HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[willc]

Nice to see yesterday's Daily Telegraph where their leader commented on keeping Lord Adonis on as transport secretary after the next election being a good idea:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/5979413/High-speed-derailment.html

If Lord Adonis, rather than John Prescott, had been in charge of transport when Labour took power, with the money and mandate to do great things, who knows what might have happened? Indeed, if David Cameron wants to give his own transport plans real credibility, he should think laterally, and find a place for Lord Adonis in a Tory government.

But as I've said before, Adonis has ruled this out himself several times and Dave will have a lot of ambitious Tories hungry for office to satisfy, so I expect normal service will be resumed, where someone holds the transport job for a year or two, on the way up to bigger things or on the way down.

[Tim]

But as I've said before, Adonis has ruled this out himself several times .

but he would say that at the moment wouldn't he.  He has been a Lib-Dem in the past so I wouldn't rule him out keeping his job.

[onthecushions]

IF we do go along with this I sincerely hope that it's engineered correctly and the a significant proportion of the route is FOUR tracked, so that ultra express services, I suggest that there is at least one non stopper Glasgow - London per day, express services say stopping Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle can run alongside those stopping at other stations en route. This will also allow limited use of the LGV^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), or Lignes à Grande Vitesse (high speed rail lines) in France, depending on context) by other services too.

To run at LGV speeds (>= 168 mph, 270 kph) one needs stable formation, better clearances, more sleepers/m, better top and line maintenance and (at least) a 50kph stepped, in-cab signalling system, to name but a few. This is not therefore a mixed traffic line either for pathing or maintenance.

A (F)GW^» (Great Western - used as an abbreviation for the area / lines under the Great Western franchise, as opposed to FGW which includes "First", the company operating them too. For tickets - about) LGV would need the present main lines dedicated to TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) type services with uniform operating speeds. We could have that as far as Didcot (or even Steventon) but extra tracks would be needed Westward. TGV's do run satisfactorily at normal speeds (<= 125 mph, 200kph) on conventional mixed traffic routes (practical these infernal Frenchies). Relief line passing loops would also be desirable East of Reading (some are going in for Crossrail anyway). The extra 2 (relief) tracks beyond Didcot are also needed for freight and stopping services but would not be needed in slower areas, say from Chippenham on the Bath route and Badminton on the S Wales line.

The GW line has gentle curves (LGV ruling is 5 km radius, 2.5 at a pinch) and clearances from Broad gauge days. It makes sense therefore not to close off future advances but allow developments to leap frog - the secret of East Coast success, and of West Coast failure.

But if those masts are planted laterally 100mm too close......

OTC

[JayMac]

All this speculation about Lord Adonis' job next year: Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. Who's to say it's going to be Dave handing out the jobs? We all know it was Kinnock who had his foot in the door in 1992 only for the electorate to slam the door in his face. If a week is a long time in politics then 9 months leaves a hell of a long time for things to change. Don't write off Gordon or the Labour Party just yet. If Lazarus could do it.....

[willc]

But Lazarus wasn't running for election in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), with a skewed first past the post election system giving you huge majorities in the Commons on about 40 per cent of the votes and a tired government on its last legs after 12 years in office. Plus Dave will get a slightly easier ride from certain national newspapers than Mr Kinnock did in 1992.

[JayMac]

But Lazarus wasn't running for election in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), with a skewed first past the post election system giving you huge majorities in the Commons on about 40 per cent of the votes and a tired government on its last legs after 12 years in office. Plus Dave will get a slightly easier ride from certain national newspapers than Mr Kinnock did in 1992.

Hang on though. We had a tired government on its last legs after 13 years in office in 1992. Only takes one slip on the beach or an overconfident "Well alright!" for the tide to turn.

The print media's influence, along with their circulation, is waning. I think Dave may start to experience a dip in popularity when policies and manifestos have to be published. At the moment we know very little of the Tory party's plans. So my colours are not yet tied to any one mast, I'll wait for the manifestos. Labour face an uphill struggle, but it is not insurmountable.
And I'd rather not see Adonis pitch up as a Tory transport minister. I agree, he's doing a fantastic job at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) at the moment, however I'm never entirely comfortable with politicians swapping sides. He did start his political career as a Lib Dem. One change of sides is just about okay, but to change again would show a lack of any ideaology or political conviction and merely show he is only interested in power. I'm also not overly happy with having unelected ministers of state.

[willc]

Are you really suggesting that all the people who voted Tory in 1979 or Labour in 1997 had a detailed understanding of their manifestos? I think not.

Labour in 92 had come a long way, but Kinnock never convinced a lot of people he was PM material, and Major got lucky timing-wise - his financial crisis came after the election. Brown's didn't. Blair and Thatcher looked the part as a prospective PM. Dave has yet to do so fully, but he has one big advantage - he's not Brown, which is worth more than any manifesto.

I won't be voting for Cameron, but having actually met him twice and seen him in action at public events, I can assure you he's pretty impressive.

[eightf48544]

But if those masts are planted laterally 100mm too close......

OTC

Very good point it's just what the Treasury would do to save a few pence on the scheme.

