HS2

[Northmoor]

12 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

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  

And if you have less stock, you need a smaller depot, so need to buy less land (and may be able to get away with holding fewer spares).  You also need to employ fewer people to clean and maintain them in that depot.  

All this adds up to a lot of ££££ over the life of a train fleet.

[The Stationmaster]

57 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

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.

The only logical question about line speed on a new passenger train railway in the early 21st century is do you go for LGV maximum (=186mph for everyday operation) or do you go for something a bit faster.  125mph simply isn't fast enough for a lot of reasons.

 

The decision about which speed to go then depends on crunchinga lot of numbers from different areas - signalling is directly relevant to line speed, basic line profile won't vary much if at all,  installed train power (to achieve the speed) will impact electricity consumption which will affect operating costs, but there is trade-off between train running cost and higher running speed reducing journey time and therefore potentially reducing the cycle time in rolling stock diagrams which could in turn reduce capital investment and long term leasing or interest costs, and reduced cycle time will also imact the most efficient use of traincrew etc resources, but there is also a need to have terminal turnround times kept to the minimum which in turn affects the design of terminal  stations (simple rule of thumb - if you can;t turn round a train  capable of carrying c.750 - 800 passengers in a little over 30 minutes your design is no good).

 

So lots of numbers to crunch but the starting point is if you need to increase WCML capacity - a given and proven by experience over several deacdes - then you first have to arrive at the most economical way of doing that.  The most economical way is really blindingly obvious to anyone with an ounce of experience before you even start knocking up estimates because certain costs will apply to every single way of doing it, e.g land purchase.  It wasn't too difficult to vcone up with teh answer that usinga new route wherever practicable would be much cheaper than rc xpanding teh width of the current one to add an additional pair of running.

 

However once you decide to go 'greenfield' further possibilities open up especially the matter of line speed.  So you start crunching the numbers to inform your decision but you are inevitably in the late 20th/early 21st century going to start witha c.186 normal running speed.

[Michael Hodgson]

15 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

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

You don't want it to be designed for use at anything like full capacity, whatever the accountants might tell you.  One of the railways' biggest problems has been failure to provide capacity for future growth.  The cost and general disruption of upgrades is too high, and worst of all the decision that the upgrade has become necessary is deferred far too long.  Such deferral increases the cost and disruption disproportionately.   That's why the the average commuter loathes railways.

 

The same has proved true of course for the road network - and we end up with gridlock and fudges such as "smart motorways".

[martin_wynne]

17 hours ago, melmerby said:

23 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

 

Surely it will take 10 minutes longer, allowing for the walk from New Street to Curzon Street? 🙂

 

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by martin_wynne
smiley apparently needed

[melmerby]

40 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Surely it will take 10 minutes longer, allowing for the walk from New Street to Curzon Street?

 

 

Last time I looked Birmingham New Street was in Birmingham🙂

 

(Curzon Street wasn't mentioned)

[martin_wynne]

39 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Last time I looked Birmingham New Street was in Birmingham🙂

 

(Curzon Street wasn't mentioned)

 

So you think the good folk from the whole of Wales and the West Country,  having seen on the news that x00 million pounds has been spent on a brand new terminus for passengers arriving in Birmingham, will be content to be turfed off the train 10 minutes short of it, and told to walk the rest of the way?

 

[Michael Hodgson]

6 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

So you think the good folk from the whole of Wales and the West Country,  having seen on the news that x00 million pounds has been spent on a brand new terminus for passengers arriving in Birmingham, will be content to be turfed off the train 10 minutes short of it, and told to walk the rest of the way?

 

What makes you think Mangelwurzel-eaters or the Welsh want to go to the middle of Brum? 

Aren't they more likely to be trying to connect with an aeroplane or train to somewhere else?

 

People don't want to go some big railway station - they have some reason to go somewhere in the general area, which is why integrated transport connections are so important.  The same goes for their departure station - they've got to get there from home or perhaps from work.  This need for connections is part of why so many would much prefer to use a car.

