HS2 under review

[Edwin_m]

The current fare structure of UK passenger rail, particularly on InterCity routes, with high standard fares and then various levels of discounting has, arguably  seen a relatively stable situation with good yield in terms of revenue and growth.

I suspect franchise holders may be cautious of radical change, in case this stability of business were to be lost. Returns could actually drop, or demand would become embarrassingly high for the current capacity, with all the extra business at discounted rates. i.e. Do you remain content with a current reasonable profit or risk it in the search of more.

The example of HS1 saw the premium pricing model extended and that has been running for several years now so I assume there is no great flaw there, and I expect the Government may see the appeal of a similar policy on HS2.

 

Now for the but

Uk roads are very congested with knock on effects for likelihood of incidents, delays to peoples journeys , slowness of freight transport, not helping the economy etc

The UK population is forecast to rise by 15% and economy to grow by at least a similar amount by 2030 Decentralisation from London has worked to an extent but much of that growth will be in already busy areas.

According to the UK Transport Statistics Nov 2017, rail represented 2% of all journeys and 8% by distance. This is all journeys. I have seen somewhere the mode split statistic for longer distance travel i.e. comparable to InterCity but I can't find it at the moment. My recollection was that it was c 13 to 14% Rail, with the vast majority of the rest (80+%) being by car. 

 

So my point is that HS2, and maybe some other bits of rail planning, is going to have to achieve something more . Even growth of rail usage at decent and commercially viable levels may not defuse congestion. The package of price, speed, connectivity etc for HS2 has got to be attractive enough to see  that 80+% figure significantly reduced if it is to make a meaningful contribution to overall transport efficiency. The classic routes freed up by HS2 also  form part of the equation presumably for the shorter distance journeys.

 

This in short , my plea is that having taken the wonderful step to invest in High Speed rail , the true bigger picture must be seen to get maximum benefit, and this relates to fare levels, capacity and getting access to the network.

As I posted earlier, the HS2 business case assumes fares roughly equivalent to current (in real terms).  A future government may decide to do something different but there's no indication of that at present. 

 

I agree that rail would have to increase its passenger numbers significantly to make a noticeable dent in the number of people using the road (especially as more people might start driving if the roads appeared less congested).  It is also pertinent that rail's passenger numbers today are closest to the highest ever - the massive growth in road travel since the 1950s is roughly equal to the total increase in travel over that period (and Beeching is barely noticeable in the overall travel by mode figures). 

 

However rail's share of city centre to city centre journeys is actually quite high, and one of the main reasons to drive is because one or both ends of the journey isn't easily accessible to a station.  Also many car journeys are local and therefore too short for the train to be a sensible option.  So if the objective is to provide an alternative to car travel then the emphasis needs to be on local transport, to capture more of those short journeys and also make stations more accessible for long-distance travel.  With a few exceptions Britain does this much less well than countries such as Germany or Switzerland.  It's worth noting however that making it easier to access the railway won't increase passenger numbers if it's already full. 

 

HS2 addresses that part of the problem but by no means all of it.  The justification for HS2 is mostly around providing better connectivity between communities to increase ecoomic prosperity.  Increasing anytime fares isn't compatible with that aim, but making seasons via HS2 more expensive to discourage use by commuters (with seasons at current prices only valid on the existing network) might be. 

 

HS2 will already affect the revenue of existing TOCs in ways that are not fully predictable.  This is probably part of the reason why HS2 operations will initially be under the same franchise as the fast WCML services, which will be the ones most affected. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

[Ron Ron Ron]

[Joseph_Pestell]

That part of Buckinghamshire is well-known for a rare species of nimbies.

[lmsforever]

You bet Ron  and they will keep pushing for the best that can be wrung out of HS2, its coming and we intend to make sure that our lives and homes are not disrupted by the building and running of this line ,if we had not complained we would be looking at a terrible future.

