HS2

[Pete the Elaner]

29 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'm a bit puzzled there.  The grossly mis-named HS2 is being built to tackle the overall capacity problems (number of available paths) on the WCML.  It does nothing to resolve WCML capacity problems arising from different speed bands - whatever happens non-stop passenger trains will still run faster that non-stop freights and non-stop freights will still catch up stopping passenger trains.  

 

What HS 2 does is reduce demand on the WCML Fast Lines but as long as any fast passenger services remain on the WCML there will still be an impact on capacity because of speed differentials.  And freights will continue to outpace all stations stopping passenger trains although the frequency of station stops has a bearing on exactly what happens there.  However semi-fast passenger currently confined to the Slow Lines on the WCML might well be able to use the Fast Lines if the number of truly fast trains is reduced and that in turn creates capacity for freights on the Slow Lines.  

 

What it will always come down to is speed differentials and stopping train frequency/distance between stops on a mixed traffic railway.  What happens on HS2 in terms of speeds is really irrelevant because all trains will run at the same speed and will have similar stopping patterns.  But adding stops will impact either overall journey time or capacity depending on how they are arranged, but they won't reduce maximum speeds.

 

 

Your 2nd & 3rd paragraphs answers the problem.

Semi fast services on the WCML use the fast lines & have done so for years. Most trains on the slow lines from MK to Euston cross over to the fast at either Ledburn or Bourne End junctions to pass slower services, but these in turn create pathing problems on the fast lines.

[woodenhead]

Interesting map from the BBC article - it seems Warrington to Marsden is part of Phase 2 now.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61717478

 

[Mike Storey]

15 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Will that be a later report Mike?

Sounds familiar to the only one I can find in the archives via Google.

 

I most definitely remember the report that concluded almost the opposite and it was before Adonis took up the idea.

Might have been 2005 to 2007 ish? 

The SoS transport was possibly either Ruth Kelly (of "no need for electrification" fame), or more likely Douglas Alexander at the time?

I had a copy on an old computer (long since gone) and unfortunately it wasn't saved.

 

Sadly, other reports, such as the original DfT IEP papers, the DfT "New DMU programme" and the NR report of the feasibility of double decker versus longer trains on the SWML, were lost too.

They were too long to warrant printing off and I didn't save them to another storage medium.

 

Greengauge 21 released an alternative paper (advocating HS rail to everybody's corner shop), a bit later, IIRC.

 

The WCML report was an intriguing read, that looked at the size of the various north south markets and the alternative modes of transport and their respective market shares.

The description of the sort of work needed to widen the WCML, by adding extra HS tracks, with their increased HS clearances, would have been useful ammunition in challenging the anti-HS2, upgrade the existing line, advocates.

There was even a brief mention of MAGLEV, which was quickly dismissed as high risk, very high cost and unproven over such a long network.

 

Again, I clearly remember the case in favour of core intercity markets and regarding the NE as being adequately served by rail and air and too small a market to warrant a new line being extended there.

Contrary to what you say, I well remember (as I was surprised) that extending to Scotland was dismissed, unless done for purely national or political reasons and financed accordingly.

 

Seriously Mike, I'm not senile or imagining this.

It has influenced my thinking ever since about HS2, throughout its gestation and various trials and tribulations

 

 

.

 

 

 

Just to help your memory Ron, I attach a report of the NR report (I cannot locate a copy of the actual report either, but I remember it well). It was this report that was largely ignored by Adonis, and later the Tory government, in favour of the much more restricted and less ambitious HS2 Ltd report, which came out four months later. You will note that NR believed the business case for just going to Manchester was marginal, but that going through to Scotland would have seen a 1.8 return on the investment (over 60 years). The figure HS2 Ltd came up with was never more than 1.5, IIRC, even at the original costings.

 

https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/26/u-k-s-network-rail-moves-forward-with-route-choice-for-high-speed-2/

 

Incidentally, this report says NR had been working on it for a year, but, like you, I know for certain that work started on it around 2005 - I was, briefly, a small part of it at the beginning.

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Thanks Mike.

The report being discussed there, definitely follows much later than the one I remember.

I have found references to an announcement of that NR study being commissioned in June 2008.

 

I'm looking at an earlier date.

The Greengauge 21 proposition for HS2, was a paper published in June 2007 and the study I remember, came from around that time, if not slightly before.

 

As I remember it, there was no clear plan for a specific route, but a set of options, which favoured a new line, over upgrading or widening the existing route..

Possible routes for a brand new line were discussed.

