HS2

[St Enodoc]

13 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Well, there will be several unemployed tunnelling machines soon.

Rather than paying them redundancy pay, give them a job at Shap.

J

If that's a bit too far in the future, a main-line link to Heathrow would keep them warm.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

As I said many pages back, the solution to the curvaceous Northern stretches is probably a series of bypasses that could be done in sequence.  There will always be a need for the stops at Lancaster, Preston and Carlisle but a base tunnel under Shap somewhat in line with Locke's original proposals would eliminate the worst of the gradients and the curves. I'm not familiar enough with the geography round Beattock but could something similar be done there to take out the worst sections of curves and gradients. 

It appears to me that the problem North of Preston - or possibly even Crewe - is the same as the various Trans-Pennine towns wanting to be on an "HS3".  Every town wants high-speed services to the major city (which can only be achieved by not stopping), which stops at their town.

 

Just as it has at last been realised that freight services are considerably less disruptive if they can enter refuge loops at near line speed instead of 20mph, I wonder if improving the layouts approaching Preston and Carlisle would provide measurable time savings, considerably cheaper than trying to increase the line speed with extended new formations?

[62613]

14 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

So when will it be announced that the viaduct is to become a cycle track rather than a railway?

Jonathan

Or a dedicated bus route to, let's see,........Marylebone?

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, locoholic said:

HS2 was never going to go all the way to Scotland! Which is why I said earlier that HS2 trains should be able to tilt, to allow for higher speeds on the "classic" WCML that those trains were always going to have to use. The whole project is a poorly thought-out mess.

But tilting trains in Britain have, and always will have, one serious disadvantage - they have to have bodies progressively narrowed above sill level in order to meet loading gauge and dynamic clearance requirements.  That's part of the reason why Voyagers can be so uncomfortable and I do find the interior width of the WCML trains to be rather oppressive too.

 

With the advantage of reduced running times to a spot north of Stafford - let alone further north if that ever happens - it would be interesting to compare properly sourced figures measuring any time lost due to loss of tilt in the north against time gained due to higher line speeds at the south end of the journey.    Such a properly conducted comparison would allow the value of tilt to be assessed against the cost of providing and maintaining it.  And without properly sourced comparative running time data do we actually know what we are talking about when it comes to the trains not having tilt capability?

 

As for the project being 'a poorly thought out mess' I would disagree - it was not a originally a mess but became oine when its intended purpose was subverted (by politicians it appears) into presenting it as some sort of all singing and dancing very (probably excessively) high speed route instead of what it was supposed to be.  The original need has not gone away.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

It appears to me that the problem North of Preston - or possibly even Crewe - is the same as the various Trans-Pennine towns wanting to be on an "HS3".  Every town wants high-speed services to the major city (which can only be achieved by not stopping), which stops at their town.

 

Just as it has at last been realised that freight services are considerably less disruptive if they can enter refuge loops at near line speed instead of 20mph, I wonder if improving the layouts approaching Preston and Carlisle would provide measurable time savings, considerably cheaper than trying to increase the line speed with extended new formations?

Improving approach speeds to put them on the braking curve (or the opposite course of reducing them excessively inside the braking curve) has long been known and proved (in Britain) to have effects on running times and also reliability.  Various of the WCML major station track layouts have, by some late BR era standards, excessively low approach and departure speeds imposed by the geometry of the pointwork.  Interestingly Paddington, where the 1967 station approach turnout speeds of 40 mph were reduced to 25mph in the late 1990s layout renewal shows exactly the opposite effect with trains taking longer to both clear on departure die to line speeds being below acceleration curve capability and having to come in at well below ideal braking curve speeds.

 

Increasing loop entry/exit turnout out speeds from 20mph to 60mph can have noticeable affects on margins for freight trains. I very carefully graphed the effect of using higher loop entry/exit speeds for my scheme to reintroduce Relief Lines between Wantage Road and Challow and the resultant changes gave a margin advantage of a 2-3 minutes for an Up freight plus if it was being overtaken by a passenger train running at 125 mph, it could come out of the other end behind the overtaking train with no need to stop on the relief Line.  Dynamic loops - such as the ones I effectively created in my planning for that scheme- are far more efficient than short loops and can increase line capacity if correctly sited and with the right length (usually measured in miles).

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The original need has not gone away.

If you were doing it over, would you do it as:

 

(a) HS2-A Euston->Curzon St to fix congestion south of Rugby, but building the triangular junction for HS2-B

(b) Plus: upgrade the Midland line to Manchester via the Hope Valley to electrified, 125 mph (needs doing anyway, so just advancing the timing). 100 minutes to Manchester non-stop?

(c) When affordable and HS2A has been shown to work, do HS2-B Manchester Extension.

 

It just really galls me to see seating for Manchester-Birmingham cut to favour London-Manchester

[GordonC]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

But tilting trains in Britain have, and always will have, one serious disadvantage - they have to have bodies progressively narrowed above sill level in order to meet loading gauge and dynamic clearance requirements.  That's part of the reason why Voyagers can be so uncomfortable and I do find the interior width of the WCML trains to be rather oppressive too.

