HS2

[Tom D]

Some months ago, I saw an interview with an AI Guru on "60 minutes" (American tv show for those not familiar with program). From all accounts this guy was well educated (in the US), and now lives in China, and has helped establish over 100 successful companies. He is considered by many to be "the AI Guru". His thoughts regarding the development of AI over the next 15 years are somewhat daunting, as he is predicting a 40% reduction in the global workforce. Some of his candidates for workers being replaced by AI, were Chefs, and Lorry Drivers, a follow up article is attached.

 

https://www.inc.com/carmine-gallo/an-ai-expert-told-60-minutes-that-ai-could-replace-40-percent-of-jobs-heres-part-he-left-out.html

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Hi Edwin, I'm aware that the initial order is for classic compatibles and you are right that if increased emphasis is placed on through running, it would compromise the case for any captive units.

 

As an aside, I personally think that the current plans for through running and additional stations on the HS2 infrastructure itself, have gone way over and above the original conclusions of NR, when they baselined HS2 prior to the HS2 project being formally launched.

Far too much "mission creep" has affected the programme and inevitably ramped up the costs.

 

 

This is what I have always understood to be the original plan.

Double deck stock will inevitably have to be used if capacity is filled. The trains are already going to be very long and additional paths are limited.

Assuming the passenger demand will be there, double deck stock for the key routes is the only way the potential capacity of HS2 can be fully utilised.

 

There is a problem though in moving CC stock to other HS2 routes. Where will the extra paths come from?

 

HS2 has indeed gradually become more integrated with the national network as it has developed.  I happen to think this is the right thing to do, to include more places in the network and to add other services like NPR that can use parts of HS2 that aren't to capacity on day 1.  

 

If the numbers stack up they could operate Phase 1 and 2a entirely with classic compatibles, then order only captive units for 2b and cascade the compatibles from routes that are HS2 only to those additional services that involve through running (such as Newcastle).  However if 2b needs any new compatibles then it might be best to order all compatibles, for the reasons I posted previously. 

 

HS2 seems very much against using double-deck stock, possibly because of dwell times or because existing designs have to have separate power cars and space for stairs so the seating is nowhere near double in the same length.  But at least that option remains available if needed.  

 

There would be some scope to reinforce certain services from single to double units using cascaded compatibles, or even to deploy them on classic-only routes such as Great Western.  But I suspect if the HS2 passenger numbers turn out well above predicted capacity then they will be worst on the London-Birmingham section which is already at maximum density.  So it would then be time to start thinking about another route, such as an upgraded and part bypassed ECML which would be as fast as HS2 from London to the North East and possibly Leeds too (and another place to use classic compatibles).  

[ess1uk]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

More like this I think:

 

That’s some tin opener 

[Ron Ron Ron]

HS2 ordered to scale back Euston station plans.

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-ordered-to-scale-back-euston-station-plans-29-01-2021/

 

 

A DfT spokesperson added:    ”.......The current focus of work is developing an optimised design and delivery strategy, which considers opportunities and efficiencies to address identified cost pressures.”

Which translates into English as..... “ It’s costing too much, so we’ll be building the station as small and at as little cost as we can get away with”.

 

 

.

[corneliuslundie]

You forgot to add "And we'll swallow the doubled bill for the original station when the time comes when we need it - and of course the disruption while the station is enlarged"

"The price of everything and the value of nothing"

Jonathan

[ess1uk]

News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55862648

[ess1uk]

35 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

HS2 ordered to scale back Euston station plans.

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-ordered-to-scale-back-euston-station-plans-29-01-2021/

 

 

 

 

Which translates into English as..... “ It’s costing too much, so we’ll be building the station as small and at as little cost as we can get away with”.

 

 

.

Short sighted 

needs 11 platforms 

[Northmoor]

7 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55862648

Yep, the same old arguments again - we don't need to save journey time, only people travelling to work use the train etc. - but to scrap or pause the project NOW?  That would be the stupidest decision imaginable.  You make a fundamental change when you KNOW what is happening after the pandemic, not during, when a few polls can make it sound like everyone will take up any number of things.  Except when it comes to it, they actually don't; changes are always much more nuanced.  We have no idea what employment will look like in a year's time, only what companies and people say they will.  Just like pre-election polls, what people say and what they actually do can be VERY different things.

