HS2 under review

[APOLLO]

They (HST & Peak +10 etc) fitted into Birmingham New Street OK till fairly recently (HST) - it's still a large through station, so what is different now physical infrastructure wise ?. Both long Pendolinos and Voyagers (some are double units) run Birmingham to Glasgow / Edinburgh.

 

If we are stuck with 4 car voyagers etc then run a more frequent service. When I did my epic bash (above) back in 1970 there was no shortage of trains between Sheffield & Derby, hop off one service and on to another even back then. Very frequent trains (long ones too) on this route back then - as indeed it is now with short 'uns.

 

In my mind HS2 IS NEEDED, along with many other line / train upgrades, some of which are already happening. In my life i have never seen as much rail spending as recently - train services from my home town of Wigan have never been better than today. For me it's just the fares are so high for so many.

 

As to politicians (all of them), my thoughts are unprintable on this board. "Hey folks - we're buying Greenland - because it's green and I can build a golf course there" - at least this guy is funny !!!!!!

 

Brit15

[Dunsignalling]

21 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Cynically - Because the UK doesn't really do long-term planning.

Probably more realistically - Because it would have increased the cost with no immediate benefit. 

 

 

I've been to Reading, why DO people want to go there?

So, having decided not to address the situation in the Reading rebuild, because the same applies at New Street, when the next changes at New Street are planned, because it wasn't, nothing will be done there either.

 

(I so agree about the "charms" of Reading, though, the station is far and away the best bit).

 

John

Edited August 22, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[Ian Hargrave]

XC 220/221 do in fact run in multiple via New Street on certain workings.

[phil-b259]

16 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Given that Reading has recently undergone "massive demolition and rebuilding", why hasn't that been addressed? Was it just "there's no point because it's the same at New Street"? If so, that seems very short-sighted.

 

 

Because the actual amount of land used for the station was not increased - yes Reading got more through platforms, but that was at the expense of the freight avoiding lies, the through road between 4 &5, plus a couple of bays either end used by terminating trains.

 

As a result the station capacity taken overall hasn't actually increased - its just the mix of trains it can handle has altered. We also have the situation where London trains that were previously 6 car Turbos (and thus could platform share with another Turbo or XC service at the West end have gone over to 8 car EMUs - which in turn will be replaced by even longer Crossrail trains. As such GWR are having to look closely at running more through services so a to not block up the platforms.

 

To allow for long XC trains at Reading you realistically need another 2 full length platforms - which means compulsory purchasing land in the heart of Reading and a fair bit of demolition. Whether this was looked at I don't know - but you should note that at the time the designs for he new Reading station were being made, Crossrail was only going to  as far as Maidenhead and thus more suburban services could platform share.

 

As ever in a world where BCR is king providing speculative infrastructure doesn't score well and Government mandated efficiency drives would have deleted any 'extra provision given the CPO costs, etc

 

The biggest improvements to come out of the Reading rebuilding was grade separation of several key junctions just to the west of the station which removed conflicts and made pathing easier. This has resulted in big performance gains and some capacity improvements with respect to junction moves, but not much of an impact on station capacity.

[Joseph_Pestell]

15 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Given that Reading has recently undergone "massive demolition and rebuilding", why hasn't that been addressed? Was it just "there's no point because it's the same at New Street"? If so, that seems very short-sighted.

 

I'd be more supportive of and/or less cynical about HS2 if one of the benefits (to Cross Country at New Street in particular) were to be (at least some of) the London trains becoming 5-car to free up longer platforms for longer trains serving those of us who want to go other places.

 

Unfortunately, we all know that, whether HS2 is built or not, demand on services within commuting distance of London [1] never decreases and [2] takes precedence over everything else.

 

As things stand, going north from the West Country means changing into a (often already stuffed) Pendolino at Birmingham. The only up-side is the chance of a XC HST coming back. BR's former NE-SW "Heartline" loco-hauled and HST services, lower frequency notwithstanding, were far more civilised.

