HS2

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

While I agree about a certain lack of integration at both London and Birmingham, I am not sure how it could have been achieved without knocking down large chunks of both cites and severely disrupting operation of Euston and Birmingham NS for a long period. (I don't know enough about proposals for other cities to comment.)

 

 

Agree about Birmingham - but the same is not true of Euston where the HS2 site takes over part of the footprint of the existing station

 

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

The original proposal for Leeds was a new terminsl atvright angles to the existing station but onnthe same level and joined to it. There us very little spare platform capacity at Leeds anyway, if any so this made sense.  Through services would have either reversed or bypassed Leeds via thectrisngle at Woodlesford.  One raybof hope in the IRP is that existing safeguarding  arrsngements are being maintainec.

 

Jamie

 

The IRP plans do NOT in themselves 'Safeguard' ANYTHING as such.

 

However as the IRP is obviously a 'work in progress' on the eastern side of the Pennines (and there is no garuntee that a Leeds metro will be able to free up enough capacity at Leeds station thus far) the previous HS2 plans are Safeguarded for the time being.

 

Should the Governments work conclude their Leeds Metro will free up enough capacity then I expect them to be binned so as to 'remove planning blight and free up land for development' nonsense rather than keep them in reserve for subsequent decades.

Edited March 11, 2022 by phil-b259

[jamie92208]

39 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Agree about Birmingham - but the same is not true of Euston where the HS2 site takes over part of the footprint of the existing station

 

 

The IRP plans do NOT in themselves 'Safeguard' ANYTHING as such.

 

However as the IRP is obviously a 'work in progress' on the eastern side of the Pennines (and there is no garuntee that a Leeds metro will be able to free up enough capacity at Leeds station thus far) the previous HS2 plans are Safeguarded for the time being.

 

Should the Governments work conclude their Leeds Metro will free up enough capacity then I expect them to be binned so as to 'remove planning blight and free up land for development' nonsense rather than keep them in reserve for subsequent decades.

Just as aside, the latest plans for the Leeds area mov3d the rolling stock maintenance  depot from Crofton to south Leeds where if built it will be on the site of the filter beds at Knostrop Sewage works.  I better not comment further.

 

Jamie

[KingEdwardII]

16 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

A percentage of the arriving passengers will leave HS2 at Old Oak Common

Yes. There is more than a hint there that Euston is not particularly well integrated into London's transport system. Whether Old Oak Common is that much better is open to question, although I can agree that the Elizabeth line East-West link is better than anything at Euston.

 

However, Euston does not link well to anything much south of the river. It does not even link well to St Pancras and the existing high speed services. It seems to me that there is a failure of vision relating to HS2 - this applies to Birmingham Curzon Street in the same way as at Euston. To get to local services in Birmingham, you have to get to either Moor Street or to New Street. So it may well end up being the case that it takes folk longer to get to/from the HS2 terminus than it does to go from London to Birmingham...

 

Yours, Mike.

[Hobby]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

We have got behind other countries in this aspect partly because of the age of our infrastructure.

 

And we only live in a small island where really high speeds don't really gain a great deal on existing timings, OK, I know, it's all been discussed before but for me the argument to have 186mph+ speeds was purely about seen to be "keeping up with the Jones" (Chinese/Japanese/French/Germans) rather than any real need for it. After all with a dedicated line as originally proposed for London to Brum/Manc and Leeds 140mph would have been quite sufficient time wise.

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

At least with Euston there is no need to heard folk through immigration and security - which automatically creates bottlenecks as it needs to be a single large facility (and St Pancras lacks the space for that)  to cope with large numbers of people needing to be processed.

 

With domestic operations you can have a large number of smaller entrance / exit points (gatelines) scattered throughout the station (the HS2 station will feature a mezzanine level IIRC) so allowing , multiple entry points to the platforms thus allowing more folk through than a single facility (which is what the traditional 'platforms backing onto concourse' setup does.

Sorry Phil but you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.  The key area with passenger flow when it comes to getting people on and off trains is the number of access points between the platform where a train is standing and the area in which passengers circulate before or after their journey.  Waterloo International was designed with exactly that in mind and things like security and immigration etc controls had no impact at all on the rate at which passengers embarked or disembarked and hence passenger movement had no adverse impact on turnround times.  

