HS2

[Ron Ron Ron]

The Treasury would like to sell off the Phase 2A land, but don’t want to sell it off too cheaply, so it could take years to dispose of it.

 

Meanwhile, any alternative line will inevitably require further land acquisition, which will come at a great cost, especially if nearer to the existing WCML and built up areas.

Also, there has been price inflation since the Phase 2 land was purchased, increasing the cost of such “new” land.

Add on the time and cost of a public enquiry, planning processes, several tiers of consultation, planning approval, inevitable reviews etc, etc……

I don’t think I’m alone in thinking, the chances of building an alternative route at a lower cost than Phase 2A , are pie in the sky.

I’m more than suspicious that it’ll end up costing far more than just pushing on with an accelerated Phase 2A build.

It might make more sense and save an awful lot of time and money, to just hold on to the land already in HS2’s hands, with strategic planning approval already in place.

Just push on with Phase 2A, even it it has to be done under a different project name.

 

 

.

[62613]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes it is correct.... but I suspect there is a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with it.....

 

On the one hand we have the Mayors of Manchester and Birmingham supposedly working on a plan to create a 'substitute' for HS2 between their two cities. Plus Its abundantly clear to Network Rail that the bottlenecks of Colwich and Stafford still need fixing even if HS2 stays officially cancelled.

 

On the other hand we have a freshly elected Labour Government who are desperate to prove that they won't 'revert to type' when in office and blow loads of cash the nation hasn't got.

 

Then there is the commitment in the Kings Speech to invest further in rail enhancements....

 

So my take on it is although in practical terms Labour have technically ruled out reinstating the cancelled bits of "HS2" - that doesn't preclude them building something which looks remarkably similar to HS2 in future. I suspect much will depend on what happens to both the land and the act of parliament which allows for the construction of phase 2A. If that act is repealed and / or the land is sold then we will know for sure its been canned. If however both the act stays on the statute book and the land doesn't get sold off then HS2 may well come back with a new name in the years to come.

 

 

Would it be fair to say that at the moment, the public money situation is "tight", i.e, it's there, but there are more pressing problems to be dealt with, given the new government's agenda; once they have been, there may be some money for phase 2A to go ahead, under whatever name? HS2 as a project is toxic, IMHO. It pains me to say this, but HS2 as it stands is of no practical use in releiving congestion on the railway; in fact, according to the NAO, the situation in Manchester will be worse. My take would be to complete to Euston first, and then to do 2A, because it's needed, for the reasons given by Ron 

 

Edited July 24 by 62613

[corneliuslundie]

Agreed that it needs to be completed, but under any other name than HS2.

Jonathan

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

The Treasury would like to sell off the Phase 2A land, but don’t want to sell it off too cheaply, so it could take years to dispose of it.

 

Meanwhile, any alternative line will inevitably require further land acquisition, which will come at a great cost, especially if nearer to the existing WCML and built up areas.

Also, there has been price inflation since the Phase 2 land was purchased, increasing the cost of such “new” land.

Add on the time and cost of a public enquiry, planning processes, several tiers of consultation, planning approval, inevitable reviews etc, etc……

I don’t think I’m alone in thinking, the chances of building an alternative route at a lower cost than Phase 2A , are pie in the sky.

I’m more than suspicious that it’ll end up costing far more than just pushing on with an accelerated Phase 2A build.

It might make more sense and save an awful lot of time and money, to just hold on to the land already in HS2’s hands, with strategic planning approval already in place.

Just push on with Phase 2A, even it it has to be done under a different project name.

 

 

.

Absolutely agree.   But that does sound far too much like common sense for most politicos and a substantial chunk of the Civil Service to buy into.  Simple fact is that without Phase 2A the ill-named HS2 doesn't really make very much sense as it still desperately fails to tackle  capacity problems on the WCML.

 

As far as 'public money' s concerned what we are actually talking about in respect of this new line is the interest on borrowings, not capital sums.

[jamie92208]

A minor miracle has occurred.  All of the Six currently working TBM's phoned home on 22nd July. 

 

Sushila has apparently been having a maintenance break at one of the vent shafts so only did 8m in 29 days.  However her running mate Caroline managed 421m in the same time and has now completed 72% of the drive towards Greenford. 

 

Emily and Anne, also heading for Greenford have both progressed. Emily is at 1237and Anne is at 1026 out of 5600.  