 

This would be like abandoning all rail and road investment ceasing in the 1960s, because British Rail had successfully operated a Hovertrain for one lap around a field in Cambridgeshire.  It's clearly the future.......

[phil-b259]

12 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

Short sighted 

needs 11 platforms 

 

Indeed - if the HS network is built as planned even 11 platforms will struggle.

 

What is curious however is why a reduction is necessary - its not as if the amount of land being cleared has been made smaller. It would have been interesting to see the latest plans.

 

My thoughts are either that the reduction has been made necessary to provide access / servicing facilities for the over site development the Government are now pushing to try and recoup construction costs or the reduction is necessary to minimise the work needed on the existing Euston station and cut costs that way.

 

In any case we should perhaps be relieved that the Government remains committed to phase 1 and phase 2b at least. With lots of amateur clairvoyants about loudly telling us the Covid pandemic means nobody id going to be travel long long distances anymore and the nations coffers being bled dry by said pandemic it would be an easy 'win' for the short termist / money men to halt the project entirely.

[Zomboid]

I could understand trying to reduce the cost by going less spectacular with the architecture, but permanently hobbling the station with not enough platforms to cater for the whole scheme is just... Well, it's the British way isn't it? Why do a job properly when for 50p less you can bodge and regret forever?

 

Though that said, the Tokaido Shinkansen station in Tokyo only has 6 platforms and the Tohoku only 4 - but the efficiency of the turn rounds is something to behold. It was well under 10 minutes to arrive, detrain passengers, turn all the seats around, get everyone on and head back out when I used the Tohoku route. Of course, Japanese people don't leave apple cores, empty drinks cans and free newspapers behind when they get off a train...

[phil-b259]

16 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

 

HS2 seems very much against using double-deck stock, possibly because of dwell times or because existing designs have to have separate power cars and space for stairs so the seating is nowhere near double in the same length.  But at least that option remains available if needed.  

 

 

 

If you examine the TGV experience you will note that initial extra capacity was provided by running double length trains rather than double deckers (which as you say incur longer station dwell times). Double decks were only introduced when double length units could not cope with demand and HS2 will no doubt adopt a similar approach.

 

The only worry is that with only 10 platforms at Euston, an 18tph service requires arriving trains to depart exactly 30 minutes later which doesn't give much time for passengers to alight, train cleaning / replenishment to be undertaken and then the next batch of passengers board. In an ideal world you would find the HS2 station at Euston having 18 platforms thus allowing 1hour turn around times - but as we have seen the UK population finds it impossible to consider the long term where infrastructure is concerned and thus the Government is forced to make sub optimal decisions to keep projects alive (even in normal times)

[Pandora]

45 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

Short sighted 

needs 11 platforms 

From the announcement, the amended plan for HS2 Euston is to  scale down to 10 platforms, and more "oversite development" which I believe is more commercial property development,  is that going to be  tower blocks of offices or apartments?  Clearly they are looking to find money for an overspending project and trimming the original goal of the HS2 project

Edited January 30, 2021 by Pandora

[RJS1977]

I'm not sure a turnaround of as long as ah hour is necessarily needed - turnaround time for an HST at Swansea is booked for 30 minutes. It doesn't take any longer to turn around a long train than a short one (other than the time it takes the driver to get to the other end), it just needs more staff.

 

One of the principal factors in length of time taken to turn a train round in the recent past was the time taken to put out reservation labels - hence the move to electronic displays.

 

Of course, a longer booked turnaround time helps with timekeeping (so one late train doesn't affect the next leg of the diagram) but the trade-offs are the extra platform space needed and that when a train is sat empty in a platform, it isn't earning any money.

[phil-b259]

16 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

HS2 has indeed gradually become more integrated with the national network as it has developed. 

 

 

Not really

 

The extra connections HS2 is making to the classic network have only come about because of cost cutting rather than any desire to make it more useful. Also, as the 'Northern Powerhouse' rail projects are not fully developed yet and a long way from construction starting, plus there is uncertainty that HS2 will be built in its entirety its by no mean certain the end result will be as 'integrated' as you think.