[lmsforever]

I still am of the opinion that this line when complete will only benifit people living in the conobations it actually stops or starts in, anyone else for instance living alongside the line will be faced with time consuming journeys to actually catch a train.The stopping of trains direct to the north on the WCML is going to cause many problems to regular passengers who have used these convenient trains and if there are any services I bet they will be slow and infrequent.At this time there are frequent services offering fast trains and easily reached by many thousands of people  without the need to travel into London or other cities.At this time I can reach Glasgow in four and half hours traveling via MK I dread to think of journey time via HS2 as even these trains will still have to confirm to the speed limits on the northern WCML.You can call me a nimby as often as you like I don't care but I feel that the ordinary services still need to carry on as HS2 will not be of use to many many people now come up with sensible replies to my questions.

[hayfield]

Being someone who was bought up a few hundred yards from the West Coast mainline, you get used to the noise of trains, I have used the intercity service 2 or 3 times in 60 years, but it is a national asset. The local/commuter lines I have used extensively, no one thinks these are blots on the landscape or unnecessary. The fact is that the railway, like main roads bought prosperity to the area

 

OK if the railway runs past the bottom of your garden or you are forced to move house, are both unwelcome and unsettling, but the same can be said about roads and airports. National infrastructure is for the benefit of all and must go ahead, but those adversely affected should be properly looked after

 

I live in a village which is affected during rush hours by traffic from elsewhere going elsewhere,, the road through the village is an A road, but it cannot be widened owing to local properties (many listed) close to it, A bypass is out of the question as we are surrounded by both common and National trust land, The road gets busier as neighbouring towns and villages keep building more houses and industrial sites, without any new road building to access the main road network. Many others in different towns and villages are in the same situation having to put up with increasing transport whether it being cars, trains or air traffic. Modern day life I am afraid 

[jamie92208]

I've just watched that video fly through of the route from Birmingham to London. It's excellent and I enjoyed it.   A few points emerge though.

 

1.  Just how rural the area between Ruislip and the NEC, very little population next to the line and an awful lot of greenery.

 

2.  How shallow a lot of the cutting sides are which means quite a lot of land take.  

 

3. How much of the southern end of the route is in tunnel.   There's not going to be a lot to see out of the window until you're north of the Chilterns.

 

All in all a good piece of work.   I presume they filmed the route from either a helicopter or a plane then digitally overlaid HS2 on it.  It's a bit disconcerting to see cars disappear under the digital greenery.

 

 

Jamie

[Bernard Lamb]

That part of Buckinghamshire is well-known for a rare species of nimbies.

 

That raises the tone of the debate.

Bernard

[Ron Ron Ron]

You bet Ron.....

It wasn't me.

Mistaken identity I think?

 

 

.

 

[phil-b259]

I still am of the opinion that this line when complete will only benifit people living in the conobations it actually stops or starts in, anyone else for instance living alongside the line will be faced with time consuming journeys to actually catch a train.The stopping of trains direct to the north on the WCML is going to cause many problems to regular passengers who have used these convenient trains and if there are any services I bet they will be slow and infrequent.At this time there are frequent services offering fast trains and easily reached by many thousands of people without the need to travel into London or other cities.At this time I can reach Glasgow in four and half hours traveling via MK I dread to think of journey time via HS2 as even these trains will still have to confirm to the speed limits on the northern WCML.You can call me a nimby as often as you like I don't care but I feel that the ordinary services still need to carry on as HS2 will not be of use to many many people now come up with sensible replies to my questions.

Of course 'ordinary services' will continue to be needed - but not having London - Birmingham via Coventry services have to fight it out with London - Liverpool trains on the Southern section of the WCML means that you can run more of them.

 

While growth in passenger numbers may have slowed / stopped recently for almost two decades in saw record growth with very little in the way of signifficant infrastructure expansion to cope with it.

 

At the end of the day the SOLE reason for building HS2 is to remove long distance express services from the WCML (and bits of the MML / ECML under phase 2) and thereby free up capacity on the classic network. People may have tried to claim otherwise at times (like politicans going on about speed / journey time reductions) but these are in fact only fringe benifits.

 

It is NOT being built specifically to:-

 

(I) Improve journey opportunities in the Chilterns

 

(I) Produce massive journey time reductions (though this is a useful side benefit from the decision to make it a true high speed railway similar LGV lines in France).