 

The other beauty of the Waterloo design was in some respects a consequence of the need for border etc controls in that arriving and departing passengers were dealt with in physically separate areas which meant the two passenger flows did not conflict - again a key feature in minimising turnround times.    If Euston is designed in a way which allows that - in addition to plenty of access points to the platforms - then turnround times can be kept to the minimum.  However access points for train servicing also need to be carefully arranged so that work can be carried out in the minimum time and without interfering with passengers flows

 

[The Stationmaster]

21 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

And we only live in a small island where really high speeds don't really gain a great deal on existing timings, OK, I know, it's all been discussed before but for me the argument to have 186mph+ speeds was purely about seen to be "keeping up with the Jones" (Chinese/Japanese/French/Germans) rather than any real need for it. After all with a dedicated line as originally proposed for London to Brum/Manc and Leeds 140mph would have been quite sufficient time wise.

So you've calculated the impact of a lower speed and therefore longer journey time on the size of train fleet needed to provide the planned level of services on HS2?  I'd be interested to see your figures please.

[class26]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So you've calculated the impact of a lower speed and therefore longer journey time on the size of train fleet needed to provide the planned level of services on HS2?  I'd be interested to see your figures please.

and the cost of building 140 mph railway compared to 200 mph railway is not huge and as you say, slower means more stock , more maintenance, larger depots, more land take etc, etc , etc which probably cancels out anything saved by only going for 140 mph

[class26]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So you've calculated the impact of a lower speed and therefore longer journey time on the size of train fleet needed to provide the planned level of services on HS2?  I'd be interested to see your figures please.

and the cost of building 140 mph railway compared to 200 mph railway is not huge and as you say, slower means more stock , more maintenance, larger depots, more land take etc, etc , etc which probably cancels out anything saved by only going for 140 mph

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

And we only live in a small island where really high speeds don't really gain a great deal on existing timings, OK, I know, it's all been discussed before but for me the argument to have 186mph+ speeds was purely about seen to be "keeping up with the Jones" (Chinese/Japanese/French/Germans) rather than any real need for it. After all with a dedicated line as originally proposed for London to Brum/Manc and Leeds 140mph would have been quite sufficient time wise.

 

HS2 is to relieve congestion on existed overcrowded lines. If London-Leeds is only 15 minutes faster, then there is little incentive to use it. Increase this to a time saving of 30 minutes & the time saving will pull more customers away from the overcrowded lines.

The Shinkansen transformed rail travel in Japan & it became a huge success. Those cities are closer together than London & Glasgow, so why should something similar not work in the UK?

[Hobby]

I'd suggest that it's more about people who want (and can afford it?) wanting to be guaranteed a seat that will use it rather than anything to do with speed. However I've made the mistake of questioning the basics behind the line which I know I should not have, as it's not allowed to do so,  so will press the ignore button as so will be relieved of getting annoyed at whole thing...

[Mark Saunders]

Too many people think there is nothing wrong with the current rail network but fail to realise that a lot of infrastructure is outdated and in need to replace with structurally sound and fit for purpose!

 

 

[corneliuslundie]

But when the fastest trains switch to HS2 so will the passengers. There seems to be a myth that it will be a premium fare line. I am not sure where it came from but I have never seen anything of the kind mentioned in formal documents. Then there will be more room for and more room on the semi-fast and local trains as more can be fitted in along side the freight.

True, there may not be so many cheap deals as there were before Covid on the WCML, but that is a matter of how the marketing is managed and the attitude of the government, which now pulls the strings, on fares.

And we have been through the arguments about speed versus necessary stock and infrastructure costs several times before. Plenty of reading on the subject in the last 178 pages.

Jonathan

[Mark Saunders]

Too many people think there is nothing wrong with the current rail network but fail to realise that a lot of infrastructure is outdated and in need to replace with structurally sound and fit for purpose!

 

 

[KingEdwardII]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

the argument to have 186mph+ speeds was purely about seen to be "keeping up with the Jones"

To quote a certain tennis star "you cannot be serious".

 

Getting around Britain by train is a slow business. High speed trains are a way of dealing with this, although in my eyes the current plans simply are not comprehensive enough nor well integrated and are myopically London-centric.

 

Just look at the options for getting from where I live in the south (near Southampton) to Manchester, to Leeds, to Newcastle, to Glasgow. By train, Manchester 4hrs+, Newcastle 5.5hrs, Glasgow 7hrs+. By air, Man 1hr, New 1hr, Gla 1.5hr. Wonder how I travel to these places? My love of trains has its limits.

