HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

As a country we need better rail links, faster services, more rail resilience.

We do. But it's not a zero-sum game.

[paul7575]

I am against HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) because I don't believe that the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s size and population does not lend itself to high speed rail...

Fair point, but the double negative reverses your meaning... 

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

Figure now closer to £100 billion rather than £50 billion

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/09/08/time-scrap-hs21/

For what, though? Most of the article is paywalled, but John Armitt is talking about 'additional upgrades'; do these have additional benefits?

Do those ‘additional upgrades’ include such things as the cost of all the tram links, as well as things like Crossrail 2?  I believe when such cost increases have been quoted before they have had all manner of things linked, however tenuously, with the project.  Many of which could and should be built anyway as standalone projects.

[ellendune]

Major cities are to close and its is inconceivable to run long routes without stopping at Birmingham, Manchester|Leeds. The consequence of this is why should we spend £50-100BN to save a few minutes of individual journeys.

As a country we need better rail links, faster services, more rail resilience.

How many times does it have to be said that HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is not about speed but capacity. Taking the long distance fast non stop trains off the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and to a lesser extent the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), means that the remaining capacity on those lines can be used more efficiently. 

Much of these lines are already 4 track.  Because the distances on the WCML and ECML in particular are long with large populations at the northern end (unlike the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) line which has a relatively low population at its western end) there are a significant number of trains that run non stop London to Warrington or York. Running these among slower trains stopping eats train paths due to the gaps that have to be left so that faster trains do not catch up the slower ones before there is a place for them to pass.

Also if you look at the timetable you will find there are relatively few trains that go London to Manchester via Birmingham so the argument that trains will not get up to speed before they stop at Birmingham and then again before they reach Manchester is a fallacy.   

You could achieve the same by widening one of the existing lines with an additional pair of tracks, but then you would have to tear the heart of every town on the route to provide the space for the new tracks.  That is already unpopular in a small area around Euston, not sure how well in would go down in Harrow, Watford, Berkhamsted, Bletchley, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford or Stoke... I could go on. There would also be the costs of completely rebuilding the stations on the selected line.  Then there is the massive disruption to the existing railway while it is built. The WCML route modernisation caused so much delays and additional cost that I think that is what effectively ended any prospect of major route widenings. 

The only question remains is that if you are building a new line (and much less than the cost of widening an existing one) do you pay a small premium to make it even faster?  That was the question to argue about HS2.  However at this stage the cost of redesign to a slower route would probably exceed any resulting construction cost savings. 

 

[grahame]

As a country we need better rail links, faster services, more rail resilience.

How many times does it have to be said that HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is not about speed but capacity.

Your are correct ... but why the heck "HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services))" for High Speed then. NASBuC?

[Red Squirrel]

As a country we need better rail links, faster services, more rail resilience.

How many times does it have to be said that HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is not about speed but capacity.

Your are correct ... but why the heck "HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services))" for High Speed then. NASBuC?

Maybe because you build it for capacity, but sell tickets with its speed?

[broadgage]

The extra speed will no doubt be welcome, but as has been said, the new line is partly to provide much needed extra capacity.
The existing west coast route is largely full. An extra route for the fast trains will provide more paths on the existing line for stopping services.

There is growing concern regarding the environmental costs of road and air transport.
A new fast line from London to the north should attract some longer distance passengers away from air and onto trains.
This would reduce the need for costly, hugely disruptive, and bitterly opposed airport expansion.
The extra capacity then available on the classic route should enable the provision of more trains with less risk of overcrowding, and hopefully persuade some motorists to take the train instead.
There will also be more room for freight on the classic route, reducing HGV traffic.

[mjones]

Ellendune "The only question remains is that if you are building a new line (and much less than the cost of widening an existing one) do you pay a small premium to make it even faster?  That was the question to argue about HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).  However at this stage the cost of redesign to a slower route would probably exceed any resulting construction cost saving"

I agree with what you said. My recollection from one of the earlier assessment documents was that high speed added 10% to the construction costs compared with a new  125mph line but added proportionally far more to the business case by attracting far more long distance users. My concern now is that the additional tunnelling Tec needed to placate the nimbies could have increased this penalty quite a lot. Furthermore, the route selected had a  better business case than an alternative that followed the M1 corridor because it was a few minutes shorter, so did better on time saving and model shift calculations.  Again, I wonder whether the additional tunnelling costs would now favour the alternative route.  However,  you are quite right that changing route now would be so expensive and time consuming that it is unlikely it would be beneficial overall. We just have to get on and do it, as other European countries have.