 

In every other respect, even the M6 is beginning to seem less of a nightmare than it did, despite the likelihood that the extra "smart motorway" capacity will be taken up before it even comes on-stream!

 

I'm lucky, in that my ex-BR travel facilities make it affordable to travel via London onto ECML and avoid the hassle. but that makes me part of the problem, not part of the solution, and I'd far rather not need to do so.

 

John

 

I think it was at Reading with XC services no longer just using bay platforms. For my part, I think it might be better to stop XC services at Reading West and Didcot, avoiding the reversal altogether.

 

I was not in favour of the new Curzon St terminus as part of HS2. A through station at/near Birmingham International seems far more useful whereas running Birmingham Curzon St to London  trains uses up valuable capacity on the new line.

 

I think that the big thing that should come out of this review is whether there are some sensible cost savings to be made. The main one would seem to be Euston - although a lot has already been spent there on land acquisition. How many passengers are going to continue through to Euston when they can get off at OOC and get Crossrail into Central London, Canary Wharf, etc.?

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Ian Hargrave said:

XC 220/221 do in fact run in multiple via New Street on certain workings.

 

They do - but I understand that these are all workings that go to / from Bristol and thus avoid the use of short platforms at Reading.

[Dunsignalling]

17 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Because the actual amount of land used for the station was not increased - yes Reading got more through platforms, but that was at the expense of the freight avoiding lies, the through road between 4 &5, plus a couple of bays either end used by terminating trains.

 

As a result the station capacity taken overall hasn't actually increased - its just the mix of trains it can handle has altered. We also have the situation where London trains that were previously 6 car Turbos (and thus could platform share with another Turbo or XC service at the West end have gone over to 8 car EMUs - which in turn will be replaced by even longer Crossrail trains. As such GWR are having to look closely at running more through services so a to not block up the platforms.

 

To allow for long XC trains at Reading you realistically need another 2 full length platforms - which means compulsory purchasing land in the heart of Reading and a fair bit of demolition. Whether this was looked at I don't know - but you should note that at the time the designs for he new Reading station were being made, Crossrail was only going to  as far as Maidenhead and thus more suburban services could platform share.

 

As ever in a world where BCR is king providing speculative infrastructure doesn't score well and Government mandated efficiency drives would have deleted any 'extra provision given the CPO costs, etc

 

The biggest improvements to come out of the Reading rebuilding was grade separation of several key junctions just to the west of the station which removed conflicts and made pathing easier. This has resulted in big performance gains and some capacity improvements with respect to junction moves, but not much of an impact on station capacity.

Why not double-deck Reading station? Crossrail could go underneath.

 

Or, perchance, extend the Crossrail Trains to Newbury to prevent them clogging up Reading?

 

Oh, Hang it, send everything to Bristol, there's loads of nice long platforms at Temple Meads!

 

John

Edited August 22, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I think it was at Reading with XC services no longer just using bay platforms. For my part, I think it might be better to stop XC services at Reading West and Didcot, avoiding the reversal altogether.

 

 

Reading is a key economic centre and generates lots of journeys, plus it offers excellent interchange opportunities to other services. Reading West is not served by anything other than local services - plus stopping there will probably have a detriment effect on services to / from South West England. Stops at Didcot may be slightly easier to arrange from a pathing point of view but passengers won't appreciate having to change there for Reading (particularly if they then have to change again at Reading to get elsewhere.

 

As ever with the railways, small changes in one place can ripple right through the network - and what may be operationally optimal doesn't always square neatly with what passengers demand.

 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

Perchance, extending the Crossrail Trains to Newbury would stop them clogging up Reading?

 

 

But the you get into governance issues - Crossrail is run by TfL which is controlled by the London Mayor and the GLA...Users in Berkshire and Wiltshire have zero ability to influence anything.

