HS2

[GoingUnderground]

44 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

Surely you mean the Jubilee Line?

To be pedantic, it was going to be called the Fleet line when the original route via Aldwych and Ludgate Circus was under consideration.

[melmerby]

53 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

the secondary route via West Ruislip which was closed under Beeching as it duplicated the Euston-Birmingham route.

 

IIRC Trains from Birmingham still ran to Paddington via West Ruslip ? (or was it Didcot?) until 2003, that's long after Beeching.

Certainly the route to Padd. didn't close due to Beeching, limited services ran for a long time after.

Edited November 1, 2022 by melmerby

[jamie92208]

25 minutes ago, melmerby said:

IIRC Trains from Birmingham still ran to Paddington via West Ruslip ? (or was it Didcot?) until 2003, that's long after Beeching.

Certainly the route to Padd. didn't close due to Beeching, limited services ran for a long time after.

It ran until relatively  recently but was only one train a day to retain drivers route knowledge  and to save going through clisure procedures. IIRC it finished when HS2 got going as part of the route is a work site.

 

Jamie

[rockershovel]

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Surely you mean the Jubilee Line?

Correct... mea culpa

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

Did I say that the sole reason for HS2 was speed? No, I didn't.

 

My point is that it's not worth building HS2 as a high speed line if it's only going as far as the West Midlands. I other words by all means build it to increase the capacity along the WCML corridor, but at conventional speeds as were used on parts of its route when that was used by the Paddington-Birmingham and GCR London-Rugby services. I never talked about the GWML, only the secondary route via West Ruislip which was closed under Beeching as it duplicated the Euston-Birmingham route.

 

And my comment about the state of services on the WCML was made to highlight the irony that whilst HS2 is primarily about capacity rather than speed, the actions of some TOCs have resulted in the existing track capacity becoming underused because of cancellations.

 

I am all in favour of HS2, just not the cut-down version that we're in all probability going to get.

It's a bit of a misconception that HS2 is expensive because it is built for 225/250mph.  A new line built for 125mph would be as straight as possible; Pendolinos only have tilt as a bodge to compensate for the fact they have to operate on a curvaceous Victorian railway.  No-one would build a new high speed railway that actually needs tilting trains to achieve a high operating speed.

 

Oh and an aside on capacity.  I commute into London (normally) 2days/week and it's very obvious that the trains are busier week on week.  Even tonight, my 12-car from Waterloo (which was pre-pandemic busy at 1730) had 4 people in each six-seat bay towards the front, while the guard was asking people to take bags off seats further back on the train where there were lots of standees.  So as I predicted over two years ago, commuter traffic is definitely returning and the stats show that leisure travel now exceeds pre-pandemic levels (speaking of which, I have never seen traffic levels on the M25 at any time, like last Sunday).  

[Pete the Elaner]

14 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

Did I say that the sole reason for HS2 was speed? No, I didn't.

 

My point is that it's not worth building HS2 as a high speed line if it's only going as far as the West Midlands. I other words by all means build it to increase the capacity along the WCML corridor, but at conventional speeds as were used on parts of its route when that was used by the Paddington-Birmingham and GCR London-Rugby services. I never talked about the GWML, only the secondary route via West Ruislip which was closed under Beeching as it duplicated the Euston-Birmingham route.

 

 

A single proposal for a new London-Scotland route will never be likely. It would be too big & expensive to put through as 1 project.

So HS2 is the first section of a larger network, starting with London to Birmingham, then to Crewe, then Manchester & Leeds. It will be designed & intended to be extended to Newcastle, Liverpool, Preston, Edinburgh & Glasgow.

When this happens, it would have been silly to build a line which can only cope with trains as fast as those already on the WCML & ECML.

As mentioned above, it costs little more to make the line capable of carrying faster trains even if the trains themselves are not much faster to begin with. The mere fact they will have fewer stops will make them better for those who want to travel between their stations.

[Edwin_m]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

It's a bit of a misconception that HS2 is expensive because it is built for 225/250mph.  A new line built for 125mph would be as straight as possible; Pendolinos only have tilt as a bodge to compensate for the fact they have to operate on a curvaceous Victorian railway.  No-one would build a new high speed railway that actually needs tilting trains to achieve a high operating speed.