 

Train travel in other countries like France, South Korea, Japan, Germany is simply so much better than it is in the UK, because they have invested in high speed trains. The UK is simply miles behind.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

[Mark Saunders]

Too many people think there is nothing wrong with the current rail network but fail to realise that a lot of infrastructure is outdated and in need to replace with structurally sound and fit for purpose!

 

 

[Mike Storey]

29 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

To quote a certain tennis star "you cannot be serious".

 

Getting around Britain by train is a slow business. High speed trains are a way of dealing with this, although in my eyes the current plans simply are not comprehensive enough nor well integrated and are myopically London-centric.

 

Just look at the options for getting from where I live in the south (near Southampton) to Manchester, to Leeds, to Newcastle, to Glasgow. By train, Manchester 4hrs+, Newcastle 5.5hrs, Glasgow 7hrs+. By air, Man 1hr, New 1hr, Gla 1.5hr. Wonder how I travel to these places? My love of trains has its limits.

 

Train travel in other countries like France, South Korea, Japan, Germany is simply so much better than it is in the UK, because they have invested in high speed trains. The UK is simply miles behind.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

 

I agree, but only partially.

 

There is an issue with non-London origins/destinations, when it comes to high speed rail. But don't forget that around 75% of ALL journeys start or end in London, currently. The question is how we would change that, at what cost, and at what benefit.

 

But please don't make the error of comparing what the UK is doing to France, or Germany (and even China, although I have no expertise on that). Someone else tried to say that the French would make a big deal of any major new, high speed rail network in city centres. But that is precisely what they have not done. No French LGV starts or ends in a purpose built city centre high speed rail station (apart from maybe Calais/Coquelles). They all transfer to classic rail routes at their extremities, and to some extent, en route. You would be hard pressed to identify the existence of a high speed route from the architecture of anywhere, bar Lille, and maybe Lyon to some extent. Elsewhere, they are just part of the routine.

 

Train travel is NOT better in the countries you cite, primarily because they have all neglected local services, other than those around city centres. I do not know about South Korea. Train travel in France and Germany (and Italy) is a joke, unless you want to go to Paris (or a really big city in Germany or Italy), or you are a schoolgirl/boy.

 

Can you imagine a major publicity stunt being pulled in the UK if a service from, say, Leeds, to, say, Manchester, was being increased from one train every two hours to one train every 90 minutes? That is what we were expected to applaud recently between Bordeaux and Toulouse, and it won't even happen for another 8 months. The third and fourth largest cities in France.

 

 

[Edwin_m]

7 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Yes. There is more than a hint there that Euston is not particularly well integrated into London's transport system. Whether Old Oak Common is that much better is open to question, although I can agree that the Elizabeth line East-West link is better than anything at Euston.

 

However, Euston does not link well to anything much south of the river. It does not even link well to St Pancras and the existing high speed services. It seems to me that there is a failure of vision relating to HS2 - this applies to Birmingham Curzon Street in the same way as at Euston. To get to local services in Birmingham, you have to get to either Moor Street or to New Street. So it may well end up being the case that it takes folk longer to get to/from the HS2 terminus than it does to go from London to Birmingham...

Euston has the Victoria Line, which intentionally did not connect with Crossrail because of the risk of overloading it.  That's probably going to be a better route south of the river than anything starting at Old Oak.  If Crossrail 2 ever happens it will give Euston very good connections southwards.  

 

St Pancras and Kings Cross are a short walk from Euston.  Improving the access towards them may have to await redevelopment of the rest of the existing station, is this blocks the route fairly effectively.  But perhaps the golf carts that provide passenger assistance at some stations could be allowed to run between the stations via Brill Place?  

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

I'd suggest that it's more about people who want (and can afford it?) wanting to be guaranteed a seat that will use it rather than anything to do with speed. However I've made the mistake of questioning the basics behind the line which I know I should not have, as it's not allowed to do so,  so will press the ignore button as so will be relieved of getting annoyed at whole thing...

Nothing at all wrong with questioning the basis of the line (it's about network capacity although many have lost sight of that, especially the politicos) but there is an awful lot more to journey times than the pure commercial impact of them on passenger take up.    As others have shown there is a wide range of factors which influence how teh various parts of a project like this fit together and how the project arrives at the optimum economic case.   Unless someone is able to prove that a (not much, if any) cheaper construction cost actually reduces total cost over the estimated life of the project there is no argument for a lower normal running speed hence my question to you.