 

With the advantage of reduced running times to a spot north of Stafford - let alone further north if that ever happens - it would be interesting to compare properly sourced figures measuring any time lost due to loss of tilt in the north against time gained due to higher line speeds at the south end of the journey.    Such a properly conducted comparison would allow the value of tilt to be assessed against the cost of providing and maintaining it.  And without properly sourced comparative running time data do we actually know what we are talking about when it comes to the trains not having tilt capability?

 

As for the project being 'a poorly thought out mess' I would disagree - it was not a originally a mess but became oine when its intended purpose was subverted (by politicians it appears) into presenting it as some sort of all singing and dancing very (probably excessively) high speed route instead of what it was supposed to be.  The original need has not gone away.

 

The vehicle body width is only part of the reason for Voyagers and Pendolinos being oppresive - I also dont think it helps the width and general bulk of the headrests and lack of alignment with seats and windows. With the majority of the seats being airline style, when sat down, you see very little other than the back of the seat in front. I think thats more claustrophobic than the tapering of the bodysides

[corneliuslundie]

But 99% of passengers never take their eyes off their phones or iPads anyway. My wife and I are usually the only ones looking out the windows when we travel. The same on buses except that there at least people also chat.

Jonathan

[APOLLO]

11 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But 99% of passengers never take their eyes off their phones or iPads anyway. My wife and I are usually the only ones looking out the windows when we travel. The same on buses except that there at least people also chat.

Jonathan

 

There's sod all to see these days, just trees and weeds, big uns, lots of them !!

 

Brit15

[GordonC]

14 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But 99% of passengers never take their eyes off their phones or iPads anyway. My wife and I are usually the only ones looking out the windows when we travel. The same on buses except that there at least people also chat.

Jonathan

 

maybe they dont, but they dont really have much choice in Voyagers or Pendolinos anyway even if they want to

[lmsforever]

It has been noticable  in the past few years of the lack of interest shown by the Scots government in HS2 over the border  they have not been willing to spend any money on works or development  ,they expect the English to pay for it,I agree about that not many people look out at the outside world when traveling the phone is always the maim interest.

[nick_bastable]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

  That's part of the reason why Voyagers can be so uncomfortable and I do find the interior width of the WCML trains to be rather oppressive too.

 

I travelled a lot on Hastings DEMU that was oppressive especially at rush hours

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

If you were doing it over, would you do it as:

 

(a) HS2-A Euston->Curzon St to fix congestion south of Rugby, but building the triangular junction for HS2-B

(b) Plus: upgrade the Midland line to Manchester via the Hope Valley to electrified, 125 mph (needs doing anyway, so just advancing the timing). 100 minutes to Manchester non-stop?

(c) When affordable and HS2A has been shown to work, do HS2-B Manchester Extension.

 

It just really galls me to see seating for Manchester-Birmingham cut to favour London-Manchester

I'd do what actually needed to be done - construct an additional railway, from a new station alongside Euston, primarily to deal with the ever increasing WCML capacity problems south of  Rugby, and Stafford/Norton Bridge, and the consequent ever worsening impact on maintenance of the WCML.

 

As a new line it would make sense to build it to high speed standards and 186mph would be the most sensible speed to go for as you avoid the cost of slab track for much higher speeds over the whole route and can reasonably rely on ballasted track to handle that sort of speed together with the required density of traffic.  A spur into Birmingham would  make sense and in view of all the constraints I think the Curzon St station is probably the best compromise that can be achieved for a reasonable cost but it is not an ideal interchange with the West Midlands rail network and leaves Coventry and Wolverhampton out in the cold for long distance service.

 

In order to simplify access to it I might, but only at a sensible cost and not in the way currently being progressed, provide some sort of interchange station in West London.  I might, again subject to cost, make passive provision for later adding a loop off the route to serve LHR but only on the basis that it would reduce/remove domestic flights between London and the northwest etc.

 

Although experience is mixed with such stations in France I might make provision, on very long loops with 100mph turnouts, for an interchange/parkway station probably where the route crosses the Oxford - Bletchley line as that would serve an area planned for massive housing expansion (but not for commuting into London).  That could in turn potentially also relieve overcrowding on the existing cross country core south of Birmingham albeit involving a change of trains.

 

I might make passive provision for potential future connection into onward high speed routes at the northern end but that depends very much on economics and need.

 

I think that a link to 'HS1' (aka CTRL) would not stand up financially.  Providing a new through route from London to Manchester via the Hope Valley would do nothing to relieve the capacity problems on the WCML unless all London - Manchester route trains were to use it instead of the WCML.   

[jamie92208]

Just seen on Facebook that Timeout are reporting that Rachel Reeves is going to give the go ahead for HS2 to go through to Euston during her budget speech.  No details of what sort of station will be provided and I can't post a, ink.  However if this does come off it's good news. 