 

Oh and an aside on capacity.  I commute into London (normally) 2days/week and it's very obvious that the trains are busier week on week.  Even tonight, my 12-car from Waterloo (which was pre-pandemic busy at 1730) had 4 people in each six-seat bay towards the front, while the guard was asking people to take bags off seats further back on the train where there were lots of standees.  So as I predicted over two years ago, commuter traffic is definitely returning and the stats show that leisure travel now exceeds pre-pandemic levels (speaking of which, I have never seen traffic levels on the M25 at any time, like last Sunday).  

Indeed.  If it was built for 125mph you might reduce the track spacing and clearances a bit, and simplify the overhead line and power supply a bit, neither of which is very significant in relation to the total project cost.  The main difference may be tunnel cross-sections, but several of the longer tunnels won't be cleared for maximum speed anyway.  

 

The London-Birmingham route is largely able to achieve a good alignment, although gradient restricts speed through the Chilterns.  Further north, mainly on sections now dropped from the scheme, there were parts of the route where lower speeds were accepted to curve round obstacles, rather than introduce extra tunneling under settlement or through hills.   

Edited November 2, 2022 by Edwin_m

[TheSignalEngineer]

15 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Do you really think planners were too arrogant or stupid to investigate cheaper options first? Of course they did.

 

During my railway career, about 43 years ago, I had a 'top secret' report cross my desk which proposed reopening the GC from Aylesbury to Rugby with a connection to the Birmingham  and Trent Valley lines north of there. The problem with it was that it largely ignored the main congestion at the time which was, and probably still is, Euston to Watford Jn and Coventry to New Street.

[jamie92208]

There was a tunnelling update yesterday. Florence has now passed the 7km mark and at it's current rate of progress should be half way by Christmas. Cecilua managed an average of 28m per day for the 2 weeks Florence was the laggard at 24m per day.  No update on Susihila or Caroline.  It woukd be nice if somethi g simikare could be done about the Colne Vakkey viaduct. That should be well on with it's third span by now.

 

Jamie

[nightstar.train]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

It woukd be nice if somethi g simikare could be done about the Colne Vakkey viaduct. That should be well on with it's third span by now.

 

My understanding is they have 1000 segments of the viaduct to install, and are intending to do 1 a day, so basically a 3 year construction. It would be nice if they published updates though. 

[Engineer]

Snatched picture this morning.  Progress at West Ruislip.

[Ron Ron Ron]

[Ron Ron Ron]

7 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

......No update on Susihila or Caroline.  .......

 

The "Ian Visits" blog visited West Ruislip just after the 2nd TBM, Caroline launched.

Do read the article by following the link below and see some great photos of the workings of the TBM and the West Ruislip site.....

 

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/a-second-hs2-tunnel-boring-machine-has-started-digging-under-london-58466/

 

 

The 1st TBM, Shushila, launched over a month ago and last week, when these photos were apparently taken, the rear end of the 140 metre long machine was still visible, sticking out of the newly bored tunnel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[david.hill64]

18 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Indeed.  If it was built for 125mph you might reduce the track spacing and clearances a bit, and simplify the overhead line and power supply a bit, neither of which is very significant in relation to the total project cost.  The main difference may be tunnel cross-sections, but several of the longer tunnels won't be cleared for maximum speed anyway.  

Agreed, but you might want to add noise mitigation. You will remember Roger Gawthorpe - head of aerodynamics at BRR- who once told me that one term in the equation for noise generation was raised to the ninth power of velocity and above 200mph it becomes significant.

The other issue is of course maintenance, especially of the OHL and energy consumption.

[Ron Ron Ron]

If HS2 was being built for 125 mph, or even 140 mph, it would still be costing an astronomical amount of money.

Then there would not only be the outcry about that amount of public expenditure, but also an outcry about only getting the same speeds as on the classic mainlines, whereas other countries, both in Europe and around the world, already had or we’re getting truly HS lines for the same or less money.
You can easily imagine the accusations of “being left behind”, “ laughing stock”, “ incompetent decisions “ etc, etc.

 

 

 

.

[billbedford]

23 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

If HS2 was being built for 125 mph, or even 140 mph, it would still be costing an astronomical amount of money.

 

 

I've see it suggested that 60% of the cost of Sizewell "C" nuclear power station is from finance charges. I don't suppose that HS2 is very much different. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

I've see it suggested that 60% of the cost of Sizewell "C" nuclear power station is from finance charges. I don't suppose that HS2 is very much different. 

 

Like most major government capital projects, I suspect.

