HS2

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The chap who lived in the Roman villa probably had slaves too - though they would not have been black, they'd mostly have been white, their faces painted with wode and speaking a language not unlike modern Welsh or Gaelic.

 

They probably did - but we don't go round erecting statues of them saying how great they are. THAT is the significant difference between ancient history and the many statues or indeed buildings littering the country celebrating people from more recent eras.

[62613]

11 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The chap who lived in the Roman villa probably had slaves too - though they would not have been black, they'd mostly have been white, their faces painted with wode and speaking a language not unlike modern Welsh or Gaelic. 

 

The Roman Wall, the remains of which ran through my school playground was built to keep the Scots out.  That strikes me as race discrimination - even if it was no more effective than Mr Trump's attempt to keep the Mexicans out.

The Scots are from what is now Ireland, and weren't really a thing in the North of what is now mainland UK until at least the 3rd century CE. You're thinking of guys like the Picts

[62613]

11 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The chap who lived in the Roman villa probably had slaves too - though they would not have been black, they'd mostly have been white, their faces painted with wode and speaking a language not unlike modern Welsh or Gaelic. 

 

The Roman Wall, the remains of which ran through my school playground was built to keep the Scots out.  That strikes me as race discrimination - even if it was no more effective than Mr Trump's attempt to keep the Mexicans out.

I would bet the that the owner of the Roman villa, who might have been from the local tribe anyway, didn't use his slaves to make himself stinking rich at their expense. On statues, didn't the Russian government, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, remove all or most of the statues from that era to an out of the way public park? One of them even ended up in Manchester, well hidden down a side street.

Edited Wednesday at 08:47 by 62613

[jamie92208]

Can we please try and keep on topic gents. Sadly this is not the place to debate the ethics of the slave trade.  It is supposed to be about HS2. I, and I hope many others don't want the thread locked again. 

 

 

 

Jamie

[DenysW]

Deleted in response to @jamie92208's voice of sanity.

Edited Wednesday at 09:23 by DenysW

[62613]

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Can we please try and keep on topic gents. Sadly this is not the place to debate the ethics of the slave trade.  It is supposed to be about HS2. I, and I hope many others don't want the thread locked again. 

 

 

 

Jamie

Apologies; but the point needed an answer

[John Tomlinson]

8 hours ago, 62613 said:

I would bet the that the owner of the Roman villa, who might have been from the local tribe anyway, didn't use his slaves to make himself stinking rich at their expense. On statues, didn't the Russian government, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, remove all or most of the statues from that era to an out of the way public park? One of them even ended up in Manchester, well hidden down a side street.

 

Not to prolong this discussion, but I think the treatment of statues in the USSR varied by where they were situated. Remember the USSR was a collection of 13 (I think) republics, albeit dominated by Russia itself. I understand that in cities in Russia such as Moscow and St.Petersburg, removal was quite prompt. In Ukraine there was still a mega statue of Lenin in the main square of Kharkiv in 2010, I think that went after the events of 2014. I have read that there's still the odd statue of Stalin about if you look, such as in Gori, Georgia, his birthplace.

 

In the Soviet empire of eastern European  countries memorials to prominent Communists disappeared quite quickly , certainly in the Czechoslovakia which I visited in 1992. As a result of the 2022 attack on Ukraine, many of these countries have now removed war memorials to the Red Army from WW2 as well, something that I find understandable, but rather a shame.

 

Hope that helps.

 

John.

[DenysW]

I confuse easily, but try to understand the enlightenments I receive on this thread. So:

 

-     Shortly after the cancellation of HS2-2 by the previous shower of fully-elected politicians (other descriptions are available) it was widely stated that the resulting diversion of HS2 London-Manchester non-stop trains onto the WCML would mandate a reduction in the number of seats available on the WCML Manchester-Birmingham

-     HS2-2A (to Crewe) is widely touted on this thread as much cheaper/mile than HS2-1 due to the reduced amount of engineering required, and therefore a Good Thing

 

Does HS2-2A solve the Manchester-Birmingham new bottleneck? Or does it just move it north of Crewe? If the latter, I can see no future for HS2-2A as a stand-alone project or intermediate stage in completing the original vision.