 

Crossrail trains will also feature tube style longitudinal seating and no toilets - they have not been called 'overgrown tube trains for nothing! As the Stationmaster of this parish has said many times such 'metro trains are totally unsuited to middle / long distance / rural services - but because Crossrail is run by Londoners for londoners, nobody at TfL cares.

 

Crossrail trains are also long beasts (like the Thameslink 700s) they are fixed formation units while platforms on the Newbury line are generally geared around 8 x 20m trains at the most - so you need lots of extra infrastructure work to accommodate them.

[Dunsignalling]

12 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But the you get into governance issues - Crossrail is run by TfL which is controlled by the London Mayor and the GLA...Users in Berkshire and Wiltshire have zero ability to influence anything.

 

 

Isn't Reading in Berkshire...….

 

Anything that extends outside the area controlled by the London authorities should surely require democratic input from whoever's patch it passes through/ends up in.

 

John

Edited August 22, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Why not double-deck Reading station?

 

 

Because, having just undergone a big rebuild which did make lots of improvements to station capacity in terms of the number of people it can cope with, a further rebuild comes out with a very poor BCR ratio and HM Government would not consider it value for money.

 

Again, if you are planning big infrastructure works then the most economic time to do them is when lots of things need renewing / altering and you can role them all into one big project -minimising inconvenience to the public and gaining efficiencies of scale.

 

The time to double deck Reading would have been during the recent works - although as the station is already on an embankment and occupies quite a prominent position with respect to its surroundings adding another layer on top might well have been rejected as too intrusive - widening the railway footprint to build further platforms would have been more acceptable

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Isn't Reading in Berkshire...….

 

Well Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough are certainly not London boroughs - so the point still stands.

[Ian Hargrave]

16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

They do - but I understand that these are all workings that go to / from Bristol and thus avoid the use of short platforms at Reading.

   

So they would be hourly Newcastle services and Manchester-Southampton/ Bournemouth ?  

 

With regard to XC West Country services,is there in fact a platform length limitation on the number of coaches that could be used ?

[phil-b259]

40 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

They (HST & Peak +10 etc) fitted into Birmingham New Street OK till fairly recently (HST) - it's still a large through station, so what is different now physical infrastructure wise ?. Both long Pendolinos and Voyagers (some are double units) run Birmingham to Glasgow / Edinburgh.

 

If we are stuck with 4 car voyagers etc then run a more frequent service. When I did my epic bash (above) back in 1970 there was no shortage of trains between Sheffield & Derby, hop off one service and on to another even back then. Very frequent trains (long ones too) on this route back then - as indeed it is now with short 'uns.
 

 

The problem is platform sharing.

 

New Street can only accommodate the number of trains it does because the shorter ones share platforms thus leaving some available for full length trains.

 

Running more trains is only possible if you can platform them - and as has been indicate New Street (and other hubs) simply don't have enough of them. Thats why HS2 has been forced to build new stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds while also almost doubling the size of Euston

[Joseph_Pestell]

20 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Reading is a key economic centre and generates lots of journeys, plus it offers excellent interchange opportunities to other services. Reading West is not served by anything other than local services - plus stopping there will probably have a detriment effect on services to / from South West England. Stops at Didcot may be slightly easier to arrange from a pathing point of view but passengers won't appreciate having to change there for Reading (particularly if they then have to change again at Reading to get elsewhere.

 

As ever with the railways, small changes in one place can ripple right through the network - and what may be operationally optimal doesn't always square neatly with what passengers demand.

 

 

I used to live in Newbury and be a board member of Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce. So I know the Reading economy rather well.

 

Much of it is now based down in Green Park (by the M4 and the football stadium), which is more easily accessible from West than from General. That said, Green Park was promised it's own station years ago and track/timetabling did not sem to be a problem.

[phil-b259]

12 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

   

So they would be hourly Newcastle services and Manchester-Southampton/ Bournemouth ?  

 

With regard to XC West Country services,is there in fact a platform length limitation on the number of coaches that could be used ?

