HS2, whats the current status ?

Author
Discussion

Fittster

17,759 posts

149 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
Why the hate for HS2 and not for crossrail?
Cross rail seems sensible. HS2 is a vanity project by the government. All the suppsed revenue generation is comple bks
Can you explain why crossrail is sensible and HS2 not? Not going to get that Northern Powerhouse without first investing in infrastructure.

Vaud

30,223 posts

91 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
Why the hate for HS2 and not for crossrail?
Cross rail seems sensible. HS2 is a vanity project by the government. All the suppsed revenue generation is comple bks
For me HS2 is missing a few things. A direct connection or spur to LHR for one.

Upgrading the East Coast line and building HS3 makes more sense in my view.

robinessex

6,528 posts

117 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
Fittster said:
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
Why the hate for HS2 and not for crossrail?
Cross rail seems sensible. HS2 is a vanity project by the government. All the suppsed revenue generation is comple bks
Can you explain why crossrail is sensible and HS2 not? Not going to get that Northern Powerhouse without first investing in infrastructure.
The object of the exercise is to maximise passenger volume. Why not increase train length by 50%, and double deck the carriages. There you go, 3 times the passenger volume.

Vaud

30,223 posts

91 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
robinessex said:
and double deck the carriages.
Tunnels...

Matthen

1,010 posts

87 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
Why the hate for HS2 and not for crossrail?
Cross rail seems sensible. HS2 is a vanity project by the government. All the suppsed revenue generation is comple bks
Can you explain why crossrail is sensible and HS2 not? Not going to get that Northern Powerhouse without first investing in infrastructure.
The object of the exercise is to maximise passenger volume. Why not increase train length by 50%, and double deck the carriages. There you go, 3 times the passenger volume.
Can't increase the length of the trains, the platforms aren't long enough. Can't double deck the trains, the tunnels are too low.

And the longer trains are, the slower they are; especially with the way the HSTs work - two locos with carriages between them. Further, there aren't any more locomotives available for service when they're needed. If they're in working order, they're in use (at least in the south east).

The line speeds are already at the fastest they can realistically be - we need new, straight, railways that can be run at high speed.

Advertisement

Vaud

30,223 posts

91 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
Matthen said:
The line speeds are already at the fastest they can realistically be - we need new, straight, railways that can be run at high speed.
Which is what the French did with TGV? And the Japanese with Bullet Trains?

tonker

55,059 posts

184 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
They just need to deliver something on time. And on budget. And a realistic budget. Railway costings seem on a part with space travel.

Everything costs what looks like a ludicrous amount of money and rakes a staggering amount of time.

I was reading this week that they spent £800k refurbishing a pacer (those 2 car rail buses). The refurbishment is new seats, passenger information system, WiFi, a tv screen that shows adverts, a new toilet that is disability compliant (and doesn’t chuck crap onto tracks). These are all basically all off the shelf components. They haven’t changed engine or transmission. Or made it quieter, quicker or ride better. Eight hundred grand. Just how ? Does it all go on testing ? Consultation, approvals or other stuff ?

rs1952

5,081 posts

195 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
Why the hate for HS2 and not for crossrail?
Cross rail seems sensible. HS2 is a vanity project by the government. All the suppsed revenue generation is comple bks
Can you explain why crossrail is sensible and HS2 not? Not going to get that Northern Powerhouse without first investing in infrastructure.
The object of the exercise is to maximise passenger volume. Why not increase train length by 50%, and double deck the carriages. There you go, 3 times the passenger volume.
If his username is anything to go by (big "if" of course) he lives in or near Essex so will somehow benefit from Crossrail. He doesn't want to go to Brum by train so he's against the idea... Just a guess, of course wink

But other than that, his suggestions shows that his knowledge of railways is as comprehensive as mine is of quantum mechanics:

"The object of the exercise is to maximise passenger volume" - no it's not and never has been. See below.

"Vanity project" - there are plenty of stories in the news every week about "chaos on the railways," and a fair few of them are caused by the railways trying to run a nintensive service at nearly 100% capacity. When things go wrong, as they so often do, be it a derailment or a signal failure or a train failure or a broken rail or whatever, it results in the entire service being fked until someone gets out to sort it out. What is needed more than anything is additional capacity, and HS2 gives that in bucketloads by taking the strain off existing lines, especially the WCML. If that constitutes a "vanity project" I'm all for vanity projects.

"Increase train lengths by 50%" - platforms would need extending and there's not always room to do it because there would be bridges and points in the way. Many signalling systems would also need to be upgraded. And that's before we even start to think of the never-ending disruption that it would cause if, for example, you set about extending the platforms at Waterloo half way to Vauxhall or those at Paddington half way to Royal Oak rolleyes

"Double deck the trains" - they won't fit under the British loading gauge. There were a couple of double deck EMUs introduced in 1949 on the Southern Region which were not a success and were not replaced after they were scrapped in the early 70s.

