HS2

[Pete the Elaner]

On 29/12/2023 at 10:21, meil said:

64 miles of tunnelling for starters.

 

I am still keen to hear why a lower speed route would cost significantly less? Tunnelling has been debunked by myself & others so I hope you realise it would still be required for a slower line, so is not a requirement for high speed.

 

I would genuinely like to hear why. I have heard several people say that a lower speed line would be much cheaper but nobody can validate their statement with a sensible justification.

[The Stationmaster]

On 29/12/2023 at 17:28, 2E Sub Shed said:

 

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.

  

Which is precisely why I question the need for longer distance GWML services to call at Old Oak Common - who on earth is going to use those stops to change to a train to Birmingham (and pay the higher 'via London' fare for doing so)?  The entire thinking is warped to say the least and the cost it is incurring would be better spent towards Stage 2A of HS2.

 

Obviously a lot of people who ought to know better simply don't understand how travel patterns outside London (and not very far outside as it happens) work.   Reading and west thereof most people, especially if there is a direct train, will avoid travelling via London because to do so is invariably cheaper and in many cases much quicker,   It might be a bit of a toss-up if you're travelling from Twyford, or a maybe even Maidenhead in some cases. or if you're only going to Brmingham and travellng on a GWR semi-fast to Old Oak but that's about the lot.

 

Currently Reading to/From Crew is a break even of via London or go by XC.  HS2 Old Oak to Birmingham might just make via London a bit quicker but that will depend very much on connections in Birmingham.  From anywhere west of Reading, even Didcot, travelling va London, even changing at Old Oak, will cost time and money.  People decide to use trains for a mix opf reasons but they are, not necessarily in the same order for everyone - convenience (a through train makes a big difference for many), overall journey time, and cost.  The latter is the key for a substantial number of longer distance rail users who won't pay more for a 'via London' fare' and thaht has been the case for as long as I can remember.

[lmsforever]

HS2 could have been an answer to  many transport problems but it will create a real problem north of Birmingham with trains restricted to 110 mph  and short platforms  , and also  what about the many passengers who join wcml trains between MK and Crewe.Joining a stopping train will not be liked  as they want to board a fast train that takes them to thier destination without changing. HS2 should have gone to main destinations as an independent railway with Euston as the starting point only then would it be of use. But we are in the UK only roads are built in this way as the government makes money from users unlike railways and we have people in charge now that feel public services are not worth promoting  .All in all the UK is in a mess.

[DenysW]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The MS&LR had of course for many years been in direct and effective competition with the L&NWR and MR for traffic between London and Manchester / Liverpool, and with the MR to Sheffield, in partnership with the GNR. So to some extent, its London extension can be seen as providing additional capacity to the overcrowded GNR main line in the first place; design as a high-speed route was a supplementary consideration. Plus ca change...

Well, mostly, no.

 

Having carefully looked at the numbers, most Victorian/Edwardian passenger and freight traffic was short-distance (10 miles 3rd class, 20 miles  first class) with similar distance-numbers for minerals and general merchandise - the latter travelling further but needing more sorting as well as well as paying better

 

So yes, there will have been competition between routes for the small minority that wanted to go a long way such as London-Manchester first class. But not much for the large majority that wanted to go, say, Leicester-Market Harborough 3rd class, and didn't care that there were now two routes Leicester-Rugby from the mid-1890s because they didn't want to go to Rugby from Leicester.

[Pete the Elaner]

27 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

HS2 could have been an answer to  many transport problems but it will create a real problem north of Birmingham with trains restricted to 110 mph  and short platforms  , and also  what about the many passengers who join wcml trains between MK and Crewe.Joining a stopping train will not be liked  as they want to board a fast train that takes them to thier destination without changing. HS2 should have gone to main destinations as an independent railway with Euston as the starting point only then would it be of use. But we are in the UK only roads are built in this way as the government makes money from users unlike railways and we have people in charge now that feel public services are not worth promoting  .All in all the UK is in a mess.

 

As somebody in MK, I can offer me view on this.

Many services speed through MK without stopping. Some stop, but those which do not can just as effectively serve their purpose by using a different route entirely: HS2. This frees up space for more to connect at Crewe.

Using Glasgow as an example, there is 1 service a day which takes the Trent Valley route. The others all pass through Birmingham & Wolverhampton. It is quicker for me to get a different train to Crewe & change there than to use one of these straight through.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Using Glasgow as an example, there is 1 service a day which takes the Trent Valley route. The others all pass through Birmingham & Wolverhampton. It is quicker for me to get a different train to Crewe & change there than to use one of these straight through.