 

Services to Bournemouth, etc go via Reading - so will have restrictions on length. Yes it may be possible to timetable some of the trains to use the through platforms at Reading and allow the use of double Voyagers - but a large number of services on the 'via Reading' axis need to use the 5 car long bay platform at Reading.

 

As far as I am aware there are no similar significant restrictions on services via Bristol to the likes of Plymouth, etc - but the potential need to platform share at Birmingham New Street may be a factor on some of these services.

Edited August 22, 2019 by phil-b259

[Joseph_Pestell]

14 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Isn't Reading in Berkshire...….

 

Anything that extends outside the area controlled by the London authorities should surely require democratic input from whoever's patch it passes through/ends up in.

 

John

 

Berkshire has not existed for many years. First the 1972 LGA removed a lot of it, nice bits like Wantage and Uffington, into Oxfordshire. In compensation (???), Berkshire got Slough from Buckinghamshire.

 

But then, around 2000(?), it was transformed into 6 unitaries. Don't know who drew the map but it has caused problems ever since, especially in the Reading conurbation which is split between three unitaries.

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

That said, Green Park was promised it's own station years ago and track/timetabling did not sem to be a problem.

 

Thats probably because a station at Green park would be on the Reading to Basingstoke line and have zero effect on London - West Country services which branch off just south of reading West.

 

As I said above, while the new grade separated junctions at Reading will have made pathing trains through the Reading area as a whole easier - but they do not in themselves increase platform capacity at Reading General

[caradoc]

52 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

They (HST & Peak +10 etc) fitted into Birmingham New Street OK till fairly recently (HST) - it's still a large through station, so what is different now physical infrastructure wise ?. Both long Pendolinos and Voyagers (some are double units) run Birmingham to Glasgow / Edinburgh.

 

If we are stuck with 4 car voyagers etc then run a more frequent service. When I did my epic bash (above) back in 1970 there was no shortage of trains between Sheffield & Derby, hop off one service and on to another even back then. Very frequent trains (long ones too) on this route back then - as indeed it is now with short 'uns.

 

In my mind HS2 IS NEEDED, along with many other line / train upgrades, some of which are already happening. In my life i have never seen as much rail spending as recently - train services from my home town of Wigan have never been better than today. For me it's just the fares are so high for so many.

 

As to politicians (all of them), my thoughts are unprintable on this board. "Hey folks - we're buying Greenland - because it's green and I can build a golf course there" - at least this guy is funny !!!!!!

 

Brit15

 

What is different nowadays is the frequency of service on many routes. From New St, there are 2 trains per hour to; Bristol, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Reading; There are 3 trains per hour to Euston (fast), Shrewsbury; There are 6 (six) trains per hour towards the Lichfield and Redditch/Bromsgrove routes. Plus other services I have not mentioned. The station has only had one additional platform (4A) provided since the 1960s rebuild, yet the level of service bears no comparison to then.

 

[DLT]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Those 'glorified branch line formations' are THE ONLY THINGS THAT WILL FIT INTO BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET AND READING! (and there are no doubt other examples on the rail network)

 

As has been explained MANY, MANY times, the constraint on longer Cross Country services is the need to platform share / use short bay platforms at key hubs. 5 car Voyagers are he longest that can be accommodated at many places without massively expensive urban demolition + rebuilding to make stations bigger.

 

Longer trains therefore means either not servicing places people want to go (e.g. by-passing Reading), or less trains overall so there are no platform conflicts - and neither is likely to be an acceptable solution to the travelling at large.

 

Please tell us your preference.....

 

Seeing as the Cross Country services to and from the South West were always 8 coach HSTs, their replacement with 4/5 coach Voyagers was generally seen as a very backward step. 

Now that the HSTs have been replaced on the Paddington route, some of them are back on the Cross Country.