 

Up in Brummagen Mary Anne has just passed the halfway point at 2816m and Elizabeth is at 656m.

 

Jamie

[Siberian Snooper]

Should have been called the WCML relief railway, from the start, the mere mention of high speed, rings up pound note signs, before you even begin the project.

[Bernard Lamb]

6 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Should have been called the WCML relief railway, from the start, the mere mention of high speed, rings up pound note signs, before you even begin the project.

It matters not what it is called.

The anti rail lobby will still attack it.

Bernard

[Grovenor]

Just watched Portillos Asian rly journeys (BBC2) featuring the new High Speed station in Hong Kong. Quite a contrast but also over budget.

[DenysW]

9 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

It might make more sense and save an awful lot of time and money, to just hold on to the land already in HS2’s hands, with strategic planning approval already in place.

Just push on with Phase 2A, even it it has to be done under a different project name.

At the risk of cynicism, I don't expect anything other than posturing/positioning (from a vast field of pundits, reporters, influencers and would-be influencers) until after the first financial statement in the Autumn.

 

Son/daughter of HS2 is likely to be cheap in £Bn/year, and probably makes sense to avoid HS2 OOC->Curzon street being a massive white elephant*, but that doesn't mean it goes ahead. OOC->Euston does seem to have more of a (short-term) chance, on the same basis, than a Crewe extension, but that's just an opinion.

 

*What price the street-creds for "I reversed yet another of the previous administration's maniac decisions"

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

It matters not what it is called.

The anti rail lobby will still attack it.

Bernard

 

I'm not so sure. The amount of people suggesting a new freight line would be more acceptable 'because it will be much cheaper' is quite large.

 

Many on here will understand that such a railway will not be a great deal cheaper because it will still need the expensive tunnels through the countryside & will not be of any practical benefit either.

 

But take away 'High Speed' & it somehow becomes more palatable.

[Ron Ron Ron]

We've become familiar with the method being used to build the Colne Valley viaduct, using the launching girder "Dominique".

Up in the Midlands, construction of the multiple viaducts that will form the "Delta Junction" and the adjoining sections of HS2, is using a couple of different techniques.

 

Here is one of those......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[KingEdwardII]

46 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

using a couple of different techniques

Interesting to see the use of cable stays only during the construction phase of the viaduct - it is a well known permanent approach to building complete bridges - perhaps the Millau Viaduct in France is the most iconic example.

 

I assume that the individual segments get tied together internally and once the span is complete between all 3 piers, then the cable stays get removed.

 

Nice to see some excellent engineering.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[jamie92208]

I presume that they are using the same glue and post tensioning technique used on the Colne Valley viaduct so successfully.  I also presume thst they are going to finish that leg of the viaduct then go back and do the middle leg. 

 

Jamie

[DY444]

On 24/07/2024 at 21:20, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I'm not so sure. The amount of people suggesting a new freight line would be more acceptable 'because it will be much cheaper' is quite large.

 

Many on here will understand that such a railway will not be a great deal cheaper because it will still need the expensive tunnels through the countryside & will not be of any practical benefit either.

 

But take away 'High Speed' & it somehow becomes more palatable.

 

Except that some of the cost inherent in HS2 is down to the very high (by general European standards) maximum design speed.  Had the max design speed been 300kph the costs would have been less. 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, DY444 said:

Except that some of the cost inherent in HS2 is down to the very high (by general European standards) maximum design speed.  Had the max design speed been 300kph the costs would have been less. 

 

I had understood that this is a myth, repeatedly exploded on here?

[corneliuslundie]

Presumably very slightly smaller tunnels  and slightly sharper curves, but I would not expect that to make much difference to the cost. And more trains needed to provide the same service but less capaccity.

Jonathan

Edited July 27 by corneliuslundie
add last three words

[DY444]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I had understood that this is a myth, repeatedly exploded on here?

 

So none of the following is affected by max design speed and thus has no bearing on cost then:

- Route topology in respect of minimum curve radius and maximum gradient

- Aerodynamic properties and clearances in tunnels and other structures

- Power supply requirements and ole design

- Rolling stock design

- Track design

- Maintenance

And there's me thinking I understood physics and engineering.  Clearly not.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

So none of the following is affected by max design speed and thus has no bearing on cost then:

- Route topology in respect of minimum curve radius and maximum gradient

- Aerodynamic properties and clearances in tunnels and other structures

- Power supply requirements and ole design

- Rolling stock design

- Track design

- Maintenance

And there's me thinking I understood physics and engineering.  Clearly not.

