Suppose HS2 was cancelled
Discussion
Essarell said:
Isn’t that the frustration that we all have toward HS2, the ECML connection has surely been canned when the “full y” was shelved. That leaves 140 miles or so from the Midlands to kind of near Euston….. it will add capacity to the WCML but that’s hardly a shining beacon of a franchise.
It links London, Midlands, Birmingham, Manchester/Liverpool, Glasgow which isn't a bad proportion of the population. aeropilot said:
Here we go again............
Have you bothered to read anything posted in this thread?
HS2 is not about saving 20 or 30mins on a journey time, its about taking the non-stop *intercity* trains off the current ECML to gain extra capacity on that for the commuter trains and freight trains.....as has been pointed out endlessly on this thread.
Nope, haven't read it all, no real interest in it apart from the staggeringly obscene amount of money it's costing, just thought as it's a public forum that I'd give my opinion. Have you bothered to read anything posted in this thread?
HS2 is not about saving 20 or 30mins on a journey time, its about taking the non-stop *intercity* trains off the current ECML to gain extra capacity on that for the commuter trains and freight trains.....as has been pointed out endlessly on this thread.
Capacity, the main line near us has maybe 4-6 trains an hour running along it, hardly appears to be running at capacity or particularly efficiently?
The channel tunnel only cost the current day equivalent of £22b to build, now that's an achievement, building new fast'ish train line, meh!! Still a total white elephant, and according to the watchdog, the construction at this point is 'unachievable'. That probably means it won't be built as planned or will again go even further over budget.
Condi said:
Essarell said:
Isn’t that the frustration that we all have toward HS2, the ECML connection has surely been canned when the “full y” was shelved. That leaves 140 miles or so from the Midlands to kind of near Euston….. it will add capacity to the WCML but that’s hardly a shining beacon of a franchise.
It links London, Midlands, Birmingham, Manchester/Liverpool, Glasgow which isn't a bad proportion of the population. Train travel in the UK is an expensive, strike ridden, unreliable & anti-social behaviour plagued experience, nothing HS2 delivers will get families out of vehicles or tempt freight onto rail.
Official report after official report defines HS2 as a waste of public funds and worse will not deliver desperately needed growth to the economy even it is for our children’s children etc…..
popeyewhite said:
That's been quoted a little earlier but aligns with my belief as an interested observer.Haven't changed my views, as a supporter of high speed rail, and a train buff.
Been clear for many years, and experts like Colin Elliff said so at the time, that it's been politically mismanaged, started in the wrong place, has needlessly difficult routing, and will never reach the North.
And because of this mismanagment, the more it gets scaled back the more of a white elephant it becomes.
Been clear for many years, and experts like Colin Elliff said so at the time, that it's been politically mismanaged, started in the wrong place, has needlessly difficult routing, and will never reach the North.
And because of this mismanagment, the more it gets scaled back the more of a white elephant it becomes.
Essarell said:
Train travel in the UK is an expensive, strike ridden, unreliable & anti-social behaviour plagued experience, nothing HS2 delivers will get families out of vehicles or tempt freight onto rail.
This is the nub of it. People will quite happily use the railway if it’s reliable and clean. If it’s part of the nation’s critical infrastructure - which I believe it is - then it should be run with a military level of discipline and commitment to get the job done, come what may. Notstopping the trains at every little excuse.
Yertis said:
Essarell said:
Train travel in the UK is an expensive, strike ridden, unreliable & anti-social behaviour plagued experience, nothing HS2 delivers will get families out of vehicles or tempt freight onto rail.
This is the nub of it. People will quite happily use the railway if it’s reliable and clean. If it’s part of the nation’s critical infrastructure - which I believe it is - then it should be run with a military level of discipline and commitment to get the job done, come what may. Notstopping the trains at every little excuse.
Yertis said:
Essarell said:
Train travel in the UK is an expensive, strike ridden, unreliable & anti-social behaviour plagued experience, nothing HS2 delivers will get families out of vehicles or tempt freight onto rail.
This is the nub of it. People will quite happily use the railway if it’s reliable and clean. If it’s part of the nation’s critical infrastructure - which I believe it is - then it should be run with a military level of discipline and commitment to get the job done, come what may. Notstopping the trains at every little excuse.