 

(Iii) Allow a reduction in service on the classic rail network (though there will obviously be significant changes to service patterns)

 

(I've) to exist outside the current national rail setup, including matters relating to fares and ticket types.

[PhilJ W]

On the news today, they have discovered a 54 million year old seashore at Ruislip. It was discovered by the test borings for HS2 about 35 metres below the surface. 54 million years ago southern and eastern England was covered by a tropical shallow sea and the shoreline ran roughly SW-NE. The deposit that was found is now named the Ruislip beds.

[locoholic]

Please remember that the whole POINT of HS2 is to remove LONG DISTANCE services from the current WCML - which do not currently make station calls south of Crewe if they can help it and NOT to create 'new' travel opportunities...

 

...The last thing we want to do is fill up HS2 trains with people wanting to get to Milton Keynes / Bicester / Oxford - coming from London there are plenty of other railways you can use to get there (one of which that will be able to have an enhanced service to Milton Keynes once it doesn't have to handle non stop express services to the North West)...

You are wrong for the following reasons:

 

By significantly reducing journey times, HS2 will automatically create "new travel opportunities", because travellers will perceive that journeys they previously thought too time-consuming will be possible via HS2. Perhaps you propose that every potential HS2 passenger should sign an affidavit confirming that they would have made their journey on the WCML, and they were not persuaded by the reduced journey time?!

 

HS1 has an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet. it seems to manage quite well, and passengers from Paris and Brussels are not forced to have commuters from Kent sitting on their laps for the final run into St Pancras.

 

You seem willing to cope with some kinds of "mission creep" that has afflicted HS2 already - nowadays it is all about capacity, whereas the initial design (the legacy of which is the inflated costs arising from the ultra-high line speed) was most definitely about giving the UK a 21st century high speed rail service. And yet adapting the plan to reflect the major urban growth in the Oxford/Cambridge corridor you find utterly unthinkable! As if one extra station will ruin the entire scheme! In decades to come the sight of high speed trains rushing through an area of major population growth will rightly be seen as ridiculous, and the failure to provide a HS2 station will have to be rectified. It is telling that you think there are two species of human living in the UK - people who live in cities served by HS2 are passengers, whereas everyone else are "locals", an inferior species not to be taken seriously, however many of them there are living near the new line.

[Trog]

You bet Ron  and they will keep pushing for the best that can be wrung out of HS2, its coming and we intend to make sure that our lives and homes are not disrupted by the building and running of this line ,if we had not complained we would be looking at a terrible future.

 

I lived for the first thirty years of my life within 100' of the south end of the WCML, and we hardly even noticed the trains were there, electric trains on CWR make very little noise.

[jjb1970]

You can do a lot to abate noise, screening can be pretty effective where routes are in proximity to housing.

[Ron Ron Ron]

On the news today, they have discovered a 54 million year old seashore at Ruislip..........

 

 

Pssst !

Someone better tell them it's not a pre-historic seashore.

It's the Ruislip Lido.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

You can do a lot to abate noise, screening can be pretty effective where routes are in proximity to housing.

 

HS2 have identified the reduction of environmental train noise, as a key design requirement.

 

Here is an earlier document (I believe they've progressed this much further since 2013)....

 

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consultation_library/pdf/P2C29_Noise.pdf

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

3. How much of the southern end of the route is in tunnel.   There's not going to be a lot to see out of the window until you're north of the Chilterns.

On the whole western arm, I think they say 12% in tunnels and 37% in cuttings (much of which will be for noise shielding).

That's 49% (half) the journey with no view.

 

Funnily enough, some conceptual/speculative artist's graphics show train windows being dispensed with and replaced with wall mounted information and video displays.

 

 

[jamie92208]

Pssst !

Someone better tell them it's not a pre-historic seashore.

It's the Ruislip Lido.

 

 

.

So Leslie Thomas got it right when he wrote "Tropic of Ruislip."