On one of the Green Signals early podcast, Professor Andrew McNaughton, who was heavily involved in the design and knows his stuff, reconedcthstbless than 10% of the costs were related to the high speed. A lot of the costs were the land purchase for the southern sections.  I can't remember the exact figures but I believe that the costs of the cancelled Handsacre to Crewe leg are very much lower than the southern leg. 

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DY444 said:

Had the max design speed been 300kph the costs would have been less. 

 

So, OK, in the light of @jamie92208's post, I will give you maybe up to 10% of the original estimates, subject to correction by the more knowledgeable. But that counts for nothing. The cost now is dominated by the consequences of prevarication, delay, and external economic factors. So any residual effect of the higher design speed must by now be negligible?

 

And indeed as @corneliuslundie says, a lower speed line would require more rolling stock to achieve the same capacity. That's an ongoing cost.

 

Is there some recognised relationship between line speed and maintenance costs, at these high speeds?

Edited July 27 by Compound2632

[DY444]

3 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

On one of the Green Signals early podcast, Professor Andrew McNaughton, who was heavily involved in the design and knows his stuff, reconedcthstbless than 10% of the costs were related to the high speed. A lot of the costs were the land purchase for the southern sections.  I can't remember the exact figures but I believe that the costs of the cancelled Handsacre to Crewe leg are very much lower than the southern leg. 

 

Jamie

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So, OK, in the light of @jamie92208's post, I will give you maybe up to 10% of the original estimates, subject to correction by the more knowledgeable. But that counts for nothing. The cost now is dominated by the consequences of prevarication, delay, and external economic factors. So any residual effect of the higher design speed must by now be negligible?

 

And indeed as @corneliuslundie says, a lower speed line would require more rolling stock to achieve the same capacity. That's an ongoing cost.

 

Is there some recognised relationship between line speed and maintenance costs, at these high speeds?

 

If we accept 10%, which I'm wholly unconvinced by, then that's several billion.  What's that old joke about a billion here, a billion there and soon we're talking real money.  10% of the original budget is significantly less than 10% of what it's actually going to cost.  That 10% gets added to every single cost increase so it's not negligible - it lives and grows in proportion with cost increases throughout the life of the build project.

 

The rolling stock issue is a total fallacy.  London to Birmingham is roughly 200km.  Lets be generous and say you could run 180km at 360kph so the absolute minimum time you'd cover that stretch in is 30 min at 360kph and 36 min at 300kph .  In practice the difference would be smaller than 6 min because of the time to accelerate to and decelerate from the higher speed.  Ditto beyond Birmingham where the difference would be even less.  So from a practical timetabling point of view it would make no difference.  Anyway at higher speeds line capacity reduces as the headways increase due to the increased braking distance from those higher speeds. 

Edited July 27 by DY444

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I had understood that this is a myth, repeatedly exploded on here?

One thing which does not seem to be appearing on HS2 (as yet??) are any gradients anywhere near the steepness of those on SNCF"s LGV routes.  We won't necessarily, I suppose, know the final answer until track has been laid but that is definitely the impression the extent of earthworks show in various videos etc on here has given me.

 

PS I have had cab trips over both a major part of LGV Atlantique and the whole of LGV Nord between Paris and the Tunnel so as well as what can be seen from the train I have also seen even clearer views of the gradient profiles from the front end.  and of course various videos are available.

 

PPS While train engineering techniques have advanced the basic rules of physics are - so far as I know - unchanged so I remain sceptical about the impact of HS2 speeds on traction power consumption, even if the line is less steeply graded than the LGVs.

 

 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

So none of the following is affected by max design speed and thus has no bearing on cost then:

- Route topology in respect of minimum curve radius and maximum gradient

- Aerodynamic properties and clearances in tunnels and other structures

- Power supply requirements and ole design

- Rolling stock design

- Track design

- Maintenance

And there's me thinking I understood physics and engineering.  Clearly not.