I have worked with the MoD and on the railways.
MOD is a marvel of efficiency compared to the railways!
Since I started with British Rail in 1981 the magic 1 hour journey time from London to Birmingham has been a target. Spending on railways is a politician's wet dream - green, creates jobs, helps travel.
Of course it is all rubbish, it creates short term jobs, it is too expensive to travel on it. Even on the local train for my wife and I to go to Birmingham on a Saturday to go shopping it would cost £18 for the two of us (off peak returns). . . cheaper to get in the car and pay for petrol and parking. it is many years since we, as a family, used the train. I use it for business trips to London and am even thinking of using a hire car for them as the service has become so bad.
In reality railways, as they stand in this country, are a way of fleecing those who can't afford cars, prices are high and service abysmal. Last trip Avanti provided a 5 car instead of a 10 car and blame the overcrowding on the number of people travelling, Chiltern put on a 2 car instead of a four at peak times - where is the incentive to go back if there is a choice of travel.
HS2 has been sold as a High Speed (e,g, the HS in HS2) railway, it would be far cheaper if it wasn't a high speed willy waving project but a simple "extra capacity" railway running at existing speeds. If it is getting commuter trains off the intercity tracks why was it planned to go to Manchester?
MOD is a marvel of efficiency compared to the railways!
Since I started with British Rail in 1981 the magic 1 hour journey time from London to Birmingham has been a target. Spending on railways is a politician's wet dream - green, creates jobs, helps travel.
Of course it is all rubbish, it creates short term jobs, it is too expensive to travel on it. Even on the local train for my wife and I to go to Birmingham on a Saturday to go shopping it would cost £18 for the two of us (off peak returns). . . cheaper to get in the car and pay for petrol and parking. it is many years since we, as a family, used the train. I use it for business trips to London and am even thinking of using a hire car for them as the service has become so bad.
In reality railways, as they stand in this country, are a way of fleecing those who can't afford cars, prices are high and service abysmal. Last trip Avanti provided a 5 car instead of a 10 car and blame the overcrowding on the number of people travelling, Chiltern put on a 2 car instead of a four at peak times - where is the incentive to go back if there is a choice of travel.
HS2 has been sold as a High Speed (e,g, the HS in HS2) railway, it would be far cheaper if it wasn't a high speed willy waving project but a simple "extra capacity" railway running at existing speeds. If it is getting commuter trains off the intercity tracks why was it planned to go to Manchester?
IJWS15 said:
I have worked with the MoD and on the railways.
MOD is a marvel of efficiency compared to the railways!
Since I started with British Rail in 1981 the magic 1 hour journey time from London to Birmingham has been a target. Spending on railways is a politician's wet dream - green, creates jobs, helps travel.
Of course it is all rubbish, it creates short term jobs, it is too expensive to travel on it. Even on the local train for my wife and I to go to Birmingham on a Saturday to go shopping it would cost £18 for the two of us (off peak returns). . . cheaper to get in the car and pay for petrol and parking. it is many years since we, as a family, used the train. I use it for business trips to London and am even thinking of using a hire car for them as the service has become so bad.
In reality railways, as they stand in this country, are a way of fleecing those who can't afford cars, prices are high and service abysmal. Last trip Avanti provided a 5 car instead of a 10 car and blame the overcrowding on the number of people travelling, Chiltern put on a 2 car instead of a four at peak times - where is the incentive to go back if there is a choice of travel.
HS2 has been sold as a High Speed (e,g, the HS in HS2) railway, it would be far cheaper if it wasn't a high speed willy waving project but a simple "extra capacity" railway running at existing speeds. If it is getting commuter trains off the intercity tracks why was it planned to go to Manchester?
Understood, not arguing that at all, except to say that a regular speed new mainline wouldn't be "far cheaper" than HS2. MOD is a marvel of efficiency compared to the railways!
Since I started with British Rail in 1981 the magic 1 hour journey time from London to Birmingham has been a target. Spending on railways is a politician's wet dream - green, creates jobs, helps travel.
Of course it is all rubbish, it creates short term jobs, it is too expensive to travel on it. Even on the local train for my wife and I to go to Birmingham on a Saturday to go shopping it would cost £18 for the two of us (off peak returns). . . cheaper to get in the car and pay for petrol and parking. it is many years since we, as a family, used the train. I use it for business trips to London and am even thinking of using a hire car for them as the service has become so bad.