[meil]

21 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

So you think the good folk from the whole of Wales and the West Country,  having seen on the news that x00 million pounds has been spent on a brand new terminus for passengers arriving in Birmingham, will be content to be turfed off the train 10 minutes short of it, and told to walk the rest of the way?

 

Never mind the "good folk from the whole of Wales and the West Country". I want to get on my train at Wolverhampton and arrive at Euston. I don't want to have to get off at New Street and walk to Curson street and then only end-up at some way short in North London.

[2E Sub Shed]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Surely it will take 10 minutes longer, allowing for the walk from New Street to Curzon Street? 🙂

 

 

 

For West of England and South Wales starting points.

 

If making the assumption that to get to Birmingham from Bristol I would go Bristol Temple Meads - London (either changing at Old Oak Common or transferring Paddington to Euston if it ever gets that far), to enjoy a journey to Birmingham on HS2 they are in another place.

 

HS2 will make no difference, will still go via Cheltenham to Birmingham,  Onward travel will not be via HS2, except for few who have a Birmingham meeting followed by a London meeting or vice versa.

  

Edited December 29, 2023 by 2E Sub Shed
Add missed text

[corneliuslundie]

I avoid changing at New Street if I can, especially since the last crazy rebuilding which means that if you leave the platform at the wrong end you have to go out through a barrier and find a different barrier to pass through to get to your platform. International is much easier.

And if I am going to London and am not in a hurry i prefer to walk to Moor Street (just by where Curzon Street will be) and use a civilised train, Chiltern, to a civilised terminus, Marylebone.

Though these days I avoid London if possible. I had long enough commuting there.

But for anyone going from London to north of Birmingham I suspect that for some years there will still be through trains from Euston avoiding Birmingham altogether, as now. If/when HS2 gets to Euston and there is more capacity then things might change, but I doubt if i shall live to see that.

The sad thing about HS2 is that a large part of the cost remains but much of the benefit is being lost because of short term decisions.

Jonathan

 

[martin_wynne]

So if everyone is content to get to Birmingham by some other means, perhaps it's the Birmingham bit of HS2 which could have been cancelled, and the money spent on getting to Manchester instead?

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, meil said:

Never mind the "good folk from the whole of Wales and the West Country". I want to get on my train at Wolverhampton and arrive at Euston. I don't want to have to get off at New Street and walk to Curson street and then only end-up at some way short in North London.

North London ?

HS2 goes nowhere near “North London”.

Unless you mean Euston, being on the north side of Central London?

 

OOC is on the borders of west and WNW London.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

 

 

.

[corneliuslundie]

I thought for a minute that was an artist's impression.

Sun, surely not? And that sky? Definitely not real.

Jonathan

[Foulounoux]

Reading the arguments about speed and see responses that 186MPH v 140mph/125mph

 

But surely  the issue is that the design was for 225mph 360kph and that requirement meant  gentler gradients/ larger radius curves etc.    And this had an exponential effect on costs 

 

Even if the trains will now run at more conventional LGV speeds 

 

 

[meil]

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

North London ?

HS2 goes nowhere near “North London”.

Unless you mean Euston, being on the north side of Central London?

 

OOC is on the borders of west and WNW London.

 

 

.

It's south of Watford, so that makes it North London in my book.

 

 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Foulounoux said:

Reading the arguments about speed and see responses that 186MPH v 140mph/125mph

 

But surely  the issue is that the design was for 225mph 360kph and that requirement meant  gentler gradients/ larger radius curves etc.    And this had an exponential effect on costs 

 

Even if the trains will now run at more conventional LGV speeds 

 

 

As I've stated above, a new 125mph railway would be almost straight; the horizontal alignment would be almost identical.  As for vertical alignment, the opposite of what you say is true.

Look at the TGV lines, which go over hills instead of through them; 200mph trains have the power to cover 1 in 40 humps without slowing.  HS2 could have easily gone over most of the Chilterns, not through them.  The only reason so much of it is in tunnel is for environmental mitigation, sometimes completely understandable, often because neighbours refused to accept being able to see or hear the line.  Aerodynamic drag in a tunnel, even a large bore, is higher than in the open air, so you wouldn't choose to tunnel unless essential to get the design approved.