[jamie92208]

43 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I confuse easily, but try to understand the enlightenments I receive on this thread. So:

 

-     Shortly after the cancellation of HS2-2 by the previous shower of fully-elected politicians (other descriptions are available) it was widely stated that the resulting diversion of HS2 London-Manchester non-stop trains onto the WCML would mandate a reduction in the number of seats available on the WCML Manchester-Birmingham

-     HS2-2A (to Crewe) is widely touted on this thread as much cheaper/mile than HS2-1 due to the reduced amount of engineering required, and therefore a Good Thing

 

Does HS2-2A solve the Manchester-Birmingham new bottleneck? Or does it just move it north of Crewe? If the latter, I can see no future for HS2-2A as a stand-alone project or intermediate stage in completing the original vision.

2a certainly solves the Colwich and Stafford bottlenecks.  That would allow the longer distance services to all use the new line. What it doesn't solve is the platform length at Manchester.  That will only be solved by some sort of new station near Piccadilly that would have 400m platforms.  The problem is that the HS2 sets are shorter than an 11 car Pendelino and need to be doubled up to have more capacity.  Yes 2a on it's own wilmove the problem further north.  The next bit, The Golborne link is needed then. Then you get to the Lancaster problem with the Morecambe trains weaving across both lines every hour,. They need to reopen Green Ayre. I could even point them to plans for electrifying that route. 

 

Jamie

Edited Wednesday at 21:20 by jamie92208

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

I confuse easily, but try to understand the enlightenments I receive on this thread. So:

 

-     Shortly after the cancellation of HS2-2 by the previous shower of fully-elected politicians (other descriptions are available) it was widely stated that the resulting diversion of HS2 London-Manchester non-stop trains onto the WCML would mandate a reduction in the number of seats available on the WCML Manchester-Birmingham

-     HS2-2A (to Crewe) is widely touted on this thread as much cheaper/mile than HS2-1 due to the reduced amount of engineering required, and therefore a Good Thing

 

Does HS2-2A solve the Manchester-Birmingham new bottleneck? Or does it just move it north of Crewe? If the latter, I can see no future for HS2-2A as a stand-alone project or intermediate stage in completing the original vision.

 

34 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

2a certainly solves the Colwich and Stafford bottlenecks.  That would allow the longer distance services to all use the new line. What it doesn't solve is the platform length at Manchester.  That will only be solved by some sort of new station near Piccadilly that would have 400m platforms.  The problem is that the HS2 sets are shorter than an 11 car Pendelino and need to be doubled up to have more capacity.  Yes 2a on it's own wilmove the problem further north.  The next bit, The Golborne link is needed then. Then you get to the Lancaster problem with the Morecambe trains weaving across both lines every hour,. They need to reopen Green Ayre. I could even point them to plans for electrifying that route. 

 

Jamie

Listening to Green Signals there is some confusion caused by politicking.  The 400m underground station for Manchester remains in vision but it was linked to Northern Powerhouse, so when the Government of the time cancelledd 2A and 2B it left the tunnel from the airport and the Manchester terminal technically intact subject to Northern Powerhouse obtaining permission and funding to proceed.  However, what it did not solve was how the 400m HS2 trains would get from the WCML or Crewe-Manchester line and onto Northern Powerhouse because all that was in 2A and 2B hence the issue that only 200m trains could reach Manchester Piccadilly above ground.

 

So the northern mayors approach is to resolve that conundrum, connect HS2 again to Northern Powerhouse and so enable 400m trains to head beyond Birmingham whilst also fixing Colwich.

