed by a private consultancy, and the Labour government, after a lot of lobbying, took it up. It had general parliamentary approval. It took out several places where there are level junctions (around Rugby, Colwich, Stafford, Crewe, etc.,). The point was that once on it, the trains would all be running at the same speeds at the same points, and you could plan timetables to maximise capacity on the line. This has been explained on this thread multiple times

[martin_wynne]

After 357 pages and endless twists, turns and cancellations, could someone please summarise the current position? There is a lot of engineering work going on, so it must be possible to say:

 

1. where will HS2 start?

2. where will it finish?

3. what trains will run on it?

4. how fast will they go?

 

5. how long will it take to get to Birmingham, starting from:

a. London.

b. Bristol.

c. Manchester.

d. Edinburgh.

e. Cardiff.

 

6. how long will it take to get to Birmingham, starting from:

Now.

 

7. how much increased capacity will there be on the WCML for a. passenger trains, b. freight trains?

 

Thanks.

 

Martin.

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, DenysW said:

One just has to take it on trust that octupling/hextupling the existing routes couldn't have (a) been more cost-effective

IIRC the cost/benefits/disruption for each solution were compared, the benefits for a new line heavily outweighed other "expansions" of the WCML, which would have been hugely disruptive during the construction period as well as requiring much more demolition of properties.

 

What we have now got under construction has been considerably altered from the originally published survey, adding somewhat to the costs for no benefit to the railway.

 

[Northmoor]

7 minutes ago, melmerby said:

IIRC the cost/benefits/disruption for each solution were compared, the benefits for a new line heavily outweighed other "expansions" of the WCML, which would have been hugely disruptive during the construction period as well as requiring much more demolition of properties.

Anyone who has ever travelled between the West Midlands and London by road who still thinks the WCML should simply have been widened instead of building the new HS2 route, might like to recall what was more disruptive to their journeys for a decade: widening the M1 south of Luton, or building the M40.

[martin_wynne]

40 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Anyone who has ever travelled between the West Midlands and London by road who still thinks the WCML should simply have been widened instead of building the new HS2 route, might like to recall what was more disruptive to their journeys for a decade: widening the M1 south of Luton, or building the M40.

 

Which was the more disruptive to those who weren't travelling between the West Midlands and London by road?

 

e.g. happily growing cabbages.

 

Martin.

[meil]

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Anyone who has ever travelled between the West Midlands and London by road who still thinks the WCML should simply have been widened instead of building the new HS2 route, might like to recall what was more disruptive to their journeys for a decade: widening the M1 south of Luton, or building the M40.

There is no doubt that a separate line offered the best solution but burdening it with the ludicrous speeds together with all the environmental baggage that resulted from the ludicrous speed is why it is a disaster and the laughing stock of Europe.

Edited December 28, 2023 by meil

[jamie92208]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

After 357 pages and endless twists, turns and cancellations, could someone please summarise the current position? There is a lot of engineering work going on, so it must be possible to say:

 

1. where will HS2 start?

2. where will it finish?

3. what trains will run on it?

4. how fast will they go?

 

5. how long will it take to get to Birmingham, starting from:

a. London.

b. Bristol.

c. Manchester.

d. Edinburgh.

e. Cardiff.

 

6. how long will it take to get to Birmingham, starting from:

Now.

 

7. how much increased capacity will there be on the WCML for a. passenger trains, b. freight trains?

 

Thanks.

 

Martin.

I will try to answer your questions Martin based on the most re ent statements. 

1 Euston eventually but until then Old Oak

2.  Curzon Street and somewhere near Handsacre as the powers for the actual Junction are missing g in action. 

3.  The trains contracted by Alstom/ Hitachi which are classic compatible, 

4.  At least 186 mph on most of the new line. 

 

5.  No one knows because of the answers above. 

6.  

And the 

7.  Very little north of Rugby because of 2 and the problem of Handsacre.  There will be some south of Rugby but as there is only capacity at Old Oak to turn round 6 trains per hour not as much as if the whole planned 18 trains per hour. 

 

Not a very good prospect.  However the plus side is that the new line wilbe well built  and only being used to one third of its capacity should be very reliable. 

 

Jamie

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

5. how long will it take to get to Birmingham, starting from:

 

b. Bristol.

 

 

e. Cardiff.

Same as now as they don't have anything to do with HS2

 

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

5. how long will it take to get to Birmingham, starting from:

 

 

c. Manchester.

d. Edinburgh.

 

Not a lot quicker than now as they will only be on a relatively short length of HS2

[melmerby]

A couple of items gleaned from the news, that I haven't seen any mention of on here.

 

1) Curzon St Station build contracts will be let and construction started 2024. (seems a bit optimistic to me)

 

2) Properties purchased for the Manchester leg are being rented out by HS2. Note, not sold. (trying to keep the options open?)

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, meil said:

There is no doubt that a separate line offered the best solution but burdening it with the ludicrous speeds together with all the environmental baggage that resulted from the ludicrous speed is why it is a disaster and the laughing stock of Europe.

Rather a silly statement IMHO

Hardly the laughing stock of Europe as it is to a similar specification and speed to those currently being built in Europe and elsewhere*.

Cancelling part of it that was crucial to it's success is utter stupidity, leaving a horrendous bottleneck between Hansacre and Crewe.

 

*What would have been ludicrous was building a 125mph railway when starting from scratch.

[Pete the Elaner]

11 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Which was the more disruptive to those who weren't travelling between the West Midlands and London by road?

 

e.g. happily growing cabbages.

 

Martin.