[Red Squirrel]

...as other European countries have.

Not just our fellow Europeans, either; China is particularly effective at rolling out high speed rail almost on a production-line basis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDoll8OEFE

[simonw]

I have never been against building more capacity.

How about a new network of lines for long distance trains only, with a design speed of 200Kmh, no slow trains. This is not high speed, and will be a lot cheaper than HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). Build with tunnels where possible and integrate into existing cities outside of the current main station, but close enough to allow|encourage local fast transit systems to develop. The saved budget could help kickstart proper local transit systems within the UKs^▸ (United Kingdom) large metropolitan areas.

[stuving]

...as other European countries have.

Not just our fellow Europeans, either; China is particularly effective at rolling out high speed rail almost on a production-line basis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDoll8OEFE

And now Africa - the latest is Tangier-Rabat-Casablanca (the new line ends just short at Kenitra). Opened yesterday by guess who; Morocco being still pretty much a French chasse gardée.

[ellendune]

I have never been against building more capacity.

How about a new network of lines for long distance trains only, with a design speed of 200Kmh, no slow trains. This is not high speed, and will be a lot cheaper than HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). Build with tunnels where possible and integrate into existing cities outside of the current main station, but close enough to allow|encourage local fast transit systems to develop. The saved budget could help kickstart proper local transit systems within the UKs^▸ (United Kingdom) large metropolitan areas.

Thats a debate to have if we build any more, but I would expect a design change to even the later phases of HS2 now would add cost rather than save it. Also remember this:

My recollection from one of the earlier assessment documents was that high speed added 10% to the construction costs compared with a new  125mph line but added proportionally far more to the business case by attracting far more long distance users.

[Red Squirrel]

The saved budget...

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is an investment, whereby you borrow money in order to make a greater return. There is no 'budget' to save; that'd be like applying to take out a mortgage on a house and then saying actually you'd like spend the money on school fees instead.

A lot of these local improvements are more difficult to see as obvious moneyspinners. This is probably more indicative that the powers that be are not good at measuring social benefit (or, indeed, of understanding any justification for spending money on public transport outside the M25) than that these schemes are not worthy. But it's not a zero sum game - you can do both, if you accept that it is a legitimate thing for governments to spend our money on things that are good for us.

[mjones]

I have never been against building more capacity.

How about a new network of lines for long distance trains only, with a design speed of 200Kmh, no slow trains. This is not high speed, and will be a lot cheaper than HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). Build with tunnels where possible and integrate into existing cities outside of the current main station, but close enough to allow|encourage local fast transit systems to develop. The saved budget could help kickstart proper local transit systems within the UKs^▸ (United Kingdom) large metropolitan areas.

But the vast extent of tunnelling is a major contribution to the greater cost of HS2 compared with European schemes.

[broadgage]

I have never been against building more capacity.

How about a new network of lines for long distance trains only, with a design speed of 200Kmh, no slow trains. This is not high speed, and will be a lot cheaper than HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). Build with tunnels where possible and integrate into existing cities outside of the current main station, but close enough to allow|encourage local fast transit systems to develop. The saved budget could help kickstart proper local transit systems within the UKs^▸ (United Kingdom) large metropolitan areas.

But would it be a lot cheaper than HS2 ? I rather doubt it.
Tunnels are very expensive, and are still almost as expensive if intended for lower speed.
Land purchase for new surface construction is very expensive, and is about the same cost for lower speed as for high speed.
Having termini for these new routes outside of existing stations adds more cost for land purchase. The local transport between the new station and the old one would also cost money and take up space.
Also customers would be strongly opposed to adding two more changes to a journey, two more opportunities for strikes and signalling failures.

IMO^▸ (in my opinion), The time for any more studies, consultations, alternative proposals, and reviews into HS2 is over. We have had years of that. Time to get on and built it.