 

The biggest clues about a lack of integration are the omissions on the section under construction - the two most obvious being..

 

A connection to the conventional network in the Washford Heath area would give the potential for Cross country services from the South West via Birmingham New Street to transfer onto HS2 and accelerate Bristol - Manchester or Bristol to Leeds (subject to the eastern leg being built that is)

 

A connection to the Birmingham - Lichfield - Burton - Derby route would allow a service to the East Midlands to be provided in advance of the eastern leg being built.

 

In France they were usually pretty good at providing these types of links thus maximising the potential use of the high speed infrastructure. While the UKs appalling record with electrification (rout miles wise) and the smaller loading gauge do complicate matters its not beyond the whit of man to come up with solutions such as Bi-mode classic compatible trains

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Pandora said:

From the announcement, the amended plan for HS2 Euston is to  scale down to 10 platforms, and more "oversite development" which I believe is more commercial property development,  is that going to be  tower blocks of offices or apartments?  Clearly they are looking to find money for an overspending project and trimming the original goal of the HS2 project

 

It will most certainly consist of tower blocks! The question is more usage of them.

 

Over the past few years (including the time before Covid) there has been a move to convert office space to residential accommodation with planning rules relaxed by the Westminster Government to facilitate this despite objections that this can leave some of the resulting flats lacking decent levels of daylight, soundproofing, parking, etc.

 

Going forward, given we keep being told by the amateur clairvoyants out there that 'offices will be no more' any sane developer will ensure that any oversite development at Euston will be designed such that it can be configured for a wide variety of uses with residential no doubt being top of the list at present.

 

 

[RJS1977]

I'm not sure a physical track connection from the XC network on to the HS2 network is either necessary or desirable. Part of the point of XC is it connects towns which aren't part of the 'main line' network. Bypassing places like Stockport, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton would adversely affect people living in those towns, and if that resulted in people from Stockport choosing to drive to the south west rather than take the train, this might affect the viability of the classic parts of the XC service.

 

An interchange where passengers from the SW (or the Thames Valley for that matter) could change on to an HS2 service to Manchester or Leeds (and vice versa) would be a different matter.

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

I'm not sure a turnaround of as long as ah hour is necessarily needed - turnaround time for an HST at Swansea is booked for 30 minutes. It doesn't take any longer to turn around a long train than a short one (other than the time it takes the driver to get to the other end), it just needs more staff.

 

One of the principal factors in length of time taken to turn a train round in the recent past was the time taken to put out reservation labels - hence the move to electronic displays.

 

Of course, a longer booked turnaround time helps with timekeeping (so one late train doesn't affect the next leg of the diagram) but the trade-offs are the extra platform space needed and that when a train is sat empty in a platform, it isn't earning any money.

 

Length and capacity of the train are relevant here!

 

The design capacity of HS2 is to be able to handle the equivalent of double deck Eurostars! Thats around three times as many passengers, three times as many carriages to service, etc than an HST or 9 car IET.

 

So while in its initial incarnation as a Euston - Birmingham or Euston to the North West via Lichfield / Crewe 10 platforms will be ample, if HS2 is developed in its entirety and passenger numbers are high enough, the lack of platform accommodation at Euston will be a problem.

 

Its worth noting the situation at St Pancras where HS1 actually had an awful lot of of spare capacity to take trains - the problem was the ability of St Pancras to process them (particularly the long Eurostar ones).

 

Now granted given the choice is a compromised HS2 or none at all, a compromised HS2 is by far the better choice and I appreciate that its a difficult sell to the public to swallow up even more land when its technically not needed for decades, but it will potentially have repercussions in coming decades and we may well have to adopt Japanese commuting behaviours to make it work.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

18 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

I'm not sure a physical track connection from the XC network on to the HS2 network is either necessary or desirable. Part of the point of XC is it connects towns which aren't part of the 'main line' network. Bypassing places like Stockport, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton would adversely affect people living in those towns, and if that resulted in people from Stockport choosing to drive to the south west rather than take the train, this might affect the viability of the classic parts of the XC service.

 

An interchange where passengers from the SW (or the Thames Valley for that matter) could change on to an HS2 service to Manchester or Leeds (and vice versa) would be a different matter.