All we want now is a nutcase to come along with the other "simple" solutions of "trains drawing up twice in platforms," and a spokesperson from the "rip all the tracks up and convert them to roads" brigade, and we'll have a full house wink

tonker

55,059 posts

184 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
Double decking would also increase dwell times. In effect negating most of the effects of getting human freight corralled in.

I’d agree the infrastructure is at its limits. My local routes are SWR, they’ve extended platforms. Ordered new trains (more standing, still no toilets...), changed franchisees, messed up the Waterloo upgrade (currently actually worse than before they started as they need the old Eurostar platforms to make it work - no, they aren’t ready), there are regular signalling and power issues. And even the work they did was substandard and badly tested. Remember the Clapham junction rail crash .... caused by a contractor working too many hours and his work not being checked .... what do you think was the cause of the Waterloo derailment last year .... yep.... then we have the problems with strikes.

The usage stats for passenger usage are out next week.... fully expect a significant drop in patronage

Northern rail, southern, GTR, SWR - all have had painful strikes this year ... Waterloo in particular will have lost millions of passengers this year

Stedman

6,243 posts

128 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
tonker said:
They just need to deliver something on time. And on budget. And a realistic budget. Railway costings seem on a part with space travel.

Everything costs what looks like a ludicrous amount of money and rakes a staggering amount of time.

I was reading this week that they spent £800k refurbishing a pacer (those 2 car rail buses). The refurbishment is new seats, passenger information system, WiFi, a tv screen that shows adverts, a new toilet that is disability compliant (and doesn’t chuck crap onto tracks). These are all basically all off the shelf components. They haven’t changed engine or transmission. Or made it quieter, quicker or ride better. Eight hundred grand. Just how ? Does it all go on testing ? Consultation, approvals or other stuff ?
I thought they were getting rid of the Pacers?

rigga

5,849 posts

137 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
tonker said:
They just need to deliver something on time. And on budget. And a realistic budget. Railway costings seem on a part with space travel.

Everything costs what looks like a ludicrous amount of money and rakes a staggering amount of time.

I was reading this week that they spent £800k refurbishing a pacer (those 2 car rail buses). The refurbishment is new seats, passenger information system, WiFi, a tv screen that shows adverts, a new toilet that is disability compliant (and doesn’t chuck crap onto tracks). These are all basically all off the shelf components. They haven’t changed engine or transmission. Or made it quieter, quicker or ride better. Eight hundred grand. Just how ? Does it all go on testing ? Consultation, approvals or other stuff ?
Railway prices are not even in normal ballpark figures, everything costs far more than it really should in the real world, there are restrictions on where items can be sourced, only approved supplier's can be used, and many parts are eye wateringly expensive , and if you want a brand spanking new train, its approximately 1.3 to 1.5m pounds. ........ per car (each train is made up of multiples of "cars ", from two to four in our case. Four years ago "we " spent 96 million on new rolling stock to replace aged units, again now we have an order in for yet more units from Spanish builder Kaf, as Bombardier in Derby no longer make diesel units (they are however building us electric trains)
"We " are the banks in essence, who own the trains, and lease them to the train operators.
Another issue with running more and longer trains, is the amount of free space between trains running on an increasingly congested network, simply you cannot just add more units, as it will actually reduce running speed, and lengthen journey times, plus as mentioned longer trains need longer platforms.

Edited by rigga on Thursday 6th December 21:28

tonker

55,059 posts

184 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
769s are late (the bimode ex thameslink things for the non geeks). The 319s aren’t ready anyway. The drivers aren’t trained. It’s a shambles.

Realistically there isn’t stock available to do it. The cascade of other units isn’t ready . GWR hasn’t got electrified properly yet. So that stock can’t move. Blackpool to Manchester is soooo late. And the current 150s and 156s are mainly knackered and need a large scale refurbishment and replacement programme.

What I suspect will happen is that the lynwilk just lock out the toilets and say it’s then compliant. If they don’t grant a derogation, how are they going to run the services.

(Geek mode on, angel trains need to find a use for the fleet of 707s. They are all convertible to overhead electric. But No one will pay the lease costs for new units). As is, they could work merseyrail. And that’s it

Stedman

6,243 posts

128 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
tonker said:
769s are late (the bimode ex thameslink things for the non geeks). The 319s aren’t ready anyway. The drivers aren’t trained. It’s a shambles.

Realistically there isn’t stock available to do it. The cascade of other units isn’t ready . GWR hasn’t got electrified properly yet. So that stock can’t move. Blackpool to Manchester is soooo late. And the current 150s and 156s are mainly knackered and need a large scale refurbishment and replacement programme.

What I suspect will happen is that the lynwilk just lock out the toilets and say it’s then compliant. If they don’t grant a derogation, how are they going to run the services.

(Geek mode on, angel trains need to find a use for the fleet of 707s. They are all convertible to overhead electric. But No one will pay the lease costs for new units). As is, they could work merseyrail. And that’s it
A recuring theme this year

tonker

55,059 posts

184 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
The blame surely lies with management. At government, network rail and the traincos. I can’t really blame the unions for trying to take advantage - a scorpion will always sting. It’s what they do.