 

Jamie

[phil-b259]

You are wrong for the following reasons:

 

By significantly reducing journey times, HS2 will automatically create "new travel opportunities", because travellers will perceive that journeys they previously thought too time-consuming will be possible via HS2. Perhaps you propose that every potential HS2 passenger should sign an affidavit confirming that they would have made their journey on the WCML, and they were not persuaded by the reduced journey time?!

 

HS1 has an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet. it seems to manage quite well, and passengers from Paris and Brussels are not forced to have commuters from Kent sitting on their laps for the final run into St Pancras.

 

You seem willing to cope with some kinds of "mission creep" that has afflicted HS2 already - nowadays it is all about capacity, whereas the initial design (the legacy of which is the inflated costs arising from the ultra-high line speed) was most definitely about giving the UK a 21st century high speed rail service. And yet adapting the plan to reflect the major urban growth in the Oxford/Cambridge corridor you find utterly unthinkable! As if one extra station will ruin the entire scheme! In decades to come the sight of high speed trains rushing through an area of major population growth will rightly be seen as ridiculous, and the failure to provide a HS2 station will have to be rectified. It is telling that you think there are two species of human living in the UK - people who live in cities served by HS2 are passengers, whereas everyone else are "locals", an inferior species not to be taken seriously, however many of them there are living near the new line.

 

There is a big difference between deliberately seeking to make new journey opportunities and new opportunities being created as an accident of construction.

 

Naturally if HS2 trains make it quicker to reach the Northwest from London (and vi-s-versa of course) then it is likely that it will attract new users who would previously have declined to travel. Similarly when the leg through the Eat Midlands and on to Yorkshire is built, the much improved journey time may attract new business which previously considered the Cross Country service on that axis too slow. However in neither case is HS2 'adding connectivity' that does not already exist.

 

By contrast the HS2 station at Old Oak common does add connectivity by virtue of facilitating easy access to Heathrow, the Thames Valley and North / West / South London via TfLs Overground routes. While it therefore is not technically required as part of HS2s brief of relieving the WCML, the benefits of connecting to London's main airport and providing a backup terminal should Euston ever be shut means its inclusion is justified.

 

Finally comparisons with HS1 are not particularly useful given its short length (in high speed line terms).

 

The first thing to remember is due to the UKs restrictive border policy (and the tabloid hysteria over illegal migrants), plus the need to screen passengers luggage, DOMESTIC PASSENGERS ARE STRUICTLY PROHIBITED FROM USING INTERNATIONAL SERVICES - unlike France or Belgium where it is perfectly acceptable for domestic and international passengers to mix it as far as Lille.

 

As such there has never been any need to worry about short distance passengers cloging up long distance services on HS1.

 

As for the line itself, the brutal truth is that HS1 was built for Eurostar services - which ideally don't want to stop anywhere between London & the tunnel. Domestic services, and Ebsfleet station were needed as 3 Eurostar trains an hour on a line that could handle something like 18tph represented very poor asset utilisation. This will not be the case on HS2 - virtually all paths will be taken up by services with their origin / destination beyond Birmingham - (just like all Eurostar trains have their origin / destination beyond Kent), and like the current WCML services to such places which avoid stopping at WCML stations south of Rugby if they can help it.

 

Of course once Domestic services on HS1 were finalised and Ebsfleet station plans were drawn up, Eurostar saw an opportunity to try and capture some additional traffic in the form of folk who weren't willing to drive down to Ashford, but who would be prepared to drive to Ebsfleet so it arranged for the necessary immigration and security facilities to be built.

 

Also Ebsfleet station itself does little towards 'improving connectivity' - Interchange with the North Kent Lines is rubbish and getting there by car involves battling the congested M25. Its main reason for existing is the vast amount of new housing planned for the area - which is not a problem for the sole long distance user (Eurostar) as domestic travellers cannot use its services. Much like many modern road by-passes in fact......

[Mike Storey]

You are wrong for the following reasons:

 

By significantly reducing journey times, HS2 will automatically create "new travel opportunities", because travellers will perceive that journeys they previously thought too time-consuming will be possible via HS2. Perhaps you propose that every potential HS2 passenger should sign an affidavit confirming that they would have made their journey on the WCML, and they were not persuaded by the reduced journey time?!