In reality railways, as they stand in this country, are a way of fleecing those who can't afford cars, prices are high and service abysmal. Last trip Avanti provided a 5 car instead of a 10 car and blame the overcrowding on the number of people travelling, Chiltern put on a 2 car instead of a four at peak times - where is the incentive to go back if there is a choice of travel.
HS2 has been sold as a High Speed (e,g, the HS in HS2) railway, it would be far cheaper if it wasn't a high speed willy waving project but a simple "extra capacity" railway running at existing speeds. If it is getting commuter trains off the intercity tracks why was it planned to go to Manchester?
If the train runs at twice the speed you need half the amount of rolling stock for the same capacity, which has been one of the reasons the rest of Western Europe has all gone high speed, as there isn't much of an overall cost penalty.
A more sensible route and starting from the North WOULD have been far cheaper.
Hammersia said:
Understood, not arguing that at all, except to say that a regular speed new mainline wouldn't be "far cheaper" than HS2.
If the train runs at twice the speed you need half the amount of rolling stock for the same capacity, which has been one of the reasons the rest of Western Europe has all gone high speed, as there isn't much of an overall cost penalty.
A more sensible route and starting from the North WOULD have been far cheaper.
You can possibly answer a question for me then – if the trains are slower, can you not increase line occupancy? If the train runs at twice the speed you need half the amount of rolling stock for the same capacity, which has been one of the reasons the rest of Western Europe has all gone high speed, as there isn't much of an overall cost penalty.
A more sensible route and starting from the North WOULD have been far cheaper.
Also, and I know this has been argued over previously, if it is all about capacity then reopening the GCR and/or the old Midland mainline northwards would have much the same effect. Latterly the GCR was primarily a freight route IIRC. I don't think this country is big enough to need super fast trains now anyway, given Zoom and Teams etc.
Yertis said:
You can possibly answer a question for me then – if the trains are slower, can you not increase line occupancy?
Also, and I know this has been argued over previously, if it is all about capacity then reopening the GCR and/or the old Midland mainline northwards would have much the same effect. Latterly the GCR was primarily a freight route IIRC. I don't think this country is big enough to need super fast trains now anyway, given Zoom and Teams etc.
This is mainly about the WCML, so this little modernisation history of the WCML gives you an idea of the costs of adapting an existing line (you can comfortably double these figures for 2023 pricing). Specifically increasing capacity (new signalling, double deckers, longer platforms) will be even worse cost-wise, and so disruptive as to be unviable:Also, and I know this has been argued over previously, if it is all about capacity then reopening the GCR and/or the old Midland mainline northwards would have much the same effect. Latterly the GCR was primarily a freight route IIRC. I don't think this country is big enough to need super fast trains now anyway, given Zoom and Teams etc.
https://www.transport-watch.co.uk/facts-sheet-6-co...
"The West Coast Main Line Modernisation Programme was to cost £2.35 billion in 1997, £2.95 billion in March 1999, £4.75 billion in October 1999, £5.56 billion in January 2000 and £5.8 billion at the start of the Public Inquiry in February 2001. (Source is the Overview Paper produced in May 2000 and a report to the Rail Regulator by Booz-Allen and Hamilton dated June 2000). The price rose to £6.3 billion during the inquiry when there were press reports that it would cost £9 billion. By August 2002 the press was reporting £13 billion, but that was cut to £10 billion after the Regulator struck out enhancements otherwise required for the originally proposed 150 mph speeds. That was reduced to £7.3 billion only to rise again to £10 billion as reported today, January 2012."
I'm not an expert on the GCR but if it's similar to most of the rest of the network post Beeching then substantial and critical parts will have been lost to housing etc.
I'm not defending HS2 at all, it's a shambles.
Yertis said:
Hammersia said:
Understood, not arguing that at all, except to say that a regular speed new mainline wouldn't be "far cheaper" than HS2.
If the train runs at twice the speed you need half the amount of rolling stock for the same capacity, which has been one of the reasons the rest of Western Europe has all gone high speed, as there isn't much of an overall cost penalty.
A more sensible route and starting from the North WOULD have been far cheaper.
