HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[mjones]

The HoC Select Committee proceedings have shaken my support for HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). The promoters seemed just lobbies for the consultants, contractors, interest groups and regional chambers of trade with a lot to gain. Only NR^» (Network Rail - home page) came near to convincing me but the reasonable alternatives weren't given and  some answers were just wrong, such as no intermediate stations being possible (never heard of platform loops or high speed turnouts).

It isn't that these aren't possible, it is that they greatly increase the cost: to prevent trains that stop from getting in the way of the through trains they'd have to separated miles before, so you are talking about long sections of 4 track high speed line, not just platform loops.

I'm pretty sure I've seen  discussion of this in the detailed HS2 scheme documents.

If long distance capacity is the issue (i.e to Rugby, in stage 1) then the old Great Central route is the answer. Well engineered, older main lines (such as the GW^▸ (Great Western) and LNW/WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority))) were mostly laid out for speed and with a small fraction of the ?32Bn quoted could have long stretches raised to LGV^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) speeds. What they can't have is mixed traffic operation so HSx in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) really requires new slow/relief lines to allow full segregation. The argument against this majored on tunnelling (the fast lines) under existing towns, really to allow all the platform roads to be used by non-TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) and stopping trains, unnecessary if this traffic were to be diverted.

I suspect that in the end the big scheme capital costs will be too much for a weakish economy like the UK and after years of dreaming (and borrowing), we'll have to live within our means again.

Thoughts?

OTC

On what basis do you think this could be done for a small fraction of the cost of HS2? Apart from the fact that the alignments simply aren't straight enough for LGV speeds, it would require far more work in built up areas and the cost of disruption to existing services. The old GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) of course doesn't provide a complete route from London to Birmingham or the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) anyway, but HS2 does follow some of its alignment; it can't use the exact route because it isn't straight enough for high speed.

HS2 is effectively like adding an additional pair of tracks onto the WCML, nothing short of that would provide the same capacity improvement. But building on a new alignment means built up areas and disruption to existing services can be avoided. And if you are building a new route, then the cost estimates were that you only save 10% of the costs by building a conventional speed line instead, but lose a third of the benefits that high speed offers.  And that's because, irrespective of the arguments currently going on about the appraisal of time savings, shorter journey times make rail more competitive with other modes and attract more people paying more fares, so any proposed alternative that doesn't offer high speed is never going to raise as much fare revenue to pay back the construction costs.

[eightf48544]

One of teh things that has puzzled me is that HST2 is predicated on London to Birmingham, and North.

What happens to Rugby to Birmingham, it seems to me that even if HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) takes the London trains there is still a need for extra capacity for local traffic on this line.

 Things like Leamington Nuneaton service via Kenilworth, Coventry and Bedworth which has been posted on Coffee Shop and presumably as DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) loves competition a cheaper LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) type semifast London Service. 

Are there any plans for 4 tracking stretches etc?

[onthecushions]

mjones - thanks for your reply and comments.

1. There were 125mph points at Hambleton Jns on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line). It's true they do need long leads and braking space - about 2000m, plus a 400m platform to TENs standards. TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse)'s can take off - reaching 125mph in less than 3 minutes, if published evidence is to be believed. Hopefully, HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) would have more than 2 tracks, anyway. HSx's can't run mixed traffic for many reasons - specification, maintenance, pathing, signalling etc.

2. As a rule of thumb, 50% of main lines are straight enough for high speed (say 186mph), about 50% of the rest are upgradable and so only about 1/4 actually need new route, probably less when cost/benefit is taken into account. The down side may be some disruption as curves are eased, the up side is importantly, quicker realisation of benefits, without the fights and controversy.

3. The Great Central line reinstatement would be for freight and would not need high speeds (its quite good already). I'm not sure that the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) case study by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) allowed for this.

4. Does anyone think that HS3 paralleling our GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is necessary?

Regards,

OTC

[IndustryInsider]

2. As a rule of thumb, 50% of main lines are straight enough for high speed (say 186mph), about 50% of the rest are upgradable and so only about 1/4 actually need new route, probably less when cost/benefit is taken into account. The down side may be some disruption as curves are eased, the up side is importantly, quicker realisation of benefits, without the fights and controversy.