 

The M1 widening was horrible. Not surprisingly, the section between Luton & Milton Keynes had its budget cut, so instead of a full 4 lane motorway with hard shoulder, we got some smart motorway with bits not widened at all. It is usual to expect delays in this section & feels like the job is still ongoing.

 

I think using this & the M40 as a comparison between another WCML upgrade & HS2 was actually a good one.

[jamie92208]

On 29/12/2023 at 00:21, melmerby said:

A couple of items gleaned from the news, that I haven't seen any mention of on here.

 

2) Properties purchased for the Manchester leg are being rented out by HS2. Note, not sold. (trying to keep the options open?)

The renting out of compulsorily purchased properties has been standard practice since at least 1890 to my knowledge and probably from well before that.  The Midland Railway collected rents from property for it's proposed line across Bradford from about 1897 to 1920. They even used one as the estate office and installed electricity in it.  However I can't expect the tabloid press to actually research such things. 

Jamie

Edited December 30, 2023 by jamie92208

[Pete the Elaner]

9 hours ago, meil said:

There is no doubt that a separate line offered the best solution but burdening it with the ludicrous speeds together with all the environmental baggage that resulted from the ludicrous speed is why it is a disaster and the laughing stock of Europe.

 

Please explain why you believe a slow line would have any less 'environmental baggage'.

[Pete the Elaner]

14 hours ago, 62613 said:

When you have trains in the UK running at 200mile/hour already, why not design it for 240 mile/hour? This is part of the fiasco of the last big WCML upgrade; the Pendolinos were designed to run at 140 m.p.h., and indeed, we were told originally that this would be the maximum operating speed, but because of the problems getting the cab signalling to work correctly, they're restricted to 125. 

 

 

It was a practical issue, not a technical one.

Virgin asked for exclusive access to the fast lines to make this possible, but it was refused.

Why? I used to get a semi-fast home from work. It used the fast lines until Ledburn Jcn (Leighton Buzzard) where it crossed over. While on the fast lines, I had usually passed 2 freight & 2 local passenger services on the slow lines.

Before my train had left LB, 2 Pendolinos had whizzed past. The slow lines simply cannot cope with all other traffic.

So in cab signalling for 140mph running would enable the Pendolinos to catch up more quickly & run on double yellows.

There were times & places where it may have helped, but it would certainly not allow Pendolinos to blast along at 140 everywhere (& I don't think the Voyagers could cope with it anyway). All trains using the WCML would have needed it. Even those using the slow lines sometimes need diverting to the fast lines (engineering works, points failure, land slides etc.).

With all this considered, an upgrade was viewed as an inefficient use of resources.

Try explaining that through the media though.

 

This was also why the 91s doing 140 was tried & dismissed.

[jamie92208]

3 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

It was a practical issue, not a technical one.

Virgin asked for exclusive access to the fast lines to make this possible, but it was refused.

Why? I used to get a semi-fast home from work. It used the fast lines until Ledburn Jcn (Leighton Buzzard) where it crossed over. While on the fast lines, I had usually passed 2 freight & 2 local passenger services on the slow lines.

Before my train had left LB, 2 Pendolinos had whizzed past. The slow lines simply cannot cope with all other traffic.

So in cab signalling for 140mph running would enable the Pendolinos to catch up more quickly & run on double yellows.

There were times & places where it may have helped, but it would certainly not allow Pendolinos to blast along at 140 everywhere (& I don't think the Voyagers could cope with it anyway). All trains using the WCML would have needed it. Even those using the slow lines sometimes need diverting to the fast lines (engineering works, points failure, land slides etc.).

With all this considered, an upgrade was viewed as an inefficient use of resources.

Try explaining that through the media 

And there lies the nub of the problem that HS2 has in terms of PR.  Explaining why OOC can only turn round 6 trains an hour reliably, which is mainly due to the low speed crossovers in the Victoria Road box, or the problems at Handsacre with the choice of joining the fast or the slow lines etc etc are things that cannot be explained in a one line sound bite. 

 

Jamie

[meil]

2 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Please explain why you believe a slow line would have any less 'environmental baggage'.

64 miles of tunnelling for starters.

[Ron Ron Ron]

21 minutes ago, meil said:

64 miles of tunnelling for starters.

So you think the NIMBY’s, environmentalists and other protesters wouldn’t have objected to the line passing through various parts of the countryside, just because the designed line speed was lower?

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

A couple of items gleaned from the news, that I haven't seen any mention of on here.

 

1) Curzon St Station build contracts will be let and construction started 2024. (seems a bit optimistic to me)……

 

Mace Dragados Joint Venture (MDJV) were appointed to construct HS2’s Curzon Street station in May 2021.  
Construction work is due to start over the next couple of months.

The site is cleared and piling work will be commencing soon.

 

 

.

[Northmoor]

44 minutes ago, meil said:

64 miles of tunnelling for starters.

The tunnel design for a lower speed would have been slightly different (but not much, look at the size of the Channel Tunnel bores which is for 100mph), but I can assure you that the alignment for a 125mph HS2 would be almost identical to that being built.  You don't build 100mph+ railways with corners if you can possibly avoid them.

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, meil said:

64 miles of tunnelling for starters.

 

As already replied by others, the tunnels are there to make the line straight, reduce noise for nearby residents & allow the countryside to be restored where possible. These are all requirements for a new line regardless of speed, so high speed has little affect on the overall cost.

So what other aspects make a fast line significantly more expensive than a slow one?

 

I am asking because I have heard no reasons which actually make any sense as to why a fast line should be much more expensive than a slow one.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Pete the Elaner

[corneliuslundie]

There is also the capacity/stock utilisation issue. Faster running should allow more trains to be run, if at the same speed. And faster running means shorter journey times so the same service cam be provided with less stock.

Jonathan