HS2, whats the current status ?

[CoolHands]

They should have called it High Capacity 2 the numbskulls then the story would be completely different

[P5BNij]

popeyewhite said:

P5BNij said:

it runs in the afternoon (a slight faux pah with the rostering has occurred!).

Higher Ronnie!

Higher Reggie! Sorry couldn't resist

[Tuna]

rover 623gsi said:

lots of rail, infrastructure, economic and political boffins looked into this years ago and the answer they came up with is 'no'. I'm not against a review of current spending but its nonsense to constantly claim (as many people do) that that there are loads of other better alternatives that haven't been considered.

HS2 is not the answer to all of the country's transport issues - no single project can be - but it does provide a very good answer to some very specific issues.

Why not (and genuinely I don't know) build a better east coast line which (I think?) would be much easier in terms of going through populous areas, and would link into the HS3 'Northern Powerhouse' rail scheme. Then you could theoretically go Edinburgh->Newcastle->London->Paris and drive growth in areas that are under-served by rail, rather than encouraging even greater congestion in areas that are already well linked?

[ninja-lewis]

Tuna said:

Why not (and genuinely I don't know) build a better east coast line which (I think?) would be much easier in terms of going through populous areas, and would link into the HS3 'Northern Powerhouse' rail scheme. Then you could theoretically go Edinburgh->Newcastle->London->Paris and drive growth in areas that are under-served by rail, rather than encouraging even greater congestion in areas that are already well linked?

Capacity is required between London and Birmingham. It would also miss out Manchester.

Also if the aim is Edinburgh, the East Coast is a bit of a detour: Edinburgh is west of Bristol.

[rover 623gsi]

HS2 trains will run to Newcastle and Edinburgh anyway.

Newcastle to:
Birmingham: current time 172 minutes - HS2 time 118 minutes - 54 minutes quicker
London: current time 170 minutes - HS2 time 137 minutes - 33 minutes quicker

Edinburgh to:
Birmingham: current time 237 minutes - HS2 time 191 minutes - 46 minutes quicker
London: current time 262 minutes - HS2 time 220 minutes - 42 minutes quicker

... although it's not really about speed, it's about capacity

[abzmike]

rover 623gsi said:

HS2 trains will run to Newcastle and Edinburgh anyway.

Newcastle to:
Birmingham: current time 172 minutes - HS2 time 118 minutes - 54 minutes quicker
London: current time 170 minutes - HS2 time 137 minutes - 33 minutes quicker

Edinburgh to:
Birmingham: current time 237 minutes - HS2 time 191 minutes - 46 minutes quicker
London: current time 262 minutes - HS2 time 220 minutes - 42 minutes quicker

... although it's not really about speed, it's about capacity

And how can these timings be correct? The Edinburgh timings suggest Brum to London in 29 minutes... that cant be right, or am I missing something?

[popeyewhite]

rover 623gsi said:

HS2 trains will run to Newcastle and Edinburgh anyway.

Newcastle to:
Birmingham: current time 172 minutes - HS2 time 118 minutes - 54 minutes quicker
London: current time 170 minutes - HS2 time 137 minutes - 33 minutes quicker

Edinburgh to:
Birmingham: current time 237 minutes - HS2 time 191 minutes - 46 minutes quicker
London: current time 262 minutes - HS2 time 220 minutes - 42 minutes quicker

Wishful thinking if ever there was. Bearing in mind they can't even get a rough extimate of cost correct, what makes you think the infrastructure will work so well IF it is ever finiished?

[rover 623gsi]

abzmike said:

rover 623gsi said:

HS2 trains will run to Newcastle and Edinburgh anyway.

Newcastle to:
Birmingham: current time 172 minutes - HS2 time 118 minutes - 54 minutes quicker
London: current time 170 minutes - HS2 time 137 minutes - 33 minutes quicker

Edinburgh to:
Birmingham: current time 237 minutes - HS2 time 191 minutes - 46 minutes quicker
London: current time 262 minutes - HS2 time 220 minutes - 42 minutes quicker

... although it's not really about speed, it's about capacity

And how can these timings be correct? The Edinburgh timings suggest Brum to London in 29 minutes... that cant be right, or am I missing something?