 

Beyond the north west, it looks like there is no-one to champion more upgrades so it might simply be more four tracking beyond Weaver Junction where they can and more loops north of Preston, maybe upgrade the Settle & Carlisle though that might upset the steam traditionalists.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

I confuse easily, but try to understand the enlightenments I receive on this thread. So:

 

-     Shortly after the cancellation of HS2-2 by the previous shower of fully-elected politicians (other descriptions are available) it was widely stated that the resulting diversion of HS2 London-Manchester non-stop trains onto the WCML would mandate a reduction in the number of seats available on the WCML Manchester-Birmingham

-     HS2-2A (to Crewe) is widely touted on this thread as much cheaper/mile than HS2-1 due to the reduced amount of engineering required, and therefore a Good Thing

 

Does HS2-2A solve the Manchester-Birmingham new bottleneck? Or does it just move it north of Crewe? If the latter, I can see no future for HS2-2A as a stand-alone project or intermediate stage in completing the original vision.

 

The thing to remember is the further north along the WCML you go the less major populations there are and thus the less high speed passenger trains which could benefit from HS2.

 

High speed rail is thus generally based on a tree - with only the trunk and a selct few major branches being new builds and everything else being services running onto the conventional rail network.

 

Phase 1 (assuming it does get all the way to Euston) will provide more capacity to / from Birmingham but will provide nothing new and maybe actually reduce (due to the Handsacre junction engagements) the number of trains which can be accommodated north of there

 

Taking HS2 as far as Crewe bypasses the major bottlenecks of Colwich and Stafford (and provides a popper high capacity junction with the WCML) while being able to suck up trains from Liverpool Manchester, Preston and Scotland.

 

Once past Crewe(ish*) you lose the Liverpool & Manchester trains so the number of trains for which a continuation of HS2 further north would be usefull is significantly less and in such a situation it generally becomes more cost effective to upgrade existing routes rather than build totally brand new ones only for high speed trains.

 

Or if you want to look at it another way, once beyond Crewe(ish) the bottlenecks are less of a hindrance / affect a smaller proportion of services so are easier to live with.

[Bernard Lamb]

Everybody is now singing from the same hymn sheet.

After the article in The Guardian that I mentioned, The Sunday Times, The Telergraph and The Standard have all carried articles in support of building the HS2 station at Euston and the urgent need to sort out the problems with the current station. There was also a report from a think tank/pressure group highlighting concerns with overgrowding.

Fingers crossed that we get some good news in the budget.

Bernard

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Everybody is now singing from the same hymn sheet.

After the article in The Guardian that I mentioned, The Sunday Times, The Telergraph and The Standard have all carried articles in support of building the HS2 station at Euston and the urgent need to sort out the problems with the current station. There was also a report from a think tank/pressure group highlighting concerns with overgrowding.

Fingers crossed that we get some good news in the budget.

Bernard

Good, they'll probably get started just as I retire.

 

Having entered Euston last week when all services were stopped I quickly extracted myself to Marylebone but I think next time I should just go to St Pancras and head for Sheffield - walking distance to the station and it avoids the WCML in it's entirety to get to Mancester.  I think having a plan when faced with mayhem at Euston will continue to be the answer for some time yet. 

 

Given all the challenges you have to wonder at what might happen when GWML services divert to an already constrained Euston during blockades for the OOC station build.

[lmsforever]

Today I went into Wendover via the Butlers Cross road and passed over HS2 and to the right where the the line heads towards London is a very large bank of earth which looked as though removal has started . Looking the other way the track bed is well defined  and can be seen extending towards the High Wycombe Rd  this will be covered by an archway so as the people of Wendover will not have to look at HS2 |||||||||||||||||||

[jamie92208]

My copy of Modern Railways arrived yesterday.  4 pages of HS2 news including an interesting one about one of the viaducts that's going to be launched in February.  Also apparently the new bit if the A41 at Waddesdon is open.  The trackbed is looking good, if a tad damp. 

 

Jamie

[locoholic]

19 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The thing to remember is the further north along the WCML you go the less major populations there are and thus the less high speed passenger trains which could benefit from HS2.