That's your choice - some people prefer the fastest service.  Some people go for cheapest ticket, no matter how inconvenient, some aren't too bothered about a modest difference in journey time especially if they're going all the way to Glasgow, others don't mind shifting their luggage part-way and risking a connecting train that's gets cancelled or misses the connection.  And if they've got to make further connections when they get to Glasgow, the odds of one of their connections failing gets worse.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

Well, mostly, no.

 

Having carefully looked at the numbers, most Victorian/Edwardian passenger and freight traffic was short-distance (10 miles 3rd class, 20 miles  first class) with similar distance-numbers for minerals and general merchandise - the latter travelling further but needing more sorting as well as well as paying better

 

So yes, there will have been competition between routes for the small minority that wanted to go a long way such as London-Manchester first class. But not much for the large majority that wanted to go, say, Leicester-Market Harborough 3rd class, and didn't care that there were now two routes Leicester-Rugby from the mid-1890s because they didn't want to go to Rugby from Leicester.

 

Interesting but I wonder how well that was understood at the time - after all, Great Britain had many more high-speed passenger train-miles (averaging 40 mph or above) than the rest of Europe put together, so there was clearly a perception that the long-distance express passenger was worth courting, and worth the operational disruption of an express to court. How many thirds between Market Harborough and Leicester was one first class London to Manchester passenger worth?

Edited December 31, 2023 by Compound2632

[Stoke West]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interesting but I wonder how well that was understood at the time - after all, Great Britain had many more high-speed passenger train-miles (averaging 40 mph or above) than the rest of Europe put together, so there was clearly a perception that the long-distance express passenger was worth courting, and worth the operational disruption of an express to court. How many thirds between Market Harborough and Leicester was one first class London to Manchester passenger worth?

Remember passenger trains carried van traffic

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

How many thirds between Market Harborough and Leicester was one first class London to Manchester passenger worth?

A lot, which means that the median (commonest) journey will be appreciably less than the average journey ( receipts divided by the average fare per mile per class) quoted by the Board of Trade, and also available 1860-1870 in Bradshaw's Shareholder Guides (p 60/61 in the 1869 David & Charles reprint), collated by Mr. Cleghorn of the Northeastern Railway. Ignoring class of travel, the UK-wide average was 14 d/journey in 1865 at a time when the average was just over 1 d/mile.

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Stoke West said:

Remember passenger trains carried van traffic

 

In the half-year ending 30 June 1890, the Midland Railway conveyed 624,180 first class passengers paying a total of £109,603 19 s 4d and 16,480,029 third class passengers paying £763,899 15s 2d. That is, on average a first class passenger paid 3s 6d and a third class passenger 11d, i.e. each first class journey was worth six third class journeys. This can't be directly related to distance travelled, since not all fares will have been charged at the maximum rate. (There were also 49,137 season tickets, £85,754, but with no distinction of class.)

 

In the same period, income from non-passenger passenger-rated traffic - "Parcels, Horses, Carriages, &c" was £212,870 2 s 11d, 22% of the income from passenger journeys, and mail traffic yielded £25,919 6s 3d.

 

The total passenger income was £1,198,047 3s 8d, compared with income from goods, mineral, and livestock traffic of £2,840,338.

 

Sorry, OT...

[Ron Ron Ron]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

.................... - if anyone can point to a precedent indicating that HS2 fares will be cheap, go ahead. ..................

 

 

Nobody suggested they would be "cheap".

 

You appeared to imply that HS2 fares would be expensive...

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

 

As nobody knows what the fares will be, I simply asked on what basis you made that assumption?

 

In the past and still to this day, critics and anti's have declared that HS2 fares would be "very expensive", "unaffordable", "for rich business men" and other such hyperbole.

Most of their opinions are based on ignorance in assuming HS2 would be some sort of alternative 'premium" service, rather than the plain fact that HS2 services were always intended to be the same IC services that use the WCML today, but transferred onto a new, faster piece of rail infrastructure.

 

If the DafT do end up dictating a "premium" for HS2 fares, what will it be a premium over?

There will be no alternative, other than the stopping and semi-fast services currently provided by WMT to Birmingham.

London - Manchester and London - Glasgow, would end up being "premium fare" only.

 

The only thing we can be sure of, is that all rail fares will be more expensive in the 2030's than they are today.

