HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[caliwag]

Ha Ha...superb G. take a bit to follow up all the links, but Bahgdad to Dundee...exotic stuff. Mind if the Spanish get their tunnel to Africa, Dundee to Casablanca is on the cards...Err, weekend return please, unless it's cheaper with singles mate? 

[JayMac]

Cheers Graham, that link brought a smile to my face! And here was me thinking that in your r^le as Moderator-in-Chief of this erstwhile forum, you were somewhat immune to cynicism.

[IndustryInsider]

Flyovers and tunnels. And the new tracks wouldn't have to stick to the rest of the route, as trains using the express tracks would not be stopping before Reading.

Right, so, erm, you're not 6-tracking then, you're basically building a separate HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) line?

[Tim]

HSR in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) seems to be about adding capacity as much as saving time.  The UK is a small country and most of the population is in a small corner of England. 

Massively high speeds between places like London, Bristol, Brum, Manchester, Leeds do not make sense - the current journey times are already fairly short and things like electrification, signalling upgrades and reduced congestion with perhaps 140/150 mph running on some stretches and some of the current lines speeds eased up elsewhere by adjusting alignment and cant and closing some level crossings (how much of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is actually at the 125 mph speed of the existing stock? - not very much.  Some of the windy parts can't be sped up cheaply, but would it be too difficult or expensive to make some of the 110 line, 115 or 120, and some of the 80 line 85 or 90? 

We need to get over our unhealthy obsession with the French and their TGVs^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) and go for more of a German approach where HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) rail generally means sustained running at about 125 to 140 mph.

Capacity is the main restraint to incremental speed upgrades - the solutions are:

1) in-cab moving block signal if we can get it to work properly (and we will eventually I am sure)
2) faster freight paths made possible by greater use of electric traction.
3) new medium speed frieght lines to divert frieght off the main lines which can then enjoy faster journeys and existing access to city centres.  Engineeered to wider loading gauges and about 80mph running they would be much cheaper than high speed lines and may be able to use existing disused formations in many places. 
4) new metro/tram/underground system to allow closure of small stations wich slow down the mainline (ie a Bristol tramway could run next to teh railway and allow closure of St Andrews Road and the otehr small stations that slow down intercity journeys

[Lee]

Not sure how St Andrews Rd slows down intercity journeys, but you could try this...

My thanks go to Nicki Pittman (CANBER^▸ (Campaign Against the New Beeching Report)) & Graham Ellis (Save The Train) for their assistance with the maps below.

[IndustryInsider]

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Tim.

The idea of getting freight off of the main routes is an appealing one - how many thousands of delay minutes are caused by a freight train getting in the way? But, in order to shift significant traffic off of the roads and airways (which is HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))'s main selling point in helping to reduce emissions), speeds between the major cities do need improving.

I personally feel that a network which links London/Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester/Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle and Glasgow/Edinburgh (and arguably Bristol/Cardiff - although they're in an awkward part of the map) would do this. There could also be a couple of strategically located 'parkway' stations in the North-West or North-East in the same style as Ebbsfleet Intl (but also connecting into the local rail network) - perhaps one to cater for the Preston/Blackpool areas, one for the Sheffield/Doncaster areas and one for the Nottingham/Derby area?

With a sensible compromise of fast trains running non-stop from London to Scotland (or with a maximum of 1 stop en-route) and high-speed more regional trains running, say Edinburgh to Bristol stopping at Newcastle, Leeds and Birmingham.

Because the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) route of today has much lower average speeds, a regional service would offer the same kind of journey saving percentage wise compared with today's service as you would gain on a London to Scotland service running at 250mph all the way as the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and (now) WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) average speeds are much higher.

Even with the fast service on the ECML and WCML the market share of rail over air between London and Scotland is comparatively low when compared with London to Manchester - so, if the aim is to ground short flight then HS2 has to be built as you can't engineer any more significant improvements on those routes as they stand.

One thing's for sure, there's an awful lot of considered thinking to be done in order to get the best solution and value for money on what will be a very expensive commitment.

[Tim]

But, in order to shift significant traffic off of the roads and airways (which is HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))'s main selling point in helping to reduce emissions), speeds between the major cities do need improving.

I agree BUT, on shorter distance routes like London-Manchester, modest cuts in journey times (although I conceed far from modest in cost) have almost completely killed off air competition.  On longer journeys like London to Edinburgh and Glasgow, I am yet to be convinced that the there are currently enough passengers travelling between those cities by air to justify the cost of hundreds of miles of new track.  Much of the recent growth of domestic fights has been at regional airports.  You can now fly Bristol-Newcastle or Manchester-Bristol.  Would HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) rail take any of those markets?  No because it wouldn't go to Bristol, but speeding up the existing XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) network preferably including electrification, slashing of slack and scrapping the Vomitors might. 