 

HS1 has an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet. it seems to manage quite well, and passengers from Paris and Brussels are not forced to have commuters from Kent sitting on their laps for the final run into St Pancras.

 

You seem willing to cope with some kinds of "mission creep" that has afflicted HS2 already - nowadays it is all about capacity, whereas the initial design (the legacy of which is the inflated costs arising from the ultra-high line speed) was most definitely about giving the UK a 21st century high speed rail service. And yet adapting the plan to reflect the major urban growth in the Oxford/Cambridge corridor you find utterly unthinkable! As if one extra station will ruin the entire scheme! In decades to come the sight of high speed trains rushing through an area of major population growth will rightly be seen as ridiculous, and the failure to provide a HS2 station will have to be rectified. It is telling that you think there are two species of human living in the UK - people who live in cities served by HS2 are passengers, whereas everyone else are "locals", an inferior species not to be taken seriously, however many of them there are living near the new line.

 

I guess you are referring to the Steeple Claydon proposal, which has been around about as long as the HS2 route 3 was finalised.

 

You are completely wrong about a Home Counties station not having been considered at great length. Milton Keynes, Bicester and Aylesbury were all considered for inclusion when alternate routes through/near their locations were being considered. But the demand modelling for none of them justified the loss of at least one path per hour in each direction, which just an hourly service for any of them would have required, The demand profile accepted that a greater than hourly service would be needed in the morning and evening peaks, for the service to have any attraction, which would have lost further paths to other services (due to the need to slow down to, at the most, 225kph, from the line speed of 350kph, at the turnouts to the loops) in those periods. If you do not understand this, it is explained much earlier in this thread.

 

In the event, the routes via those locations would have been much more disruptive, to existing residents and businesses, rather than the final route chosen.

 

The argument that the average speed for all trains should be slowed to 225 kph, to allow both the increased capacity and the addition of more stations, was rejected several years ago, by the Select Committee, and endorsed by Parliament. Such a solution would have not significantly reduced construction costs, but would have required up to an additional 7-9 train sets and crews and maintenance facilities etc. However, the 225 solution would, in demand modelling, have produced insufficient demand to come anywhere close to filling these extra trains.

 

The local MP has, yet again, raised the subject of Steeple Claydon, asking for the government to look at it again, in view of the recent housing development announcement. The announcement incidentally, identifies five, new "garden cities", but only two will be approved to go ahead in the near future. The definition of "city" is escaping me here - none of the developments are greater than 31,000 units, and only one is anywhere near Steeple Claydon. If the existing conurbations, of several hundred thousand people each (and in one case already connected to Oxford by rail), could not create sufficient reason to include a local station, due to the offsets explained above, and in far more detail in the HS2 Ltd reports on consultations held on the alternative routings, then it is unclear how E-W rail figures will significantly improve upon them.

 

You should note that the said MP has not even managed to convince anyone to include a new, local station in his constituency on the East-West Line, let alone on HS2, despite the announcements of his own minister. There is not even the promise of Section 106 money to make passive provision, although this option is being explored in consultation with the local UDC.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Mike Storey

[locoholic]

..

The argument that the average speed for all trains should be slowed to 225 kph, to allow both the increased capacity and the addition of more stations, was rejected several years ago, by the Select Committee, and endorsed by Parliament. Such a solution would have not significantly reduced construction costs, but would have required up to an additional 7-9 train sets and crews and maintenance facilities etc. However, the 225 solution would, in demand modelling, have produced insufficient demand to come anywhere close to filling these extra trains.

 

Your statement above is very interesting, as it shows the current muddle about HS2. HS2 is now all about boosting capacity to relieve the WCML, but the high line speed of HS2 REDUCES line capacity. And yet, potential extra capacity is deemed to be a bad thing because we couldn't afford the extra trains to make use of it, and there's not enough demand at the moment. But we can't build an extra station in an area earmarked for development, because it would affect the line capacity and increase demand for rail travel in that area. This must be a special kind of "future proofing" that I'm not qualified to understand, but which the UK seems to specialise in.