I imagine that is the fastest times - some Edinburgh to London trains won't stop at Birmingham

Birmingham (Curzon St) to Euston will be 45 minutes whereas Interchange (near Birmingham International) to Euston will be 38 minutes so that about explains the difference in the above

but anyway, the point is that HS2 will provide extra (and faster) trains to the north east, north west and Scotland not just London and the midlands

[b0rk]

glazbagun said:

Ministers knew it was over budget before they signed it off-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297

Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.

Funny thing about Edinburgh trams is whilst the scheme will probably never repay the original capital cost. The system very quickly reached operational profitability and is now due to demand about to be extended to incorporate the never built parts of phase 1a. HS2 is I'd suspect a similar project in that government can never expect to see a return on the capital but demand and usage will quickly see the scheme cover operating costs.

[Tuna]

rover 623gsi said:

HS2 trains will run to Newcastle and Edinburgh anyway.

Newcastle to:
Birmingham: current time 172 minutes - HS2 time 118 minutes - 54 minutes quicker
London: current time 170 minutes - HS2 time 137 minutes - 33 minutes quicker

Edinburgh to:
Birmingham: current time 237 minutes - HS2 time 191 minutes - 46 minutes quicker
London: current time 262 minutes - HS2 time 220 minutes - 42 minutes quicker

... although it's not really about speed, it's about capacity

You miss the point that if the issue is capacity and cost effectiveness, then running a line through a less densely populated area can still provide capacity (though perhaps not as directly) at potentially significantly less cost.

The problem with HS2 is not the principle of increasing capacity - it's needed right across our entire transport network - it's that the chosen route that they have fixated on (to the exclusion of others) is insanely expensive.

[smack]

P5BNij said:

No, another one which starts at Battersea and goes to Tunstead, just checked my diagram and it's later than I thought, it runs in the afternoon (a slight faux pah with the rostering has occurred!).

Ah, I was only looking at the morning ones, and that looked like the best match, and guessing you were taking over the train. Found the one you are talking about, 8.5 hours to get up to a quarry near Buxton (took some time to work out where that was) - I guess that is for the Concrete plants in Battersea?

When you get to Rubgy, after you hand over the train (I take it that is where you end from the first post and I'm sure with HSE rules you need to take a rest break), do you stay over night or take over (or catch a ride) another train to get you back to London?

Sorry for going OT!

[Talksteer]

surveyor said:

Robertj21a said:

I would have thought that there was plenty of opportunity to improve the rail network in the north (that bit of the UK some miles north of the M25).

HS2 was not about improving the rail network, it was about delivering extra capacity. The existing networks are either at or heading to capacity. There are only so many longer trains they can put on and given that trains need to run on the network only so many upgrades that they can do.

The east west HS3 is even more needed. I can get from Doncaster to Kings Cross in about 1h 40m. The train to Manchester - about 60 miles takes nearly 1hr 30m.

You can say that but the actual history of HS2 goes back to around 1990 with a few rail engineers who's logical was more along the lines of "the French and Germans have them why can't we?".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs...

The London to Birmingham route was indentified as a do-able line and the project has snowballed from there.

The idea that this is all about capacity only really came in after it became obvious that their initial economic arguments were based on asking people on platforms about the value of time.

The Lords Transport Select Comittee is somewhat scathing on this latter point.

Edited by Talksteer on Tuesday 27th August 23:54

[Talksteer]

biggles330d said:

They should just get on and build the thing. If victorian Britain had taken the same attitude as is taken today we'd be a very backward nation today.

Those train lines built in Victorian Britian were a locally developed brand new revolutionary transport system, built in a gold rush style unplanned manner.

HS2 is non of those things, it is more like building another canal system rather than a 1840's railway line.

[glazbagun]

b0rk said:

glazbagun said:

Ministers knew it was over budget before they signed it off-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297

Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.

Funny thing about Edinburgh trams is whilst the scheme will probably never repay the original capital cost. The system very quickly reached operational profitability and is now due to demand about to be extended to incorporate the never built parts of phase 1a. HS2 is I'd suspect a similar project in that government can never expect to see a return on the capital but demand and usage will quickly see the scheme cover operating costs.