 

 

.

[rockershovel]

9 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Nobody suggested they would be "cheap".

 

You appeared to imply that HS2 fares would be expensive...

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

 

As nobody knows what the fares will be, I simply asked on what basis you made that assumption?

 

In the past and still to this day, critics and anti's have declared that HS2 fares would be "very expensive", "unaffordable", "for rich business men" and other such hyperbole.

Most of their opinions are based on ignorance in assuming HS2 would be some sort of alternative 'premium" service, rather than the plain fact that HS2 services were always intended to be the same IC services that use the WCML today, but transferred onto a new, faster piece of rail infrastructure.

 

If the DafT do end up dictating a "premium" for HS2 fares, what will it be a premium over?

There will be no alternative, other than the stopping and semi-fast services currently provided by WMT to Birmingham.

London - Manchester and London - Glasgow, would end up being "premium fare" only.

 

The only thing we can be sure of, is that all rail fares will be more expensive in the 2030's than they are today.

 

 

.

My main basis for that view is that rail fares on any sort of main-line service these days are far from cheap, especially if you are booking at relatively short notice - say, less than 6 weeks. 

 

When I worked in London, commuting from Peterborough in the late 80s/early 90s my monthly season cost 2/3 days' earnings a month and a weekly season, about 1 days' earnings. Now it's about twice that, last time I looked. 

 

On a more specific note, consider the ECML where the old principle of "any available service" is stone dead. You can expect to pay considerably more for a faster journey, in plain English LNER has repositioned itself as a premium service. 

 

Why would you doubt that HS2 envisages a similar structure? Your reference to "existing stopping and semi-fast services" appears to answer your own question. 

Edited January 1 by rockershovel

[DenysW]

9 minutes ago, Stoke West said:

Remember passenger trains carried van traffic

Yes, giving a 5-15% boost in receipts, varying by company. Subclasses were parcels, mails, carriages, and dogs. Mails were important early on but by 1870 were probably more of a nuisance than a profitable trade.

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

This can't be directly related to distance travelled, since not all fares will have been charged at the maximum rate.

The average fare (by class) is only quoted in BoT data, and only to 1867. Typical averages were 2.2 d/mile first, 1.4 d/mile second, 0.9 d/mile third and 0.8-1 d/mile parliamentary. The average fare/passenger didn't change much 1850-1912, so we can imply the distances (and lack of local competition) didn't change much either.

 

Also apologies to the OT.

[Ron Ron Ron]

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Nobody suggested they would be "cheap".

 

You appeared to imply that HS2 fares would be expensive...

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

 

As nobody knows what the fares will be, I simply asked on what basis you made that assumption?

 

In the past and still to this day, critics and anti's have declared that HS2 fares would be "very expensive", "unaffordable", "for rich business men" and other such hyperbole.

Most of their opinions are based on ignorance in assuming HS2 would be some sort of alternative 'premium" service, rather than the plain fact that HS2 services were always intended to be the same IC services that use the WCML today, but transferred onto a new, faster piece of rail infrastructure.

 

If the DafT do end up dictating a "premium" for HS2 fares, what will it be a premium over?

There will be no alternative, other than the existing alternative, stopping and semi-fast services currently provided by WMT to Birmingham.

London - Manchester and London - Glasgow, would end up being "premium fare" only.

 

The only thing we can be sure of, is that all rail fares will be more expensive in the 2030's than they are today.

 

 

.

 

[jamie92208]

A coup, e of videos here from Warwickshire.  One which I think shows the southern entrance to the Long Itchington Wood tunnels and progress with the various road bridges south of there

 

 

 

 

The other is a good drone view of Burton Green from 4 days ago that shows progress on the green tunnel.  The top down construction and excavation of the tunnel is going  on well. 

 

Jamie

[Ron Ron Ron]

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

A couple of videos here from Warwickshire.  One which I think shows the southern entrance to the Long Itchington Wood tunnels and progress with the various road bridges south of there.........

 

 

The first video does indeed show the south portal.

As you can see, the bored tunnels emerge in a cut and cover (green) tunnel, extending the tunnel for another couple of hundred metres, across the A425.

That road has been temporarily diverted around the site.

 

My understanding, is that bored tunnels would have been too shallow from the surface at this point, hence the switch to cut and cover for the last couple of hundred metres.

The video viewpoint is overlooking the "green tunnel" construction work site.