 

High speed rail is thus generally based on a tree - with only the trunk and a selct few major branches being new builds and everything else being services running onto the conventional rail network.

Which is why it's insane that HS2 trains won't tilt on their way to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

[woodenhead]

59 minutes ago, locoholic said:

Which is why it's insane that HS2 trains won't tilt on their way to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

They don’t need tilt now, that was for the railway as it was at privatisation.  If they procured new trains now the gap between the slowest and fastest trains on the WCML will have closed which means they can increase the Cant instead.

 

Tilt was because the slowest trains were too slow, but they have gotten faster since.

 

That said some of the very twisty bits in the North might also need a bit of straightening as well.

Edited Thursday at 18:42 by woodenhead

[Michael Hodgson]

22 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The thing to remember is the further north along the WCML you go the less major populations there are and thus the less high speed passenger trains which could benefit from HS2.

 

You mean Glaswegians are smaller or less important than other folk?

 

To my mind if you're going to sell this new railway as "high speed", it really should have significantly shorter journey times than the existing routes.  That would be a more honest claim if you were to build high speed all the way to Glasgow/Edinburgh rather than going only as far as the West Midlands or even the North West of England.  A few minutes off the train to Brum may be an improvement but it's nothing to boast about  and it's not as important a national transport objective as reducing congestion on existing lines (not to mention the traffic on the M1).  There has to be the capacity if it is long term policy to get people out of their cars and into public transport..

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

You mean Glaswegians are smaller or less important than other folk?

 

To my mind if you're going to sell this new railway as "high speed", it really should have significantly shorter journey times than the existing routes.  That would be a more honest claim if you were to build high speed all the way to Glasgow/Edinburgh rather than going only as far as the West Midlands or even the North West of England.  A few minutes off the train to Brum may be an improvement but it's nothing to boast about  and it's not as important a national transport objective as reducing congestion on existing lines (not to mention the traffic on the M1).  There has to be the capacity if it is long term policy to get people out of their cars and into public transport..

 

No, I mean that if you have a finite amount of money to spend you get best value from that by maximising the benefits.

 

And you would do well top stop pealing the nonsense about HS2 being all about journey time reductions if you want to be taken seriously - as those who can be bothered to pay attention will know HS2 is ONLY being built to increase capacity on the WCML corridor - its high speed comes from the simple fact that only an idiot would go and build something to outdated standards rather than the high speed ones which have been in use in many other counties worldwide for decades.

 

But to return to the thrust of your post, the basic reality is passenger numbers between London and Birmingham / Manchester / Liverpool dwarf the number to / from Scotland and as such if you are going to spend cash on a high speed railway then the sections south of Crewe / Warrington will mean maximising the number of people who can benefit from the money spent because it covers ALL popular service groups in addition to Anglo - Scottish traffic

 

Once you get north of there the number who would benefit from faster services falls significantly.

 

(And before people start moaning about being London centric, the statistics don't lie - far more people from Birmingham and north west travel southwards than they do going northwards to Scotland! Its why the M6 is usually chronically congested south of Preston but is generally free flowing north of there!) 

 

Moreover you need to appreciate that regardless of what people might say, EXPERIENCE proves that once a train journey exceeds the 3 - 4 hour mark then most people would much prefer to fly as its massively quicker. Even with HS2, its doubtful a London - Glasgow train would be able do the end to end journey in 3 hours - and if it did the resulting railway required top deliver that would need to be massively more expensive than the current HS2.

Edited 22 hours ago by phil-b259

[david.hill64]

11 hours ago, woodenhead said:

They don’t need tilt now, that was for the railway as it was at privatisation.  If they procured new trains now the gap between the slowest and fastest trains on the WCML will have closed which means they can increase the Cant instead.

 

Tilt was because the slowest trains were too slow, but they have gotten faster since.

 

That said some of the very twisty bits in the North might also need a bit of straightening as well.