They favoured the Y, but listed other options, such as the S route.

HS was an add-on that they recommended.

It clearly spoke of termination in Manchester and Leeds, the justification and rational of which has stuck in my mind ever since.

AFAICR , I don't think likely costs or budgets were being discussed at that stage.

 

Also, I don't believe HS2 Ltd had been formed, or had produced any of their own work at that stage.

(n.b. HS2 Ltd was formed in January 2009)

 

All I've managed to find, are some press reports, (inc. from the BBC News site),  from late 2006, announcing that a report was due out in the next week or two.

That timing sounds about right, although it's hard to remember.

 

I've also remembered that the desktop PC I had then, my last Windows desktop, was replaced in 2008.

That's where I had downloaded a pile of DfT and NR reports to. All lost now.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

East West Rail meets HS2...at Calvert - May 2022.

 

The site of the intersection with HS2 comes into view at 5.45 into the video.

Bridge piers can be seen, under construction.

Calvert will also be the location of the main infrastructure depot for the new HS line.

 

At 15.20, the camera follows the path of HS2 towards London, passing the old Calvert waste site and the Greatmoor Energy from Waste incinerator, before the video ends, just prior to reaching the Bucks Railway Centre, near Quainton.

 

The GCR is reborn in Bucks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[Mike Storey]

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Thanks Mike.

The report being discussed there, definitely follows much later than the one I remember.

I have found references to an announcement of that NR study being commissioned in June 2008.

 

I'm looking at an earlier date.

The Greengauge 21 proposition for HS2, was a paper published in June 2007 and the study I remember, came from around that time, if not slightly before.

 

As I remember it, there was no clear plan for a specific route, but a set of options, which favoured a new line, over upgrading or widening the existing route..

Possible routes for a brand new line were discussed.

They favoured the Y, but listed other options, such as the S route.

HS was an add-on that they recommended.

It clearly spoke of termination in Manchester and Leeds, the justification and rational of which has stuck in my mind ever since.

AFAICR , I don't think likely costs or budgets were being discussed at that stage.

 

Also, I don't believe HS2 Ltd had been formed, or had produced any of their own work at that stage.

(n.b. HS2 Ltd was formed in January 2009)

 

All I've managed to find, are some press reports, (inc. from the BBC News site),  from late 2006, announcing that a report was due out in the next week or two.

That timing sounds about right, although it's hard to remember.

 

I've also remembered that the desktop PC I had then, my last Windows desktop, was replaced in 2008.

That's where I had downloaded a pile of DfT and NR reports to. All lost now.

 

 

 

.

 

I don't dispute that Ron. The most interesting thing is as to how two (or even three) such reports could come to such different conclusions, on the extent of routes, CBA's and costs. I don't know the answer to that.

 

 

[kryten65]

Just a brief update from a biggish hole in Northamptonshire, the earlier issues now seem to been mostly resolved for now and erection has sort of got going, here's the outline of the two bores

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The most interesting thing is as to how two (or even three) such reports could come to such different conclusions, on the extent of routes, CBA's and costs. I don't know the answer to that.

 

 

 

Because HS2 has involved an awful lot of educated guesswork!

 

As much as I believe HS2 will be successful, I cannot prove it until the thing is built.

 

Yes there is lots of positive evidence out there from other countries but at the end of the day this is a first for the UK (HS1 basically being a commuter operation* (admittedly a very fast one) with a few Eurostars thrown in).

 

As such, and akin to what happens when a bunch of the worlds finest scientists study something, you can get widely different predictions from studies all of which are using the same sources to guide them - and thats before the Politicians start meddling with the brief.

 

 

 

* The original design brief for HS1 was only 140mph - the open air bits got an upgrade after the route had been fixed to 186mph where possible.

Edited June 8, 2022 by phil-b259

[Mike Storey]

Following on from my debate with Ron, this may be of interest. It is a report from Greengauge 21 in 2009, proposing a network of high speed lines for the UK. This came after their HS2 Proposal of 2007, which influenced Adonis and then the Tory/LibDem govt into proceeding with HS2 in its Y-shaped format.

 

http://www.greengauge21.net/fast-forward-a-high-speed-rail-strategy-for-britain/

 

The 2009 report produces very similar conclusions to the NR report, published one month earlier, but goes even further into detail. Again, this contradicts the prevailing view now that London/Birmingham/Manchester (and perhaps Leeds) is the only line that makes any return, and especially the view that this was always the case. What is sad (for the country) is that both this and the NR report were pretty well ignored in the subsequent DfT Strategic Review of HS2 Options.