[DLT]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The only thing which the 'anti HS2' brigade can legitimately question is the actually specification - and I for one would have a lot more time for hem if instead of going round saying it shouldn't be built at all, critics were instead campaigning for it to be built as a 125mph 'conventional railway as at least that would show they have pulled their heads out of the sand and are willing to be rational.

 

Quite so.  I don't have any argument with the need for new long distance main lines, but I don't believe that in this small country anyone needs to travel at 250 mph.  A more "conventional" main line connected to the network would make the whole system more versatile, and the ability to curve it a bit more gives far less damaging impact.  And hopefully, the ability to NOT bulldoze through brand-new housing estates.

250 mph makes an impressive sounding headline, and gave the whole thing the appearance of a Government vanity project, rather than a serious transport infrastructure project.  250 also happens to be double the previous 125 of the HSTs; more vanity!

Bill Bryson said in his recent book, You will get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier.  What do you say if you are 20 minutes early?  "Great, lets go and have a coffee!"

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, DLT said:

 

Seeing as the Cross Country services to and from the South West were always 8 coach HSTs, their replacement with 4/5 coach Voyagers was generally seen as a very backward step. 

Now that the HSTs have been replaced on the Paddington route, some of them are back on the Cross Country.

 

However the Voyagers bought about a big increase in frequency - which was welcomed by travellers and boasted ridership.

 

Research shows that more people will use train travel if they have flexibility in when they can travel - which is why the likes of TfL state that 4 trains per hour is the absolute minimum before a service can be considered a 'turn up and go' one with 6tph or 12tph being the ideal.

 

Its not just in urban areas that this happens -putting back a passing loop on the Falmouth branch caused ridership to double - people felt far happier using trains when there was an hourly service.

 

The truth is if you went back to the BR model of only a handful of trains, then you would probably be able to ensure there would not need to platform share at Birmingham New Street  (though the times at which they ran might not be particularly user friendly).

 

Yes you could avoid BNS completely - but that means removing / inconveniencing a large chunk of your users and might not translate into a well used service as a result.

 

like I said the national railway network is far more interwoven than it seems to the casual observer and while its perfectly possible to devise solutions, lots of them simply create more problems elsewhere.

 

Its a unfortunate accident of history that 50 odd years of decline (where British Rail was instructed to rationalise / perform a 'managed decline in UK railway services / infrastructure provision) has left the current network unable to cope properly with the resurgence in rail use over the past two decades.

 

As such while the rebuilding of reading bought about lots of benefits, it has subsequently bough more problems (e.g. there was no way Crossrail could be accommodated in the old layout, but now that it can it reduces the number of platforms available for turning trains from the west).

 

HS2 is designed to try and avoid these sorts of problems by being as future proofed as possible - even if the features seem a bit odd in the context of phase 1 (London to Birmingham). features like the ability to have double deck trains, no intermediate stations in the Chilterns and a high speed are all attempts to avoid problems (i.e. paths for trains from Leeds not available because of Birmingham trains making calls at an 'Aylesbury Parkway' station for instance.

Edited August 22, 2019 by phil-b259

[Phil Parker]

27 minutes ago, DLT said:

I don't have any argument with the need for new long distance main lines, but I don't believe that in this small country anyone needs to travel at 250 mph. 

 

I think those on aeroplanes might beg to differ.

[phil-b259]

21 minutes ago, DLT said:

 

Quite so.  I don't have any argument with the need for new long distance main lines, but I don't believe that in this small country anyone needs to travel at 250 mph.  A more "conventional" main line connected to the network would make the whole system more versatile, and the ability to curve it a bit more gives far less damaging impact.  And hopefully, the ability to NOT bulldoze through brand-new housing estates.

250 mph makes an impressive sounding headline, and gave the whole thing the appearance of a Government vanity project, rather than a serious transport infrastructure project.  250 also happens to be double the previous 125 of the HSTs; more vanity!

Bill Bryson said in his recent book, You will get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier.  What do you say if you are 20 minutes early?  "Great, lets go and have a coffee!"