I'm not saying your figures are inaccurate necessarily, but where have you got your rules of thumb from?  I would suggest that in a lot of areas where curves would not have to be eased there would still need to be significant costs on providing suitable infrastructure (more of a cant in the track for example), which would mean practically the whole route would still have to be relaid.  What about tunnels?  The existing tunnels would not be able to take trains at that speed, and so if you have to decelerate and accelerate for each and every tunnel then you'd lose so much time over a purpose built route.

Also, how would having 2-tracks of High Speed line work on a 4-track railway such as Paddington to Didcot?  Clearly you wouldn't want High Speed services passing conventional platforms such as Tilehurst and Goring at 186mph, so would those platforms have to be removed?

Personally, I don't think upgrading the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) for 186mph is practical or affordable (like I don't think a HS3 route to the south west from London would be either).  I do think that 140mph running with IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s and cab signalling, and targeted infrastructure improvements such as remodelling Wootten Basset junction for much faster speeds could achieve some good time savings, but for a fraction of the cost.

[ChrisB]

Except to employ 000s of unemployed Northerners....

[onthecushions]

The "rule of thumb" came from a magazine interview with, I believe, Armitt. His speeches, when you can find them are really informative, concise but with essential figures and technical detail. The idea is not contentious and can be partly checked from published information, such as the speed map in the WCMLRUS (p23?). The dfT's case for high speed rail touches on this also on p58. There was also something called "Rail Package 2" or RP2. This was mainly to do with extra tracks and so was expensive in towns. That's why relaying the GCML^▸ (Great Central Main Line) is attractive. You are right of course about the formation, track etc., all high speed needs this.

I like the East Coast approach (they did copy Swindon for loco valve gear), where each new technology leapfrogged the old allowing incremental improvements each time something was renewed. it only got stuck at 125mph because of signalling for 140mph....

Now if SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) wanted to cascade their PSE TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse)'s.

Regards,

OTC

[bobm]

The existing tunnels would not be able to take trains at that speed, and so if you have to decelerate and accelerate for each and every tunnel then you'd lose so much time over a purpose built route.

Is there still a lower limit through Box Tunnel?  I remember reading somewhere that when HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) were first they either had to run or reduced speed or not pass in the tunnel for fear of blowing the carriage windows in.

[mjones]

mjones - thanks for your reply and comments.

1. There were 125mph points at Hambleton Jns on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line). It's true they do need long leads and braking space - about 2000m, plus a 400m platform to TENs standards. TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse)'s can take off - reaching 125mph in less than 3 minutes, if published evidence is to be believed. Hopefully, HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) would have more than 2 tracks, anyway. HSx's can't run mixed traffic for many reasons - specification, maintenance, pathing, signalling etc.

It will predominantly be 2 track, which is why a mix of stopping and through trains would adversely affect capacity. A business case would have to be made that the additional costs of building 4 track to faciliate intermediate stops would be justified by the additional passenger revenue from those stops, which seems highly unlikely given the lack of large centres of population on the proposed route.

2. As a rule of thumb, 50% of main lines are straight enough for high speed (say 186mph), about 50% of the rest are upgradable and so only about 1/4 actually need new route, probably less when cost/benefit is taken into account. The down side may be some disruption as curves are eased, the up side is importantly, quicker realisation of benefits, without the fights and controversy.

The minimum turning radius for 300 kmh is 4km, compared with under 2km for 200kmh; and bear in mind that tilting isn't used for high speed. So even if 50% of the existing main lines is straight enough, you can't simply 'ease' a few curves on the other 50%: the high speed sections all have to connect up via curves of at least 4km radius, so sticking to the existing alignment is pretty well impossible, and when you then have to avoid built up areas, sensitive habitats etc you will find that actually you'd have to build long sections of completely new routes, which aren't necessarily going to connect easily back to the existing corridor. If it were straightforward to fit a HSR route onto a conventional speed rail corridor then they'd have followed much more of the GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) trackbed.