I discovered that to my surprise whilst trying to dig up the costs. Great idea executed expensively then.

Maybe in 150 years, we'll look on such projects as we do the Merc 190's today. I'm sure we wish Londons planners had been more assertive with their earlier ideas, maybe HS2 will be the same if it's truncated.

[mcdjl]

Tuna said:

You miss the point that if the issue is capacity and cost effectiveness, then running a line through a less densely populated area can still provide capacity (though perhaps not as directly) at potentially significantly less cost.

The problem with HS2 is not the principle of increasing capacity - it's needed right across our entire transport network - it's that the chosen route that they have fixated on (to the exclusion of others) is insanely expensive.

What makes you think any other route would be noticeably cheaper to build?

[P5BNij]

smack said:

P5BNij said:

No, another one which starts at Battersea and goes to Tunstead, just checked my diagram and it's later than I thought, it runs in the afternoon (a slight faux pah with the rostering has occurred!).

Ah, I was only looking at the morning ones, and that looked like the best match, and guessing you were taking over the train. Found the one you are talking about, 8.5 hours to get up to a quarry near Buxton (took some time to work out where that was) - I guess that is for the Concrete plants in Battersea?

When you get to Rubgy, after you hand over the train (I take it that is where you end from the first post and I'm sure with HSE rules you need to take a rest break), do you stay over night or take over (or catch a ride) another train to get you back to London?

Sorry for going OT!

I'm based at Rugby so start and finish there, when I book on in the morning I travel down to the stone terminal at Battersea and relieve the driver who took the loaded train down via the Midland Mainline. It takes so long to get the empties back up north because of pathing through London and the speed restrictions en route, my part of the job is almost twelve hours from start to finish. The track layout around Battersea is very restricted not to mention congested with passenger units and other freights meandering about, it holds us up when we're shunting the train in and out of the terminal (and vice virsa if you see what I mean).

With apologies for continuing to go O/T

[mcdjl]

P5BNij said:

I'm based at Rugby so start and finish there, when I book on in the morning I travel down to the stone terminal at Battersea and relieve the driver who took the loaded train down via the Midland Mainline. It takes so long to get the empties back up north because of pathing through London and the speed restrictions en route, my part of the job is almost twelve hours from start to finish. The track layout around Battersea is very restricted not to mention congested with passenger units and other freights meandering about, it holds us up when we're shunting the train in and out of the terminal (and vice virsa if you see what I mean).

With apologies for continuing to go O/T

Its kind of on topic: without you sitting blocking the 'normal' line normal trains could go faster and you don't stop at station. Without fast/through trains sharing a line with stopping trains , you could go faster/get more stopping trains.

[Stedman]

P5BNij said:

At last some common sense, the entire project should be being pushed on the capacity issue rather than as a high speed one. Tomorrow morning I'll be working a 60mph freight train from Battersea, crossing London via Kensington Olympia and joining the WCML at Willesden, then onwards up to Rugby - all along the route I'll be passing (and be overtaken by some on the fast lines) numerous other trains of varying speeds with varying stopping patterns with very little headway between them, even after the morning peak the route will be at near full capacity.

Widening the WCML corridor any more is a none starter, it's already been looked at yet people keep coming back with the idea.

I did wave

[Blue62]

mcdjl said:

What makes you think any other route would be noticeably cheaper to build?

Responding to your point, the specific issue with HS2 is the speed of the train, any bends in the line have to very gradual to maintain speed, which means that they can't conveniently swing round a factory, hospital or housing development, hence spiralling compensation payouts. The original cost modelling was based on projects on the continent, where population density is not as great as here and large swathes of agricultural land mean that such projects are not as costly. A cynic might question whether this oversight was deliberate rather than inept, but either way it leaves the tax payer (and the EU) with a rather big problem.

[Blue62]

Grant Shapps has just announced that the project will be 5 or 6 years late. No detail on exactly why it seems, just references to the overspend, so presumably it's to do with review.