 

I'm afraid I'm not too impressed by any scheme that has been endorsed after parliamentary scrutiny. Their track record (see what I did there?!) is pretty appalling.

 

Thanks for the info about the consideration of the Steeple Claydon station on HS2, by the way.

[The Stationmaster]

But the MP is right on one respect as the latest Govt proposal talks of a 'linear city' between Oxford and Cambridge with developments at a number of centres these being linked by a resurrected/part newly created rail route - which will pass beneath HS2 at Claydon.  The argument that an intermediate stop will steal a path is not exactly true as it depends on how a timetable is constructed and the length of the loops and turnout speeds used to serve the platforms at an intermediate station as well as the usual line speed, headway,  and train length factors.  In other words it is feasible to serve a correctly designed intermediate station and at a cost of only one part path per hour per train calling at it.  Depending on how recovery time might be included it could actually result in a cost of no paths at all (and I can't see them building a timetable without recovery time).

 

In any case the limiting element on HS2 capacity will be number of platforms and arrangements at Euston plus the amount of turnround time required for a train (which in turn might also have a timetable impact of recovery and pathing allowances).  Thus if the Euston layout doesn't allow full use to be made of theoretical line capacity (in the same way that St Pancras platform capacity and train turnround times prevent HS1 reaching its theoretical capacity for international trains) there might be no actual cost in terms of trains per hour if a properly designed intermediate station were to be provided towards the southern end of HS2.

 

But in the end it boils down as much to will (to do something) as anything else.

[The Stationmaster]

Your statement above is very interesting, as it shows the current muddle about HS2. HS2 is now all about boosting capacity to relieve the WCML, but the high line speed of HS2 REDUCES line capacity. And yet, potential extra capacity is deemed to be a bad thing because we couldn't afford the extra trains to make use of it, and there's not enough demand at the moment. But we can't build an extra station in an area earmarked for development, because it would affect the line capacity and increase demand for rail travel in that area. This must be a special kind of "future proofing" that I'm not qualified to understand, but which the UK seems to specialise in.

 

I'm afraid I'm not too impressed by any scheme that has been endorsed after parliamentary scrutiny. Their track record (see what I did there?!) is pretty appalling.

 

Thanks for the info about the consideration of the Steeple Claydon station on HS2, by the way.

HS 2 has always been about providing capacity to relieve the 'capacity crunch' which is fast emerging on the WCML.  It was never about building a high speed line as such although it made obvious sense in building a new line to build it for (very) high speed running.  What went wrong was that some idiot PR man or woman plus an equally idiotic politician or ten started promoting the wrong element of the line and blathered on about high speed rather than talking sensiblv about the capacity that was essential to relieve the WCML.  And regrettably the project has been saddled with that nonsense ever since and far too many people have been taken in by it.

[Kelly]

HS 2 has always been about providing capacity to relieve the 'capacity crunch' which is fast emerging on the WCML.  It was never about building a high speed line as such although it made obvious sense in building a new line to build it for (very) high speed running.  What went wrong was that some idiot PR man or woman plus an equally idiotic politician or ten started promoting the wrong element of the line and blathered on about high speed rather than talking sensiblv about the capacity that was essential to relieve the WCML.  And regrettably the project has been saddled with that nonsense ever since and far too many people have been taken in by it.

 

Once later phases are complete and a run can be made on the HS2 network from Euston to Glasgow (or wherever it eventually ends) speed will become a bonus feature, especially if non-stop Euston-Glasgow services were considered. It makes little sense to hamper future growth by limiting the line speed, so you might as well allow for it to go much faster than the WCML ever could hope of (without a lot of signalling reworking, 125mph will be the maximum for that line, even though pendolinos could do 140) at initially 186mph (?), and it doesn't need to be limited to the UK loading gauge once all phases are complete. 

 

One option I guess could be to build secondary lines that link to the HS2 hubs by slower connections to join HS2, that is as good as it'll get in that respect.