3. The Great Central line reinstatement would be for freight and would not need high speeds (its quite good already). I'm not sure that the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) case study by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) allowed for this.

But creating a new, separate, freight route doesn't create anything like as much new capacity in comparison with a new passenger route, but is still very expensive. You seem to be arguing that a huge amount of money should be spent trying to upgrade the existing line for passengers, which still doesn't create as much capacity as a new line, while also wanting to build a new line, but for freight, which offers much lower benefits. Why not spend the money on a new passenger line, thereby maximising the capacity improvements?

[onthecushions]

While I agree of course with your general drift, it remains true that intermediate stations are  both provided and used on high speed lines. The 70 or so miles of HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) have platforms at Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, although they're not all used as planned. The PSE station at Le Creusot Montceau-les-Mines while not welcomed by SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) now attracts nearly 1M users each year. Generally they have platform loops. The MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for MK^▸ (Milton Keynes) (Mark Lancaster?) raised with the Chancellor yesterday the prospect of a Bucks Parkway where the Oxford Bletchley route now to be re-opened crosses HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

I have an an ex-BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) map that shows a continuation of the Selby avoiding line to just past York, giving a continuous Doncaster-Darlington high speed section. The WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) also has its fast stretches and connecting curves of 4km (I think the norm is 5km or 2.5km at a pinch) are not out of the question. The capacity released by diverting freight is multiplied because being slower, it generates more paths for faster services.

HS2 is of course the ideal - I just think that we will eventually discover we can't afford it.

Regards,

OTC

[Btline]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16017413

Delays until Jan...

[paul7575]

Usual alarmist stuff I see.  "We've got 270 acres here to farm and we won't be able to get to it..."

Do the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) ever bother trying to substantiate any of this rubbish, or do they just print whatever they get told by people with an axe to grind...  Ever since the first railways were built accomodation bridges have been provided as necessary - indeed the same applies to motorways etc.  Why ever wouldn't this policy continue?

Paul

[BerkshireBugsy]

Usual alarmist stuff I see.  "We've got 270 acres here to farm and we won't be able to get to it..."

Do the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) ever bother trying to substantiate any of this rubbish, or do they just print whatever they get told by people with an axe to grind...  Ever since the first railways were built accomodation bridges have been provided as necessary - indeed the same applies to motorways etc.  Why ever wouldn't this policy continue?

Paul

Sadly "people who don't have an axe to grind" don't make interesting news (or so it seems in the media's eyes) and often get ignored!

[Btline]

What do people think? I think the line will be given the go ahead. The Chesham and Amersham MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) has been very quiet on the matter of the tunnel! I think it's a shame as they'll be less of a view onboard. I don't buy the argument that rail lines scar the landscape (living near one myself - albeit, unelectrified)

If it does happen, I expect they'll be Newbury Bypass scale opposition when trees start getting axed. This could drive up the costs...

To be honest, I think we need it, it will have eased overcrowding for all Northern Home Counties when it gets to Leeds.

When do we hear? Is it early Jan?

[mjones]

I'd be surprised if there is much Newbury type direct action. The environmental campaign groups are split on this, and the direct action groups seem to have moved to other issues since the high profile campaigns of the late 1990s. Will be interesting to see what the Government decides. There isn't much support within the Conservative party, on the other hand they known fully well that if they don't go ahead with this then they will have to come up with some alternative ways to deal with the capacity problems on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), which also affect Tory voters. Labour hasn't helped by throwing in the 'go via Heathrow' red-herring, thereby rejecting the results of all the detailed studies they commissioned while in government...

[Chris from Nailsea]

Edit Note:

As we had at least five different topics on this forum, on two different boards, all covering various aspects of the ongoing HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) debate, I've now merged them all here - purely for continuity and completeness.

At this stage, I've preserved the original heading in each post, so the context of the original post can be taken into account.  However, on reading through this now combined 'definitive' topic, I'm fairly sure that it actually stands up in its own right.

If anyone has any concerns or questions over this 'editorial policy', however, please do let me know!

Regards, Chris.