 

A Streetview image of the "green tunnel" portal can be found here.....

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2520344,-1.4141908,3a,75y,265.74h,89.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLEKvL5UJm7LjYgxD5VvJRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

 

Once work is completed, the original course of the A425 will be restored and the "borrowed" land restored and returned to the Polo club.

 

 

 

.

 

[jamie92208]

Another video just uploaded,that will probably interest @lmsforever if I've got my geography right.  The trackbed is now fairly obvious for much of the route covered though it looks more like a series of canals in some places.

I hadn't realised how long the Thame Valley viaduct is untiI did some research. 36 spans in all.

 

l

Jamie

[62613]

On 31/12/2023 at 11:53, corneliuslundie said:

But we are where we are. Yes, HS2 will relieve capacity on the WCML, though I wonder if it would be better to move the freight than the fast passenger trains as OOC would not then be a problem. Just a thought. But I am aware that stopping passenger trains mix with modern freight trains better than with fast passenger trains - no more 20 mph coal trains clogging up all the lines to London.

A problem is that whichever party gets into power there will be no money for major capital expenditure, as maintenance and running costs of public services will eat up all available income and more (and please don't get me off again on the claim that Wales was given lost of money for capital expenditure to spend on road maintenance - as stated by our Tory AM. Sorry, rant over

So where will any money come from even if there is a will to built phase 2A and the line to Euston? Yes, it can be borrowed, but the country is already borrowed up to the hilt partly as a result of Covid and the Ukraine war.

Just musings, but not very happy ones.

Jonathan

Isn't the government just guaranteeing loans raised by the consortium building the line?

[melmerby]

12 hours ago, rockershovel said:

On a more specific note, consider the ECML where the old principle of "any available service" is stone dead. You can expect to pay considerably more for a faster journey, in plain English LNER has repositioned itself as a premium service. 

Nothing unusual there.

Birmingham to London:

Slowest - LNWR - cheapest, as was Silverlink/London Midland etc.

Midspeed - Chiltern - mid price

Fastest - Avanti - most expensive, as was Virgin

 

It's been like that for a very long time.

[meil]

On 31/12/2023 at 15:46, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I am still keen to hear why a lower speed route would cost significantly less? Tunnelling has been debunked by myself & others so I hope you realise it would still be required for a slower line, so is not a requirement for high speed.

 

I would genuinely like to hear why. I have heard several people say that a lower speed line would be much cheaper but nobody can validate their statement with a sensible justification.

The mileage from London to Birmingham is about 120miles. Are you seriously telling me that over half the route mileage is properly to be in tunnel! What are we building here another cross-rail or an extension to the jubilee line?

 

This simply utter madness.

Edited January 1 by meil

[jjb1970]

HS2 is just a symptom of a wider problem with building infrastructure in the UK (and it's by no means unique to the UK). The usual defence is to point to wild west countries where anything goes and government and industry pays no attention to environmental impact or safety (often with reference to China, which indicates a deep ignorance of regulatory evolution in China), which assumes there is no position between the two extremes. If government is incapable of facilitating infrastructure development in a timely and affordable manner and with robust environmental and safety standards then the problem is with government. When I worked in electricity generation one reason (though not the only one I'd add) my employer was looking elsewhere to invest was that developing new projects in the UK was a nightmare.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, meil said:

This simply utter madness.

 

Perhaps if you were in charge of the project, trying to balance the various engineering, environmental, and societal factors, you might see it differently?

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

HS2 is just a symptom of a wider problem with building infrastructure in the UK (and it's by no means unique to the UK). The usual defence is to point to wild west countries where anything goes and government and industry pays no attention to environmental impact or safety (often with reference to China, which indicates a deep ignorance of regulatory evolution in China), which assumes there is no position between the two extremes.

 

Does Norway count as the Wild West?

 

https://twitter.com/jasoncrawford/status/1695015246833025522

 

[Pete the Elaner]

58 minutes ago, meil said:

The mileage from London to Birmingham is about 120miles. Are you seriously telling me that over half the route mileage is properly to be in tunnel! What are we building here another cross-rail or an extension to the jubilee line?

 

This simply utter madness.

 

So it seems you cannot justify your earlier claim that a high speed line costs a lot more than a freight line (otherwise you would have done so).

If you have an outspoken point of view, you really need to justify it, otherwise you make yourself look rather silly.

[Michael Hodgson]

19 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Does Norway count as the Wild West?

 

It does if you're Swedish.