Wasn't HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) built to one below full Berne gauge just to save few pence?

It's a classic British trait spoiling a ship for a hapeth of tar.

[willc]

HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) was built to UIC GB^▸ (Great Britain)+ gauge, which is a pan-European standard for carrying piggyback lorry trailers on rail wagons and can also handle 9ft 6in shipping containers on standard flat wagons and standard European freight wagons - hardly penny-pinching.

As the same gauge applies in France and Belgium, you couldn't even get to the Channel Tunnel with anything built to the biggest UIC standard gauge loading profile, C, which is available in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany and the former Warsaw Pact countries in Central Europe and the Balkans, though I think the Channel Tunnel itself is actually bigger than C gauge, due to the size of the shuttle trains.

Network Rail is on record as saying that any expansion of GB+ in Britain could only be done during major route upgrades - so electrification presents just such an opportunity.

[Btline]

The thing I think that was short sighted about HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) is the line speed. It should have been 200 or 250 mph - in common with current HSL constructions.

You may say it would only save about 7 mins 41 seconds - but remember that eventually we want international trains to/from Northern Britain - so the shorter the journey time the better! Let's hope HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is 250 mph as Adonis hints!

[devon_metro]

The thing I think that was short sighted about HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) is the line speed. It should have been 200 or 250 mph - in common with current HSL constructions.

With a fleet of 186mph trains?

No offence, but sometime I wonder what planet you are on 

[Btline]

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm still on Earth!

Firstly, the trains can go above 186 mph.

But my main argument is that in about 20 years time, (by which time HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) has opened...hopefully) they'll need replacing.

_{To be honest, they could do with going now - perhaps to augment an existing UK^▸ (United Kingdom) TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s stock. They are cramped, tired looking inside, and should be switched for larger trains now HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) has opened.} But we won't go there, otherwise the words IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.), SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) or HST2 will be thrown at me!

[onthecushions]

The thing I think that was short sighted about HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) is the line speed. It should have been 200 or 250 mph - in common with current HSL constructions.

With a fleet of 186mph trains?

No offence, but sometime I wonder what planet you are on 

The maximum speed possible on a rail route is defined by its curvature (radial forces) and clearances (dynamic envelope and aerodynamic forces). Brunel took this on board back in 1842, without recourse to the planet Zog.

As with Pizzas, you can add any toppings to a good base.

Mind the gap....

OTC

[IndustryInsider]

HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) would never be feasible as a 250mph railway. It's just not long enough for the trains to accelerate to that sort of speed, and then maintain it for long enough for it to be worthwhile, before having to throw in the brakes for the tunnels. Getting a TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) up to 208mph for the current speed record was pretty much as high as you would be able to reach.

[Btline]

I have been thinking about the proposed High Speed Line and have been wondering whether it is a good idea.

This new line could run from London to Birmingham without stopping and then on to Manchester. However there are major places such as Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton which will be missed out. Undoubtedly, the new line will so many of the Birmingham - London passengers, that the existing 3 tph VWC service which links the aforementioned places will be both cut, and slowed down by the need to call at additional places to get more "bums on seats". Thus HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) would actually make the rail service WORSE for the above places.

A solution? Why not construct a new two track 155 mph line from Euston, going parallel to the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), with links in and out of both Watford and Milton Keynes. It would then split into two and join the Birmingham WCML branch and the Trent Valley line (with a link into Rugby just before this split. The Trent Valley line would be upgraded to allow for 155 mph operation, with a 155 mph Stafford bypass line removing the need for trains to slow down through Stafford. The 155 mph upgrade would stop just North of Crewe. This could be done in the same time as HS2 to Birmingham, but have much bigger results.

The result? The current VWC HF timetable could operated. All direct journey opportunities would be kept and most journeys would see significant journey time reductions, albeit less than with HS2. London to Birmingham would be about 1 hour, and Wolverhampton 1 hour 15 mins.

Passengers from Glasgow, Chester/North Wales, Manchester, Liverpool would all see time reductions - but still have the same stops. People from Milton would still be albe to catch the Chester train to Crewe and then change onto a Northbound service to Glasgow. As the Pendolinos can only go at 140 mph, they would be modest, but then with a IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) at 155 mph, timings would improve further.

The classic WCML south of Rugby would be freed up. Freight could be increased, and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) could run 125 mph fast service from Northampton and Bletchley, (and their Crewe/ Trent Valley stopper could be sped up south of Rugby) using IEPs.

I would also do a similar thing on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line). I high speed line to Leeds will only benefit Leeds. But I would add two new 155 mph tracks just beyond Peterborough, with links in and out of Stevenage and Peterborough. I would upgrade all major junctions as far as Doncaster to be fly overs, and the lines to be 155 mph. This would free up capacity for 3 tph to Leeds, extra trains to places like Hull, harrogate etc.; as well as improving journey times. i.e. more people would benefit.

Going west, install 2 new tracks as far as Reading to allow the main services to be 140 as far as Swindon. Free up space for more semi fasts for Maidenhead, Slough and Tyford.

Although the prospect of a High Speed line excites me, and the journey times quoted will make many lick their lips, I wonder whether it is the best thing for the country.