 

Firstly can we drop this obsession with Birmingham (regardless what Bill Bryson, et says). HS2 is NOT DESIGNED TO HELP LONDON TO BIRMINGHAM TRAFFIC - Birmingham merely represents a useful target to aim for in the first stage.

 

HS2 is designed to remove trains between London and Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Scotland from the WCML via the connection near Litchfield - NOT trains between London and Birmingham (which will stay to serve the likes of coventry, Woverhapton, etc. Later phases will extract long distance trains to Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle from the MML and ECML thus freeing up paths on those routes.

 

SNCF - the world leaders when it comes to experience (along with the Japanese) of high speed operation seem quite happy with 186mph as a suitable compromise between speed and efficiency - including aerodynamic issues, although the fist TGV line was only built for 150mph (ish) operation (as was the first Japanese one).  HS1 was initially designed as a 140mph railway - but in fact the route alignment was straight enough for 186mph to be used in the open air sections through Kent (except for around Ashford) - the only reason the SE Javelin trains are limited to 140mph is due to the need for fast acceleration away from station calls while trundling round the DC network in Kent as all station stoppers.

 

Given HS2 is designed for express passenger services (hint - a Pendalino has worse acceleration than a Desiro EMU but a higher top speed for the same reasons as the Eurostars and Javelins top speeds vary on HS1), then 186mph is a perfectly sensible speed to aim at - and as HS1 demonstrates the actual alignment is not going to change that much from a 140mph one (and proably a 125mph one). As with HS1 going for 186mp is likely to mean that 200mph will be possible in many places too providing opportunities to recover from timetable disruption.

 

It should also be noted that most high speed lines have through operation onto the conventional network - the exceptions being where the conventional network is a different gauge as in Japan or Spain - though the latter has actively developed solutions including equipping parts of the conventional network with dual gauge track and investing in trains with movable wheels. HS2 follows this trend and will be ale to suck up trains from off the network like Liverpool Preson (and Manchester under phase1) for the run to London just as Javelins from Kent join HS1 at Ashford or TGVs from Nice join the TGV network at Marseilles.

 

The main reason for the construction of HS2 specific stations in the likes of Birmingham and Manchester is that the current stations (and approaches) in said cities do not have the capacity too cope with the extra trains HS2 will deliver - in contrast to Paris say where the likes of Gare DuNord (and its approaches) had plenty of spare capacity to absorb the increase in trains generated by the LGV Nord. This applies regardless of whether HS2 was built as a conventional 125mph line or a high speed one!

 

If Euston, Birmingham NS, etc weren't so small then it would be possible to save money and do what the French do and use the curnt infrastructure..... but they aren't big enough so we can't.

 

It then follows if you are going t have to build new stations and approaches, you might as well make them suitable for long trains (again take a look at the ability to the French to lengthen the platforms at existing stations to cope with double length TGV sets compared to the space restricted stations on the current WCML) as well as all bridges etc suitable for double deck ones.

 

The ultimate problem the UK faces is like all 'early adopter's of new technology - things get left out or done wrongly because the shortcomings of the new are not fully understood. As a pioneer of railways, our conventional network is hamstrung by tight curves, cramped stations, low bridges, tracks too close together to allow for maintenance works to take place without blocking adjacent lines, etc. While we accept that it would be prohibitively expensive to fix all these problems, its madness to design them into a new build.

 

[Dunsignalling]

50 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I think those on aeroplanes might beg to differ.

True, but unless the distance is great enough, all the faffing about in airports at either end rather dissipates any advantage absolute speed confers, quite aside from the time it takes to get between the airports and ones starting point/eventual destination. One reason why internal air services within mainland Europe are struggling to compete with high-speed rail.

 

However, In rail terms, the more one increases speed, the greater has to be the distance between stops in order to exploit it efficiently. Much easier in larger, fairly sparsely inhabited France than in the UK, where major conurbations are relatively close together. 

 

John

Edited August 22, 2019 by Dunsignalling