And the poor front line staff get it from the passengers.

Back on topic, imagine how late and over budget HS2 will be when the mandarins, politicians and network rail and their pet contractors have had a go ....

PRTVR

4,357 posts

157 months

Friday 7th December
quotequote all
Fittster said:
robinessex said:
Fittster said:
Why the hate for HS2 and not for crossrail?
Cross rail seems sensible. HS2 is a vanity project by the government. All the suppsed revenue generation is comple bks
Can you explain why crossrail is sensible and HS2 not? Not going to get that Northern Powerhouse without first investing in infrastructure.
Mass rapid transport is always going to be needed in London,especially when it connects to a major airport,
London to Birmingham, I really do not see the point on a cost verses time gain or capacity, as has been said far better to spend the money on the east cost main line,
the talk of a northern powerhouse is a bulst phrase that means nothing,
HS2 is a vanity project that will cut investment in the rest of the infrastructure, money better spent elsewhere, modern signalling would be a start, this would allow greater capacity.

Vaud

30,223 posts

91 months

Friday 7th December
quotequote all
Northern powerhouse is a handy political phrase,.

Connecting Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds and York with a higher speed link makes a lot of sense for economic development (esp to Manchester airport)

mcdjl

3,539 posts

131 months

Friday 7th December
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Northern powerhouse is a handy political phrase,.

Connecting Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds and York with a higher speed link makes a lot of sense for economic development (esp to Manchester airport)
Any way of getting across the country rather than just up/down it would be good.

steveT350C

5,160 posts

97 months

Friday 7th December
quotequote all
Regarding the capacity argument; I went from Gerrards Cross to Birmingham last Tuesday morning. 1 change at Banbury.

1st leg, GX to Banbury, about 7:40am, the train was only two carriages and was 95% empty. 2nd leg train had about 10 carriages and was maybe a 3rd full. Arrived in Birmingham 9:45am.

Return jouney leaving Birmingham the following day; both trains were similarly empty.

tonker

55,059 posts

184 months

Friday 7th December
quotequote all
It won't work at the moment, without entirely new infrastructure. The corridor is already crowded. And a failure scuppers the entire thing.

The new Hitachis IETs aren't going to be powerful enough to accelerate hard enough to make the timetable quicker. And if they do get higher power units, how are they going to path in all the slower trains (it's only two tracks for almost all of it; It's not as if the IETs are proving reliable on GWR, and on diesel, they are not exactly quick. And that's before the pretty average commuter train + interiors. The Northern Belle, it ain't. Capacity is already stretched. The new TPE trains are still too short.... in the 1970s/80s these were 7-8 coaches plus a buffet. Now you will get 5 coach TPE trains (which are admitttedly more frequent and longer coaches) but demand is up a lot too. , BUT they are fixed formation. So you have five or ten. The same as the IET. Most platforms will struggle with those lengths today. And they aren't walk though, so how do you staff them? So where's the improvement?

Get 180-200mph trains - and it's crackers as they will be like the old eurostars trundling through kent at so much under capacity and capability.

Except for some major stations (Lime St, possibly Warrington, Piccadilly, then the ECML to Newcastle). Long trains barely fit. Where is the real improvement for the intermediates - that is where the time is wasted..... getting in and from those hubs.... rubbish slow infrequent outdated unreliable too short trains... any HS2 extension won't fix that...

It would need an entirely new infrastructure to make even the HS2 northern extensions work And Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds are too close to really permit high speed running. It doesn't save much as they take miles to get up to line speed (say140-150mph) then 1-2 miles to stop. It isn't going to happen as anything other than incremental timetable improvements via signalling and slightly better acceleration/lesser dwell times for other trains.

It would make much more sense to build a dedicated freight line to continental loading gauge all the way from Southampton/ Kent to Glasgow. With suitable branches off it to hubs (say N/ELondon, then Brum, somewhere in E Midlands. Leeds, Manchester Trafford park side, then Glasgow (havent worked out to how to get to Wales/Bristol). that would stimulate the economy better... allow 75mph large freights to move without them holding up normal passenger trains and get full size containers on them. I dread to think what that would cost.....and it isn't media friendly. And MPs and civil servants won't get to use it..

rs1952

5,081 posts

195 months

Friday 7th December
quotequote all
steveT350C said:
Regarding the capacity argument; I went from Gerrards Cross to Birmingham last Tuesday morning. 1 change at Banbury.

1st leg, GX to Banbury, about 7:40am, the train was only two carriages and was 95% empty. 2nd leg train had about 10 carriages and was maybe a 3rd full. Arrived in Birmingham 9:45am.

Return jouney leaving Birmingham the following day; both trains were similarly empty.
You've misunderstood the use of the word "capacity" in this context.

We are talking about the physical capacity of the railways to run trains, not the capacity on trains ie.enough seats for the bums that want to sit on them.