 

You rather miss the point - Birmingham to Sheffield is SLOW and Cross Country in this section ends up being more of a local commuting service than a true InterCity one.

 

Nobody is suggesting removing all services from Birmingham to Wolverhampton, Congleton, Stafford, etc - its one of the things anti-HS2 people completely fail to grasp!

 

Using HS2 for part of the journey would massively speed up Bristol - Sheffield / Leeds / York / Newcastle journeys. The freed up capacity on the conventional railway could then be used for enhanced Birmingham - Burton - Derby - Sheffield regional services. In short you INCREASE services - the current Cross Country service becomes a Birmingham - Leeds shuttle calling at everywhere it currently does but the longer distance trains from the South West or North East become express services using HS2 thus improving journey times for longer distance travellers.

 

Going from Birmingham to Manchester is admittedly a bit better on the conventional network  - but a useful time saving and capacity boost would be had by using spare paths on HS2* Again the freed up capacity on conventional lines can be for a Birmingham - Manchester / Liverpool shuttle service with the same calling points as now.

 

 

* Given the leg to London can handle a maximum of 18tph that means there will be a spare at least 9 tph on both the eastern and western legs up for grabs.

Edited January 30, 2021 by phil-b259

[Pandora]

Re the DfT instruction to de-scope the facilities of Euston HS2,  a platform count  reduction / more oversite development , and above both,  construct HS2 Euston in a single phase and not a sequence of individual phases.

The amendments are believed to have come from the Oakervee Report, so the contents of Oakervee are clearly being read by the Dft.

What else is within Oakervee that is a "de-scope of facilities" and likely to be newsworthy?

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Re the DfT instruction to de-scope the facilities of Euston HS2,  a platform count  reduction / more oversite development , and above both,  construct HS2 Euston in a single phase and not a sequence of individual phases.

The amendments are believed to have come from the Oakervee Report, so the contents of Oakervee are clearly being read by the Dft.

What else is within Oakervee that is a "de-scope of facilities" and likely to be newsworthy?

 

On the plus side the Oakervee report did recommend accelerating phase 2b (Lichfield to Crewe), plus it reaffirmed the desirability / positive business case of the project as a whole so it wasn't all bad news.

 

Of course that was pre Covid - had the report been commissioned now then you might have found everything other than the 'under construction' phase would have been postponed / suspended.

 

So overall I think we need to be grateful for small mercies - while a reduction in the number of platforms at Euston and the extensive oversite development, etc are to be regretted, things could be much, much worse....

Edited January 30, 2021 by phil-b259

[RJS1977]

20 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Using HS2 for part of the journey would massively speed up Bristol - Sheffield / Leeds / York / Newcastle journeys. The freed up capacity on the conventional railway could then be used for enhanced Birmingham - Burton - Derby - Sheffield regional services. In short you INCREASE services - the current Cross Country service becomes a Birmingham - Leeds shuttle calling at everywhere it currently does but the longer distance trains from the South West or North East become express services using HS2 thus improving journey times for longer distance travellers.

 

Absolutely agreed that the spare capacity north of Birmingham could be used for extra services to speed up journeys for passengers travelling from the south west to Manchester or Leeds, and I certainly wasn't intending to imply that trains would no longer call at the intermediate stations.

 

However I suspect that the majority of passengers travelling through Brum on XC services have joined at the intermediate stations. Consequently it would inconvenience fewer passengers if it was those travelling to/from Manchester/Leeds who had to change trains (and who may still  end up getting to their destination sooner) rather than those from intermediate towns (who would be faced with longer journey times and the risk of missed connections), especially if HS2 services are going to be more frequent than Cross Country. The long-distance passengers would also still have the option of not changing (at the expense of not having the reduced journey time) if they have mobility issues or are travelling with luggage.

 

Adding extra inconvenience to the intermediate passengers might encourage a shift to car use (or not doing the journey at all), which could impact service viability.

 

In short:

 

Making the intermediate passengers change trains whilst the long-distance passengers get switched on to the High Speed network benefits the long-distance passengers but inconveniences the intermediates.