A result of increasingly spending beyond our means as a nation, especially now that borrowing costs are going up.

Yet people and politicians demand we spend more and more on these sort of schemes and on increasingly expensive public services, without having the ability to pay for it, apart from borrowing more.

"Ah! we could tax more..." say many, but that is only feeding the addiction.

We'd be back to square one in no time.

Something will have to give.

 

Expect a clamour to postpone or cancel more bits of HS2, even though little or no savings will be achieved in the short term, as the cancelled bits are at least 5 to 10 years, if not further away in the future.

It certainly won't make more cash available now, or over the next few years.

 

.

[keefer]

I remember PPP (public/private partnership) funding being popular as a way of getting capital projects done until it was pointed out how much these schemes actually cost over the life of the agreement,

basically a multi-million-pound 'never-never'.

A fairly simple one was a health/municipal building worth £5m which would end up costing around £30-35m by the end of the agreement period (30 yrs?).

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 minutes ago, keefer said:

I remember PPP (public/private partnership) funding being popular as a way of getting capital projects done until it was pointed out how much these schemes actually cost over the life of the agreement,

basically a multi-million-pound 'never-never'.

A fairly simple one was a health/municipal building worth £5m which would end up costing around £30-35m by the end of the agreement period (30 yrs?).

 

We piled up a lot of PPP liabilities, thanks to a certain Mr Brown.

Not wishing to get political or steer the discussion that way, but putting the cost of current and future large capital projects into the context of where the public finances have got too.

Most of the get out of jail cards have been used up (printing money, excessive borrowing, PPP etc.).

Time to pay the piper and all that….

Hard choices will have to be addressed.

The worry is that HS2 is a potential sitting duck and will be in the firing line, despite the reality that any significant savings brought about by postponement or cancellations, will not manifest themselves until many years in the future and will not help the national finances in the short term, where the savings are needed.

 

.

[jjb1970]

22 minutes ago, keefer said:

I remember PPP (public/private partnership) funding being popular as a way of getting capital projects done until it was pointed out how much these schemes actually cost over the life of the agreement,

basically a multi-million-pound 'never-never'.

A fairly simple one was a health/municipal building worth £5m which would end up costing around £30-35m by the end of the agreement period (30 yrs?).

 

 

I am not wanting to defend PFI, but to compare costs meaningfully they have to be done on a like - like basis. Comparing cost to buy with cost over 30 years including maintenance and finance etc is not really a valid comparison. I am not disputing the high cost of PFI or that 30-year costs may well be much higher than a 30-year comparison to buy up front after considering the other costs included within the PFI option but a comparison should be on that basis. Unless you know the basis of what is included within costing a comparison can't be made.

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

 

 

.

[Bernard Lamb]

The Nimbys in Wendover have been complaining about HS2 HGVs going through the town, even taking photographs and sending them to the local press.

There is an agreement that they should use the by pass.

The council recently closed the by pass for road works.

The HGVs did not have any choice.

The Nimbys had not red the small print.

Bernard

[Northmoor]

10 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Expect a clamour to postpone or cancel more bits of HS2, even though little or no savings will be achieved in the short term, as the cancelled bits are at least 5 to 10 years, if not further away in the future.

There was a letter in today's Metro suggesting just this and how scrapping the White Elephant would save £147Bn.  I thought it would be very generous and public-spirited of the contractors if they repaid everything they'd already been paid for work completed.

[jjb1970]

People who say cancelling a major program will save all that money generally don't consider the money already spent, the compensation the government will have to pay to cancel contracts, the money to close down construction sites and reinstate land to pre-work condition, the costs associated with laying off thousands of people (including knock on effects for local economies) in a time of economic uncertainty, the costs of restarting later at inflated prices and having to rebuild lost knowledge and skills etc etc if government realises that actually whatever was intended to deliver is still needed. Yes, cancelling may be cheaper, but nothing like what people imagine, and ultimately we have zilch for the money spent.

[jjb1970]

Japan was right in the 60's, the basic shinkansen template of new lines and higher speeds has been replicated in multiple countries and delivers a paradigm shift in rail travel. Instead of dreaming up ever more clever ways to sweat old assets to increase train frequency, speed etc just build a new railway. Yes it's expensive, but the WCML modernization wasn't exactly cheap and ended up delivering less than was originally intended whereas a new railway gives an opportunity to implement a railway designed around fully utilizing the potential of modern systems and to build in growth potential.