 

Jamie

[martin_wynne]

8 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

I can't post a link.

 

Link here: https://www.timeout.com/london/news/apparently-hs2-now-is-coming-to-euston-after-all-100124

[david.hill64]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As a new line it would make sense to build it to high speed standards and 186mph would be the most sensible speed to go for as you avoid the cost of slab track for much higher speeds over the whole route and can reasonably rely on ballasted track to handle that sort of speed together with the required density of traffic.  

 

I very much agree with the 186mph comment but disagree about the use of ballasted track. Shinkanshen and Taiwan HSR are mainly 300km/h railways - as is most of China and Germany and use slab track for the simple reason that its whole life cost is very much cheaper than ballasted track. No need for daytime line closures a la SNCF for routine maintenance. No need ever for tamping nor ballast cleaning/renewal.

[jamie92208]

Meanwhile, despite the politics the TBM's are still cracking on.  Emily and Anne heading north from OOC have just rung home and Emily is nearly at the 40% mark, both are doing 12m per day which I think is 6 completed rings.   Sushila and Caroline heading south from West Ruislip are at 88 and 75% respectively and Mary Anne and Elizabeth, heading towards Washwood Heath from Bromford are at 64 and 29%.

 

Jami

[DenysW]

12 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Providing a new through route from London to Manchester via the Hope Valley would do nothing to relieve the capacity problems on the WCML unless all London - Manchester route trains were to use it instead of the WCML.   

My thought was exactly that for all the non-stop trains. A disadvantage is that the passenger who just misses a non-stop can't then go limited-stop from a different platform at the same station.

[KingEdwardII]

22 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

main-line link to Heathrow would keep them warm.

I think we'll probably see a good quantity of pork on the wing before that happens...

 

Yours, Mike.

[martin_wynne]

11 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Link here: https://www.timeout.com/london/news/apparently-hs2-now-is-coming-to-euston-after-all-100124

 

Now looking official: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-high-speed-rail-line-will-run-to-euston-transport-secretary-louise-haigh-confirms-b1186492.html

 

"The HS2 high speed line will go to Euston, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh signalled on Tuesday.

She said an announcement would be made soon, expected at the October 30 Budget.

There had been speculation that HS2 trains running from Birmingham could stop at Old Oak Common in west London rather than Euston being the terminal given the soaring cost.

Pressed whether it was affordable for the high speed line to run to Euston, Ms Haigh told Times Radio: “It would never have made sense to leave it between Old Oak Common and Birmingham.

“Euston was always planned to be part of the picture for HS2. We are hoping to make an announcement on that very soon.”

Edited Tuesday at 09:16 by martin_wynne
quote added

[APOLLO]

Quote

Rachel Reeves is going to give the go ahead for HS2 to go through to Euston during her budget speech.  

 

I wonder where the money will come from, another cull of Pensioners probably.

 

The plan shows a return loop underneath the station, why bother stopping at all ?, that will save time and money !!!!.

 

What will they will name the tunneling Machine, Rachael or Angela?

 

 

Brit15

[jamie92208]

The additional costs of going to Euston are not all that high. The TBM's are bought and being delivered. I suspect that most of the lining rings are already manufactured. The land and archeology at Euston is done so there is really just the station to pay for. Yes that will cost but most of the costs are known. There will also be the benefit of not needing long term arrangements at OOC for terminating trains.  Going to Euston also means that more trains can be run as they won't all be using the slow speed crossovers at OOC. 

 

Jamie

Edited Tuesday at 11:02 by jamie92208

[corneliuslundie]

The news item mentioned private finance - as did the Tories originally. That makes sense if there is still demand for office space in central London.

Jonathan

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

I very much agree with the 186mph comment but disagree about the use of ballasted track. Shinkanshen and Taiwan HSR are mainly 300km/h railways - as is most of China and Germany and use slab track for the simple reason that its whole life cost is very much cheaper than ballasted track. No need for daytime line closures a la SNCF for routine maintenance. No need ever for tamping nor ballast cleaning/renewal.

The only reason SNCF use the day time white period for things like ballast drops and some tamping is because they have always done it that way.    (Which is the answer they always give when asked why they do it that way).  The other reason for the daytime white period is because of their traditional way of working middle/longer passenger services which creates a gap as they don't use a regular interval approach to passenger services over longer distances - it's all about a very different commercial and operating policy from the ways we are used to in Britain.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The only reason SNCF use the day time white period for things like ballast drops and some tamping is because they have always done it that way.    (Which is the answer they always give when asked why they do it that way).  The other reason for the daytime white period is because of their traditional way of working middle/longer passenger services which creates a gap as they don't use a regular interval approach to passenger services over longer distances - it's all about a very different commercial and operating policy from the ways we are used to in Britain.

And they certainly don't use white periods on the high speed lines.  All the maintenance is done at night.  They even have special vehicles to check the lines each morning called Brooms.  A high speed single car DMU. 

 

Jamie