 

Finally, there is an article from Rail Technology, primarily about HS1, in 2007, that states that Network Rail were only just about to "go public" on their views about High Speed Rail for the rest of the country.

 

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/highspeedone/

 

However, we are now where we are, with a dog's breakfast of a scheme with little apparent thought on what follows.

 

[phil-b259]

39 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

However, we are now where we are, with a dog's breakfast of a scheme with little apparent thought on what follows.

 

 

I wouldn't put it quite like that - providing the necessary passive provisions are not removed further extensions are always possible.

 

In any case grand plans count for nothing if they never get realised - as things stand we will get a high speed line between London, the West Midlands and the north west (even if some of that is done via the WCML northwards from Crewe) as well as Notts / Derbyshire.

 

Yes there are a couple of questionable decisions (no provision for a link to the classic lines at Washford Heath potentially allowing SW - NE / NW services to use it) but all in all its actually quite a coherent plan - particularly now the cities of the East Midlands get properly served (as opposed to a single badly sited 'parkway' station).

 

Given the construction industry can only build so much at once - sticking rigidly to 'grand plan' can easily come unstuck in subsequent years through technical advances not just political or economic reasons

 

People should note When the French built their first TGV line it wasn't extended till it got close to its 10th birthday - and I doubt the subsequent extension follows exactly the same alignment people assumed it might in 1983 either!

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by phil-b259

[nightstar.train]

2 hours ago, kryten65 said:

Just a brief update from a biggish hole in Northamptonshire, the earlier issues now seem to been mostly resolved for now and erection has sort of got going, here's the outline of the two bores

Presumably now the first section is up the next section should be easier as it will join on. Fingers crossed it all aligns nicely. 

[Artless Bodger]

2 hours ago, kryten65 said:

Just a brief update from a biggish hole in Northamptonshire, the earlier issues now seem to been mostly resolved for now and erection has sort of got going, here's the outline of the two bores

Cue letter from legal dept of a fast food purveyor alleging infringement of their IP?

[96701]

3 hours ago, kryten65 said:

Just a brief update from a biggish hole in Northamptonshire, the earlier issues now seem to been mostly resolved for now and erection has sort of got going, here's the outline of the two bores

Are they going to paint them yellow and start flogging burgers?

[APOLLO]

 

Fag packet planning at it's best !!!!

 

back of a fag packet

Definition

composed or performed quickly and without detailed analysis or research

 

The way the country is going HS2 will go to Birmingham only and not Crewe.

 

Oh Mr. Porter, what shall I do?
I want to go to Birmingham
But here I am at Crewe
Take me back to London
As quickly as you can
Oh Mr. Porter what a silly girl I am.

 

Brit15

[woodenhead]

6 hours ago, kryten65 said:

Just a brief update from a biggish hole in Northamptonshire, the earlier issues now seem to been mostly resolved for now and erection has sort of got going, here's the outline of the two bores

Why do I fancy a McDonalds after seeing this?

[boxbrownie]

9 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Why do I fancy a McDonalds after seeing this?

Because your taste buds are dead 🤣

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Because your taste buds are dead 🤣

Or you have had a load of beers - after which all sorts of stuff tastes good.

 

"Hello, peeps! Iss Stavros….”

 

 

[Mark Saunders]

4 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Because your taste buds are dead 🤣

Not subliminal advertising, causing you to see things!

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I don't dispute that Ron. The most interesting thing is as to how two (or even three) such reports could come to such different conclusions, on the extent of routes, CBA's and costs. I don't know the answer to that.

 

 

Simples - it probably very much  depended what answer those who commissioned the report were looking for.  

[KingEdwardII]

41 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

very much  depended what answer those who commissioned the report were looking for

That indeed is how reports commissioned by politicians work - they carefully choose the people who are going to write the report and make sure that those people understand what is expected of them.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Simples - it probably very much  depended what answer those who commissioned the report were looking for.  

 

OK, very funny. Let's look at the facts instead then.

 

The Greengauge 21 report of 2007, which promoted only HS2, was not commissioned by anyone. Rather, it was "sponsored" by the Railway Forum, a collection of trade membership, with only a few regional political reps. That is how Jim Steer works.

 

Yet, Greengauge 21, after forming a Public Interest Group in 2008, produced another report ("Fast Forward"), in 2009, proposing a wide network of new, high speed lines, very similar and expanding upon the earlier (in the same year) Network Rail submission, which was sponsored by the DfT.  The Greengauge 21 Report was the result of work with dozens of stakeholders, from regional authorities, trade, PTA's, to freight, but not national government. 