[melmerby]

49 minutes ago, meil said:

It's south of Watford, so that makes it North London in my book.

 

 

So's Sidcup & Brighton and....

Back to Geography class I think🙂

[corneliuslundie]

Na . . . North of Watford or Hatfield is "The North"

 

So obviously anywhere south of Hatfield is "The South"

Hat, coat . . .

J

[ess1uk]

Watford is just outside Rugby which is the midlands?

 

[meil]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

As I've stated above, a new 125mph railway would be almost straight; the horizontal alignment would be almost identical.  As for vertical alignment, the opposite of what you say is true.

Look at the TGV lines, which go over hills instead of through them; 200mph trains have the power to cover 1 in 40 humps without slowing.  HS2 could have easily gone over most of the Chilterns, not through them.  The only reason so much of it is in tunnel is for environmental mitigation, sometimes completely understandable, often because neighbours refused to accept being able to see or hear the line.  Aerodynamic drag in a tunnel, even a large bore, is higher than in the open air, so you wouldn't choose to tunnel unless essential to get the design approved.

Was it ever thus:

 

"And now, every fool in Buxton can be at Bakewell in half-an-hour, and every fool in Bakewell at Buxton.

on the arrival of the railway" - Praeterita vol. 3 (1889) ‘Joanna's Cave - John Ruskin

 

The glaringly obvious alternative was to up-grade the old GWR route to Birmingham with electrification and new signaling. This was always THE route to choose to travel from Birmingham to London. No one in their right mind chose to travel from New Street to London. It is still the most pleasant route to travel even today, even if it takes a little longer.

[Michael Hodgson]

22 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Na . . . North of Watford or Hatfield is "The North"

 

So obviously anywhere south of Hatfield is "The South"

Hat, coat . . .

J

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

13 minutes ago, meil said:

The glaringly obvious alternative was to up-grade the old GWR route to Birmingham with electrification and new signaling. This was always THE route to choose to travel from Birmingham to London. No one in their right mind chose to travel from New Street to London. It is still the most pleasant route to travel even today, even if it takes a little longer.

 

The GWR route from Birmingham to Wolverhamptom is so much more pleasant than the LMS route. 

It's in cutting so you don't get to see quite so much "scenery"

[melmerby]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

The GWR route from Birmingham to Wolverhamptom is so much more pleasant than the LMS route. 

It's in cutting so you don't get to see quite so much "scenery"

Bumping along in a CAF Urbos tram

[Arun Sharma]

3 hours ago, meil said:

Was it ever thus:

 

"And now, every fool in Buxton can be at Bakewell in half-an-hour, and every fool in Bakewell at Buxton.

on the arrival of the railway" - Praeterita vol. 3 (1889) ‘Joanna's Cave - John Ruskin

 

The glaringly obvious alternative was to up-grade the old GWR route to Birmingham with electrification and new signaling. This was always THE route to choose to travel from Birmingham to London. No one in their right mind chose to travel from New Street to London. It is still the most pleasant route to travel even today, even if it takes a little longer.

There are critical elements to the two GWR routes - the one via Did and OXF as well as the one via High Wycombe.  Extensive flood mitigation works [It is after all in the flood plain of the frequently unruly River Thames] would be required on the DID/OXF route. The route via High Wycombe to Leamington might be straightforward to four track but once getting past Warwick/Coventry some major tunnelliing works would be required as it would seriously interfere with the concurrent running of that part of the WCML. 

I fear the simplest solution [since we have seen just effective modern viaduct building schemes are (e.g., Colne Valley)] would have been to recreate the GCR on its original route through Brackley etc., as a non-stop route though politicians of whatever party are not well-disposed to admitting that they might have been wrong regarding some railway closures.

On that subject,  Charles Loft's 'Last Trains - Dr Beeching and the Death of Rural England' makes interesting reading.