Where rail does badly compared to road isn't mainly for long intercity journeys, it is shorter almost commutable journeys that really cause congestion and are a high volume market that rail needs to tap.  Most people only drive long distances like Bristol-Newcastle a couple of times a year (Cristmas and holidays etc).  The day in day out congestion is caused by people who live in Bristol working in Cardiff or Bath and commuting every day.  For that kind of trip you don't need HS rail to tip the balance away from the car.  You could cut the congestion on the M4 with a 50 minute Bath-Cardiff journey time rather than 1hr 15 which becomes 1hr 30 or more once you have factored in getting to the station so that for many people today driving is quicker. 

It is journeys like Bath-Cardiff, Cardiff-Birmingham, London-Swindon, Oxford-Birmingham, Leeds-Manchester, Bristol-Exeter, Birmingham-Cambridge that cause most of the congestion on the roads because there are many people who drive those routes every day.  HSR will not speed up those journeys because 
it will only stop a very big cities.  If you speed up the conventional rail journey by say just 10 minutes on each of those routes, and allow the road journey to add 10 minutes to the jounrey (this will inevitably happen due to congestion) and give people fairly priced tickets and a comfortable seat, you will have reached the tipping point for many people on many of those routes.

If you build HS lines you may actually add to road congestion because you:

1) increase the use use of Parkway stations - I am always sceptical of Eurostar's green crudentials when their business model depends on a huge carpark at Ebbfleet.

2) slow down the classic route (as has happend when HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) opened) whch actually stops at places people want to get to. 

[Tim]

Not sure how St Andrews Rd slows down intercity journeys, but you could try this...

Sorry I meant Stapleton Road.  There is space for another two tracks to be laid most of the way from Temple Meads to Parkway which would get the stoppers out of the way more easily than say Oldfield Park

[IndustryInsider]

You can now fly Bristol-Newcastle or Manchester-Bristol.  Would HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) rail take any of those markets?  No because it wouldn't go to Bristol, but speeding up the existing XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) network preferably including electrification, slashing of slack and scrapping the Vomitors might. 

You make some interesting and valid points and it all adds to the discussion about what will be the best solution. Though I'm not sure that if you take Bristol to Newcastle as an example, you could save enough time if trains still have to run on the traditional route, which passes through all those large stations between Birmingham and York and already has 125mph stretches. A 5-hour journey time of now might get trimmed down to 4h 15m - is that enough to reach the tipping balance when you compare the 1hr flight time? I'm not so sure.

It might make sense for the traditional route from Bristol to Birmingham to be upgraded for 125mph running (which has been seriously suggested before), electrified and connected to a brand new London to Scotland HS network near Birmingham (routed via Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle) where the trains could then run at HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) speeds to the North-East and Scotland?

That way you get tangible journey time reductions and a sub 3hr journey time from Bristol to Newcastle would be possible (and sub 4hr to Edinburgh), but the cost is kept lower. As with most projects it'll be about finding the best compromise.

[Btline]

Tim has summed it up well. I don't think the demand is there for millions of seats every minute going non-stop from London to x, y or z.

Take the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and people who use the West Mids line. YES, a lot of them are going frm Euston to New Street. But a sizeable proportion are going Milton Keynes to Wolverhampton. Or Sandwell and Dudley to Rugby. Or Watford Junction to Coventry. HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will serve NONE of these flows!!

But if HS2 is opened, VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) will cut back this route! Probably down to 1 or 2 tph, calling at more station. The result will be a WORSE service for many people. Or people will have to change at Birmingham on or off a high speed train, when before they could travel direct.

That's why I think 2 new tracks from Rugby to Wembley is best. It will permit ALL station calling patterns to remain, but speed up all WCML journeys. (the Trent Valley fast lines would also be upgraded to 155, and a Stafford bypass built) it would also cost a lot less (a 150 mph line instead of a 250 mph one), freeing up money to do the same on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).

[RailCornwall]

As I've said before here, the facility itself will cause demand, people will, if the fares are reasonable use the facility and expand their personal footprints regularly. Passengers will undertake regular trips to other destination cities for shopping and leisure purposes. It will also encourage a much larger travel to work area for cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester, resulting in the levelling out of property prices in the South East overtime.

[FlyingDutchman]

Will the New Heathrow Airport station be built under this new plan

[Btline]

Will the New Heathrow Airport station be built under this new plan

Not that bloody Heathrow "Hub" to slow down the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)!

[Super Guard]

Lord Adonis writing in The Times 30/12/2009:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6970893.ece

[woody]

All this talk of high speed rail (250mph) is making my head spin,back in the real world, how is FGW^▸ (First Great Western) going to remain competitive from say west of Exeter to Plymouth /Cornwall with line speeds of only 55/65mph(secondary line speeds) in the 21st century.A railway running 20th century trains on 19th century infrastructure has little long term future.