 

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/fast-forward1.pdf

 

The DfT however, continued only to pursue HS2, and in that respect was supported by HMG of both hues. I fully recognise that you cannot build everything at once. But the sheer audacity of Grant Shapp's IRP, in claiming it was the greatest strategic rail plan in a century, beggars belief. It not only cut back HS2, but confined rail investment to a "plan" (more realistically a list of aspirations plus funding already announced) to £96 billion over 25 years, when the govt's own National Infrastructure Commission had forcefully advocated a minimum spend of £185 billion over 30 years (just for the North and Midlands).

 

I leave this to be read, or ignored just like the government has done, as you see fit:

 

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/integrated-rail-plan-the-evidence/

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Mike Storey

[DY444]

On 07/06/2022 at 18:00, Dunsignalling said:

The illusion at last falls away that HS2 will be any more than a way to provide London with workers who will never be paid enough to live there, from an ever greater catchment area within acceptable commuting times.

 

"The North" will not benefit, because it's no longer going to get that far and what does get finished will just turn Manchester into part of the Midlands.

 

John

 

 

What a bizarre argument that improving journey times between two disparate places somehow makes them morph into a single entity.  I must remember that the next time I go to the picturesque French town of Ashford.  And by the same token I presume your trans-Pennine HS line would mean that Yorkshire becomes part of Lancashire and Merseyside becomes part of Greater Manchester.  Somehow I think not.

 

Historically there has always been plenty of all day demand into London from the provincial cities.  Attempt to walk through the vast crowds which swarm onto Westminster Bridge any day you like and you'll hear accents from every corner of the UK.  The idea that somehow HS2 was all about letting Brummies work in London was never true and as London has seen the biggest percentage drop in commuting then it is unlikely ever to be.  You only need to venture onto those quiet country thoroughfares the M1 and the M40 to see what the north south travel demand is.  They aren't all going to work.

Edited June 10, 2022 by DY444

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

OK, very funny. Let's look at the facts instead then.

 

The Greengauge 21 report of 2007, which promoted only HS2, was not commissioned by anyone. Rather, it was "sponsored" by the Railway Forum, a collection of trade membership, with only a few regional political reps. That is how Jim Steer works.

 

Yet, Greengauge 21, after forming a Public Interest Group in 2008, produced another report ("Fast Forward"), in 2009, proposing a wide network of new, high speed lines, very similar and expanding upon the earlier (in the same year) Network Rail submission, which was sponsored by the DfT.  The Greengauge 21 Report was the result of work with dozens of stakeholders, from regional authorities, trade, PTA's, to freight, but not national government. 

 

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/fast-forward1.pdf

 

The DfT however, continued only to pursue HS2, and in that respect was supported by HMG of both hues. I fully recognise that you cannot build everything at once. But the sheer audacity of Grant Shapp's IRP, in claiming it was the greatest strategic rail plan in a century, beggars belief. It not only cut back HS2, but confined rail investment to a "plan" (more realistically a list of aspirations plus funding already announced) to £96 billion over 25 years, when the govt's own National Infrastructure Commission had forcefully advocated a minimum spend of £185 billion over 30 years (just for the North and Midlands).

 

I leave this to be read, or ignored just like the government has done, as you see fit:

 

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/integrated-rail-plan-the-evidence/

 

Not particularly funny as there were definitely instances where it happened - not that the desired result was spelt out to those but consultants ot whatever might ell be chosen according to their past efforts and experience and the commissioned to do the report knew the views of those who commissioned it.   That was definitely the case with several Eurostar studies - albeit in one well known case with a major misreading of basic data - but reports and information were assembled to suit various desired results.

 

Common feature with Govt of course where 'a safe pair of hands' might well be invited to head a particular inquiry or study.

 

As far as Shapps efforts are convcerned I agree entirely and the biggest shortcoming of all among that lot was punching back trans-Pennine to the end of the queue which blatantly ignored everything.  But we are talking about Shapps although he's not the first poltician to do something like that.  

[kryten65]

Well, here's the official Hs2 video from the start of the green tunnel

https://youtu.be/7tu0J7PeDNQ

 

[corneliuslundie]

The other thing public bodies do is to commission consultancy to avoid doing things; then of course by the time the consultant reports things have changed so further consultancy work is needed - by friends at court quite often.

And announcing consultancy about a project is often used as a smokescreen for the fact that nothing is actually intended to happen, but it gives the appearance of progress.

Cynical? Surely not.

Jonathan