 

in any case why do you think there will be a premium fare?  At the moment as far as London - Birmingham is concerned there is a choice of two routes/journey time from Euston to New Street and a third separate route from Marylebone to Moor St.  People will choose between those routes on the basis of many factors - journey time, price, on-train facilities, convenience of stations to origin/destination points and so on and that has always been the case where competition exists. People will make a similar sort of choice once HS2 opens (albeit limited in the extent of any other fast services from Euston to Birmingham) and there will for many be far more to it than journey time although I bet it will influence a significant number.

 

As for competing non-rail modes such as air again a lot will come down to journey time and convenience.  Back in pre CTRL/HS1 days I travelled at least once a month, and occasionally almost weekly, from central(ish) Paris to the western outskirts of Reading.   My choice was between a. train/train/train/'bus journey or b. train/'plane/train/train/'bus journey or c. train/plane/coach/'bus journey.   I wasn't paying for any of it so cost wasn't a factor - it was down entirely to journey time and the level of comfort/facilities/hassle (or lack of hassle).  As it happened time was irrelevant because the total journey time from the office in Paris to home was little different whichever route I chose and a tended to bequicker than even c if everything worked well.  So it was down to least hassle and best comfort and the Eurostar was lot more comfortable than any aircraft and the food was significantly better.  It all depends on how these factors work out for individual travellers and just the same will apply when HS2 is in operation.

[class26]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I agree, but only partially.

 

There is an issue with non-London origins/destinations, when it comes to high speed rail. But don't forget that around 75% of ALL journeys start or end in London, currently. The question is how we would change that, at what cost, and at what benefit.

 

But please don't make the error of comparing what the UK is doing to France, or Germany (and even China, although I have no expertise on that). Someone else tried to say that the French would make a big deal of any major new, high speed rail network in city centres. But that is precisely what they have not done. No French LGV starts or ends in a purpose built city centre high speed rail station (apart from maybe Calais/Coquelles). They all transfer to classic rail routes at their extremities, and to some extent, en route. You would be hard pressed to identify the existence of a high speed route from the architecture of anywhere, bar Lille, and maybe Lyon to some extent. Elsewhere, they are just part of the routine.

 

Train travel is NOT better in the countries you cite, primarily because they have all neglected local services, other than those around city centres. I do not know about South Korea. Train travel in France and Germany (and Italy) is a joke, unless you want to go to Paris (or a really big city in Germany or Italy), or you are a schoolgirl/boy.

 

Can you imagine a major publicity stunt being pulled in the UK if a service from, say, Leeds, to, say, Manchester, was being increased from one train every two hours to one train every 90 minutes? That is what we were expected to applaud recently between Bordeaux and Toulouse, and it won't even happen for another 8 months. The third and fourth largest cities in France.

 

 

You could turn the argument that 75% of journeys  start or end in London on its head. Maybe this is because this is where the fastest trains go and if they went to other destinations more would use them rather than drive or fly? 

[ess1uk]

Trouble ahead?

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2022/03/10/cash-strapped-roadbridge-stops-work-on-hs2/

[rockershovel]

48 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

Trouble ahead?

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2022/03/10/cash-strapped-roadbridge-stops-work-on-hs2/

I'm not much surprised. Roadbridge have been regarded as buying market share for some time, taking work of limited profitability at very aggressive prices. It's a common construction industry practice which rarely ends well. 

[lmsforever]

my neighbors work for them on the HS2 saw them thursday evening seemed okay then hope they can find new work as very pleasent and friendly.

[jamie92208]

On w slightly more positive note. TBM Dorothy is now at 194 metres thats 13% or so of it's first journey.

 

Jamie

[Ron Ron Ron]

3 hours ago, class26 said:

You could turn the argument that 75% of journeys  start or end in London on its head. Maybe this is because this is where the fastest trains go and if they went to other destinations more would use them rather than drive or fly? 

 

Not really when you look at the wider national picture.

Around 67% of all rail travel is entirely contained within London and the SE of England. 

i.e. Not to and from London or the South East, but contained within.

Then look at the figures for all the regions.

Journeys contained within those regions and between them. It's relatively tiny, on a region by region, or region to region basis.

Significant improvements in regional and inter-regional rail provision are not going to skew the figures by any significant amount.

 

 

.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[lmsforever]

reading of the Roadbridge collapse I wonder who will  take its place on HS2 companies of this size are few and far between.