If you built a 100mph railway nowadays, it would be virtually straight.  Building for 200+mph doesn't make it much straighter.  People want noise and visual screening from minor railways, so adding these features to HS2 really don't add up to much.  The other factors you are tight, they do add cost, but surprisingly little, compared to costs of buying the land and building the railway in the first place.  Unfortunately HS2 suffers from being built through some of the most valuable farmland in the world, owned or overlooked by some of the wealthiest people in the world, all of whom expect to be compensated.

 

21 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

 

If we accept 10%, which I'm wholly unconvinced by, then that's several billion.  What's that old joke about a billion here, a billion there and soon we're talking real money.  10% of the original budget is significantly less than 10% of what it's actually going to cost.  That 10% gets added to every single cost increase so it's not negligible - it lives and grows in proportion with cost increases throughout the life of the build project.

 

The rolling stock issue is a total fallacy.  London to Birmingham is roughly 200km.  Lets be generous and say you could run 180km at 360km so the absolute minimum time you'd cover that stretch in is 30 min at 360kph and 36 min at 300kph .  In practice the difference would be smaller than 6 min because of the time to accelerate to and decelerate from the higher speed.  Ditto beyond Birmingham where the difference would be even less.  So from a practical timetabling point of view it would make no difference.  Anyway at higher speeds line capacity reduces as the headways increase due to the increased braking distance from those higher speeds. 

It certainly isn't a total fallacy as the business case that underpins the whole project is dependent on it.  Why do you think every time BR upgraded a main line to run new stock at higher speeds, the train fleet was smaller than the previous one?  Also consider that for every extra train purchased - probably £40M per set - you need an extra depot road, so that's more land to purchase and a bigger facility.  You also need extra maintainers/cleaners/stores managers at the facility too.  The "logistics trail" of a train grows in proportion to the size of the fleet.

Edited July 27 by Northmoor

[jamie92208]

IIRC the Paris Lyon LGV, the first, had gradients as severe as 1 in 29 but they found that they had to reduce speed over the summits as the trains were loosing adhesion, in effect taking off.  I think that they were moderated to about 1 in 40 on later lines.  Certainly near me on the LGV SEA, (Tours to Bordeaux). The approach gradient on the spur from the classic line to the LGV's at Juillé, it is very steep, just where they finish coasting after the voltage changeover. 

 

Jamie

Edited July 27 by jamie92208

[The Stationmaster]

8 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

 

It certainly isn't a total fallacy as the business case that underpins the whole project is dependent on it.  Why do you think every time BR upgraded a main line to run new stock at higher speeds, the train fleet was smaller than the previous one?  Also consider that for every extra train purchased - probably £40M per set - you need an extra depot road, so that's more land to purchase and a bigger facility.  You also need extra maintainers/cleaners/stores managers at the facility too.  The "logistics trail" of a train grows in proportion to the size of the fleet.

It depends very much on the extent to which speed differentials impact journey time and this allow reductions in cycle time which creates the opportunity to use a smaller fleet to run the same frequency of service.   I don't know if this was calculated for HS2 but it is a complex calculation as it also involves increased maintenance costs for both track and rolling stock, traction power consumption, gradient profiles, and so on.

 

HS2 will probably facilitate a smaller fleet for London - Birmingham operations than using the WCML would permit but even then there are other factors because that service would anyway be to a much simpler pattern than the one operating over the WCML.  And station turround times are as much a part of the equation as running times - if the terminal station designs doesn't facilitate most efficient turnround time you'll need more trains whatever the line speed!

[jamie92208]

Just now, The Stationmaster said:

It depends very much on the extent to which speed differentials impact journey time and this allow reductions in cycle time which creates the opportunity to use a smaller fleet to run the same frequency of service.   I don't know if this was calculated for HS2 but it is a complex calculation as it also involves increased maintenance costs for both track and rolling stock, traction power consumption, gradient profiles, and so on.

 

HS2 will probably facilitate a smaller fleet for London - Birmingham operations than using the WCML would permit but even then there are other factors because that service would anyway be to a much simpler pattern than the one operating over the WCML.  And station turround times are as much a part of the equation as running times - if the terminal station designs doesn't facilitate most efficient turnround time you'll need more trains whatever the line speed!

Andrew McNaughton also mentioned that.  He calculates that OOC can only accommodate 6 trains per hour, mainly due to the low speed crossovers at the West end.  Turn round times are going to be long.  Euston is desperately needed and at least 10 platforms. 

 

Jamie