You can possibly answer a question for me then – if the trains are slower, can you not increase line occupancy? If the train runs at twice the speed you need half the amount of rolling stock for the same capacity, which has been one of the reasons the rest of Western Europe has all gone high speed, as there isn't much of an overall cost penalty.
A more sensible route and starting from the North WOULD have been far cheaper.
Also, and I know this has been argued over previously, if it is all about capacity then reopening the GCR and/or the old Midland mainline northwards would have much the same effect. Latterly the GCR was primarily a freight route IIRC. I don't think this country is big enough to need super fast trains now anyway, given Zoom and Teams etc.
Of course, all that only applied if the HS project was actually funded and followed through correctly, and not mismarketed, mismanaged and then cost-cut so we end up with an HS line running from 'just outside London' to 'just outside Birmingham' (or is Curzon Street still happening - I've lost track?).
The occupancy isn't so much about the speed, but the consistency of the speed. The thing that strangles the WCML as it currently is is that long-distance fast passenger trains, trying to run at 125mph have to be pathed with local passenger trains which probably don't get much above 70mph and have an average speed of about 35mph and freight trains that run at 50-70mph with long acceleration and braking times. Those express passenger trains end up 'blocking' huge numbers of track miles in front of them due to their speed. So there are only so many local services you can put on the route before it becomes impossible to make them stop anywhere while an express comes up behind them at two miles per minute. So that puts a cap on how many of both service types you can run. Equally, there are only so many loops and sidings where freight trains can be put aside to let fast passenger trains pass them, and when a freight train needs to switch lines there are only so many times in the schedule where it can cross other tracks without fouling the timings of the passenger trains.
With an idealised HS network, all the long-distance passenger trains can be run on their own system, engineered to run even faster than the 125mph on the 'legacy' network. This allows intercity timings to be accelerated. Because all the trains on the HS system are running at the same speed and on the same service schedule, they can be run at much more intensive service intervals - in theory, two trains both running at a max of 220mph from Point A to Point C via a stop at Point B could run only minutes apart with a 'moving block' in-cab signalling system, because they are effectively mirroring each other's movements at all times. Think of it like the London Underground - although the speeds are much lower, they can run trains only a few minutes apart because follow the same service pattern, so you don't get through trains running fast behind slower stopping trains.
With the HS stuff portioned off into their own system, that means you can fill the old WCML up with more stopping passenger services, which no longer have to have gaps in their schedule to allow for 125mph express services, and more freight paths since both run at roughly the same overall average speed.
So you end up with capacity increases on both the HS and the legacy network because it's not about speed but running each part of the system at the same speed and pattern, or as close to the same speed and pattern as possible.
The Great Central Main Line was a white elephant in the 1890s and is a red herring in the 2020s. It was not a high speed railway and would, if rebuilt on its old formation through to Sheffield, carry a speed limit of about 70mph when modern standards are applied. And it's not possible to rebuilt it on its old formation because large parts of it have been built over. Same for the Midland route - I presume by the 'old Midland mainline northwards' you mean the bit between Rowsley and Peak Forest. Which would get you to Manchester. The rest of the Midland route to the north, via Leeds, Skipton and Settle to Carlisle, is still open.
2xChevrons said:
....
The occupancy isn't so much about the speed, but the consistency of the speed. The thing that strangles the WCML as it currently is is that long-distance fast passenger trains, trying to run at 125mph have to be pathed with local passenger trains which probably don't get much above 70mph and have an average speed of about 35mph and freight trains that run at 50-70mph with long acceleration and braking times. Those express passenger trains end up 'blocking' huge numbers of track miles in front of them due to their speed. So there are only so many local services you can put on the route before it becomes impossible to make them stop anywhere while an express comes up behind them at two miles per minute. So that puts a cap on how many of both service types you can run. Equally, there are only so many loops and sidings where freight trains can be put aside to let fast passenger trains pass them, and when a freight train needs to switch lines there are only so many times in the schedule where it can cross other tracks without fouling the timings of the passenger trains.
...