Are you sure? One of the limiting factors for allowable cant is low rail overturning caused by a slow moving or stationary high axle load freight trains. That will not have changed.

[St Enodoc]

45 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

Are you sure? One of the limiting factors for allowable cant is low rail overturning caused by a slow moving or stationary high axle load freight trains. That will not have changed.

@david.hill64 agreed. There are limits for both cant deficiency and cant excess - the former being relevant at high speeds and the latter at low speeds.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:

Are you sure? One of the limiting factors for allowable cant is low rail overturning caused by a slow moving or stationary high axle load freight trains. That will not have changed.

 

It is indeed a limiting factor - but things like wheel profile and suspension quality also need to be thrown into the mix because Cant is NOT solely related to speed.

 

In recent years there has been considerable investigation / analysis of ALL the factors involved and the upshot of all that detailed research is that the cant can be increased slightly from what used to be considered the maximum thereby allowing higher speeds (mainly south of Crewe) without the need for trains to tilt.

 

This is why Avanti has been able to order a batch of Hitachi non tilting bi-mode IET to augment its fleet without the services they will work being noticeably slower than Pendalino worked ones.

 

That said I believe the IETs will be used on services from the likes of Wales or Liverpool and its once you get north of Preston that tilting starts to make an appreciable difference so in a post HS2 situation then the section of the journey between Preston and Scotland might take longer than today on a non tilting HS2 train. Against that however you need to recognise that the London - Preston leg of the journey (assuming HS phase 2a is built) will be a lot quicker than today and so the overall end to end journey time will be less.

[david.hill64]

31 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

It is indeed a limiting factor - but things like wheel profile and suspension quality also need to be thrown into the mix because Cant is NOT solely related to speed.

 

In recent years there has been considerable investigation / analysis of ALL the factors involved and the upshot of all that detailed research is that the cant can be increased slightly from what used to be considered the maximum thereby allowing higher speeds (mainly south of Crewe) without the need for trains to tilt.

 

This is why Avanti has been able to order a batch of Hitachi non tilting bi-mode IET to augment its fleet without the services they will work being noticeably slower than Pendalino worked ones.

 

That said I believe the IETs will be used on services from the likes of Wales or Liverpool and its once you get north of Preston that tilting starts to make an appreciable difference so in a post HS2 situation then the section of the journey between Preston and Scotland might take longer than today on a non tilting HS2 train. Against that however you need to recognise that the London - Preston leg of the journey (assuming HS phase 2a is built) will be a lot quicker than today and so the overall end to end journey time will be less.

As far as I know cant limits are still specified at 150mm (normal) and 180mm (exceptional): source GCRT5021 Issue 6, December 2023.  Quite a useful document that notes that excess cant leads to the possibility of derailment, freight load shifting, passenger discomfort and instability of on-track plant.

 

Quite possible of course that there are more locations on the WCML that have been approved for exceptional cant which will help the IETs.

[woodenhead]

4 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Are you sure? One of the limiting factors for allowable cant is low rail overturning caused by a slow moving or stationary high axle load freight trains. That will not have changed.

It was an article a few years back explaining why the Pendolino will be the first and last tilting UK trains in squadron service (plus the Voyagers of course).

 

Simply the slowest trains are now a lost faster - the 350, the liner and infrastructure all being faster than what went before which reduced the gap to the fastest trains.  It wasn't saying increasing Cant was the only solution, straightening curves is another obvious solution and the one that would most benefit north of Preston.  Of course heavy engineering around the hills of Cumbria and Scotland would come with a heavy price tag which ultimately will determine how much faster a train to Scotland can get but the Pendolino will be the last of it's type, it's replacement is the HS2 train and none are being specified with tilt.

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

As far as I know cant limits are still specified at 150mm (normal) and 180mm (exceptional): source GCRT5021 Issue 6, December 2023.  Quite a useful document that notes that excess cant leads to the possibility of derailment, freight load shifting, passenger discomfort and instability of on-track plant.

 

Not to mention spilling the coffee.