 

Keeping the stopping service as the through service but with the option of long-distance passengers being able to change onto HS2 means nobody gets a worse service than they do now, but the long-distance passengers can choose to change if they want a quicker journey.

[Tricky-CRS]

On 30/01/2021 at 09:52, ess1uk said:

News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55862648

 

Odd thing about this article is that DfT can't predict travel post pandemic reasonable but the anti-lobby can with so called money in the bank guaranties. The fact is no one knows, facts are that post Spanish Flue live carried on as normal, people moved around, economies recovered and eventually grew. After the black death society didn't stop it took time to recover but still moved forward as it was or similar to before. 18 months pent up demand for expression and freedom, I am optimistic we will return to normality eventually, history tells us that.  

 

RETRACTED I APOLOGISE FOR TYPING THIS

Edited January 31, 2021 by Tricky-CRS
spelling - RETRACTION

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Absolutely agreed that the spare capacity north of Birmingham could be used for extra services to speed up journeys for passengers travelling from the south west to Manchester or Leeds, and I certainly wasn't intending to imply that trains would no longer call at the intermediate stations.

 

However I suspect that the majority of passengers travelling through Brum on XC services have joined at the intermediate stations. Consequently it would inconvenience fewer passengers if it was those travelling to/from Manchester/Leeds who had to change trains (and who may still  end up getting to their destination sooner) rather than those from intermediate towns (who would be faced with longer journey times and the risk of missed connections), especially if HS2 services are going to be more frequent than Cross Country. The long-distance passengers would also still have the option of not changing (at the expense of not having the reduced journey time) if they have mobility issues or are travelling with luggage.

 

Adding extra inconvenience to the intermediate passengers might encourage a shift to car use (or not doing the journey at all), which could impact service viability.

 

In short:

 

Making the intermediate passengers change trains whilst the long-distance passengers get switched on to the High Speed network benefits the long-distance passengers but inconveniences the intermediates.

 

Keeping the stopping service as the through service but with the option of long-distance passengers being able to change onto HS2 means nobody gets a worse service than they do now, but the long-distance passengers can choose to change if they want a quicker journey.

 

The problem there is that passengers will have to lug themselves and their luggage between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham Curzon street to change trains. The nature of Birmingham New Street and the surrounding development means there is no remotely economic way of locating the HS2 terminus anywhere else though.

 

I'm not sure of the exact frequencies of cross country services - but if you have two trains an hour coming up from Bristol way heading towards the North East then the best solution is a split - one transfers to HS2 and the other stays on the existing routing.

 

Logic would suggest that a Plymouth - Newcastle service would be a good candidate for transfer to HS2 while a Bristol - Leeds service say follows the traditional routing . Similarly a Bristol to Manchester could keep to the existing route but a Plymouth - Manchester service would be better suited to using HS2.

 

Interchange for passengers using intermediate stations such as Stafford or Burton would be done at either end (Birmingham New Street or Crewe / Sheffield say) where changing is within the same station while there will of course be a significant volume of passengers for whom that is the end destination anyway.

 

However as the connection between HS2 and the conventional network in the Washford Heath area has not been allowed for in the design the whole question of which services would be a better fit on HS2 is irreverent. Its a missed opportunity though and something the French would not have let slip - hence I contend that HS2 remains not as well integrated into the conventional rail network as it could be.

 

 

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, Tricky-CRS said:

 

Odd thing about this article is that DfT can't predict travel post pandemic reasonable but the anti-lobby can with so called money in the bank guaranties. The fact is no one knows, facts are that post Spanish Flue live carried on as normal, people moved around, economies recovered and eventually grew. After the black death society didn't stop it took time to recover but still moved forward as it was or similar to before. 18 months pent up demand for expression and freedom, I am optimistic we will return to normality eventually, history tells us that.

 

Indeed

 

But thanks to the short term 'me now' / 'I'm the most important thing in the world' culture which is prevalent in the UK many of those making the news headlines don't see it that way.

 

 

[Northmoor]

21 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

But thanks to the short term 'me now' / 'I'm the most important thing in the world' culture which is prevalent in the UK many of those making the news headlines don't see it that way.

 

Or perhaps, "The most important period in history will be the one I'm living in".