It seems to be the case that there are a lot less loops and multi-track areas than there used to be?The occupancy isn't so much about the speed, but the consistency of the speed. The thing that strangles the WCML as it currently is is that long-distance fast passenger trains, trying to run at 125mph have to be pathed with local passenger trains which probably don't get much above 70mph and have an average speed of about 35mph and freight trains that run at 50-70mph with long acceleration and braking times. Those express passenger trains end up 'blocking' huge numbers of track miles in front of them due to their speed. So there are only so many local services you can put on the route before it becomes impossible to make them stop anywhere while an express comes up behind them at two miles per minute. So that puts a cap on how many of both service types you can run. Equally, there are only so many loops and sidings where freight trains can be put aside to let fast passenger trains pass them, and when a freight train needs to switch lines there are only so many times in the schedule where it can cross other tracks without fouling the timings of the passenger trains.
...
Have a look at google earth and see how many stations used to have another line straight through the middle allowing expresses to overtake stopping trains.
OutInTheShed said:
It seems to be the case that there are a lot less loops and multi-track areas than there used to be?
Have a look at google earth and see how many stations used to have another line straight through the middle allowing expresses to overtake stopping trains.
There are - that was all part of the general policy (against a background of falling traffic, revenues and staff) of 'managed decline' at BR from Beeching to the mid-1990s. A lot of the lines that managed to just squeak out of being closed under Beeching's review were rationalised, with stations being de-staffed, buildings demolished, signal boxes rationalised, through lines through stations removed, stations reduced to one platform with no second loops, passing loops and sidings removed, sections of quadruple track reduced to double and sections of double track reduced to single. Have a look at google earth and see how many stations used to have another line straight through the middle allowing expresses to overtake stopping trains.
A lot of NR projects in the 21st century have been to try and claw back this lost capacity through reinstating or lengthening loops or redoubling. And stuff like the Werrington Dive-Under - three miles of track at a cost of £200 million to make up for a line closed in the early 1980s to save money on a six-figure signalling and track upgrade. Or the Gasworks Tunnel project at King's Cross - reinstating the line through the eastern tunnel that was taken out of use in the late 1970s.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 31st July 15:03
2xChevrons said:
The occupancy isn't so much about the speed, but the consistency of the speed. The thing that strangles the WCML as it currently is is that long-distance fast passenger trains, trying to run at 125mph have to be pathed with local passenger trains which probably don't get much above 70mph and have an average speed of about 35mph and freight trains that run at 50-70mph with long acceleration and braking times. Those express passenger trains end up 'blocking' huge numbers of track miles in front of them due to their speed. So there are only so many local services you can put on the route before it becomes impossible to make them stop anywhere while an express comes up behind them at two miles per minute.
This just needs to be pushed again and again. Maybe a nice infographic. Or a public awareness campaign. Or something. People need to get it.It's the equivalent of having a motorway with a junction every half a mile, traffic lights and tractors.
Evanivitch said:
This just needs to be pushed again and again. Maybe a nice infographic. Or a public awareness campaign. Or something. People need to get it.
It's the equivalent of having a motorway with a junction every half a mile, traffic lights and tractors.
I have used the road analogy myself in real-life discussions about HS2 - by the logic of some of the sceptics the M40 should have been built as an S2 road with D2 sections (because that's cheaper) and with a 30mph speed limit so the traffic density can be maximised, with a traffic-lighted roundabout wherever a local road crosses its path, and it should be used concurrently by long-distance lorries, cars on intercity business trips, local delivery vans and Mrs. Miggins pottering to the next village to buy a stamp. It's the equivalent of having a motorway with a junction every half a mile, traffic lights and tractors.
Sounds mental? But that's pretty much what the WCML is like at the moment. A High Speed Rail network is the railway equivalent of a motorway system and yields broadly the same benefits - increased efficiency, greatly reduced journey times, alleviation of congestion on local routes, higher average speeds and greater safety.
You speak of public awareness campaigns: I think one of the first, and most critical, flaws in the management and public-facing life of HS2 was calling it HS2 in the first place. I know that 'High Speed Rail' is an industry term with specific meanings, and HS2 is literally the second piece of High Speed Rail to be built in the UK, but it set completely the wrong tone for the project and leads to endless, circuitous discussions about "why are we spending £50 billion to get to Birmingham 15 minutes faster?" "It's not about speed, it's about capacity...". It's a complete failure of a marketing exercise - if you have to repeatedly explain, after 12 years, that your project is not actually about what it's named for, then you've messed up.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff