Chris Gibb's HS2 proposal

[Nottingham59]

My full proposal is available on LinkedIn - it’s not confidential. Comments welcome on LinkedIn. Better ideas that don’t involve millions of pounds of extra public money this is not currently available, and will be ready in a little over five years, are welcome and should also be made public. I’m not saying I have the best idea, I just want to start a debate as no other plans are published and the clock is ticking. Phase 1 is being built, the trains are ordered, and that’s what the rail industry must now make the best of. I believe we can deliver big benefits to millions of people across the UK: the same or more seats on all WCML + HS2 routes, reduced journey times and capacity for more freight. Chris Gibb

It’s all in the proposal. As I said comments welcome on LinkedIn.

Welcome to the forum.

It's a thoughtful piece of work. A very welcome piece, that addresses what happens after HS2 phase 1 opens.

But it does seem predicated on opening a 155mph New North Line all the way to Manchester. How does that differ from completing HS2 phases 2a and 2bWest?

I do agree that it's a good idea to capitalise on the planned ETCS investment on the WCML by upgrading the Pendolino fleet for 140mph with tilt and 155mph without. But that's a separate decision from the HS2 conundrum. Given we already have enough HS2 trains on order to fill Phase 1, the upgraded Pendolino fleet would be best employed speeding up WCML services not on HS2. Deploy the super-Pendolinos on Manchester-Glasgow and Liverpool-Edinburgh as well as Crewe-Glasgow services.

It seems to me it would be better to extend 2a to Crewe. Cross-platform change at Crewe (or at Preston) from HS2 trains onto super-Pendolinos to Glasgow and Edinburgh. HS2 stock will get to Crewe 20 minutes before the super-Pendolinos, so this routing is faster than any conceivable through service, even allowing for interchange time

Liverpool and Manchester can be served by 250m HS2 trains. Warrington, Wigan and Preston have space to extend their platforms to 400m, so could be served by 400m HS2 stock eventually.

 

[The Planner]

I do agree that it's a good idea to capitalise on the planned ETCS investment on the WCML by upgrading the Pendolino fleet for 140mph with tilt and 155mph without. But that's a separate decision from the HS2 conundrum. Given we already have enough HS2 trains on order to fill Phase 1, the upgraded Pendolino fleet would be best employed speeding up WCML services not on HS2. Deploy the super-Pendolinos on Manchester-Glasgow and Liverpool-Edinburgh as well as Crewe-Glasgow services.

ETCS on the WCML doesn't mean you get 140mph by default.

 

[Nottingham59]

ETCS on the WCML doesn't mean you get 140mph by default.

Of course not. But it does give you in-cab signalling so avoiding the automatic 125mph limit imposed by sighting requirements.

I don't know how much work it would be to upgrade any parts of the WCML to 140mph running. You would need higher tensions in the OHLE for a start; and therefore (probably) more robust masts and foundations. And track quality would need improving for faster running. Given how long it has taken to upgrade the MML electrification south of Beford from 100mph to 125mph, I'm not that optimistic.

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course not. But it does give you in-cab signalling so avoiding the automatic 125mph limit imposed by sighting requirements.

I don't know how much work it would be to upgrade any parts of the WCML to 140mph running. You would need higher tensions in the OHLE for a start; and therefore (probably) more robust masts and foundations. And track quality would need improving for faster running. Given how long it has taken to upgrade the MML electrification south of Beford from 100mph to 125mph, I'm not that optimistic.

An awful lot of work to go above 125mph. Same principle as in the ECML where I have explained what is required at length. Just two of scores of examples - every set of points in 126+ mph track needs upgrading to swing nose crossings every LX needs to be removed.

 

[6Gman]

I agree making people change sounds like it won't fly - esp intercity passengers who are more likely to have luggage etc if they're using the train instead of flying.
But maybe they should see if there is mileage in it? If the fast line finishes just north of Birmingham, then a direct Euston-Glasgow service on HS2 stock could be timetabled to stop alongside a Glasgow-bound Pendolino service out of Birmingham at the earliest stop after the high speed track ends (likely Crewe or Stafford). Passengers could choose to switch to the faster service or remain on a direct service. The Pendo would depart, followed straight after by the non-tilt. After several months the stats would bear out whether to continue with this, move to just switching or just direct.

Not sure that could work given the layout of the two stations mentioned without major rebuilding.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure that could work given the layout of the two stations mentioned without major rebuilding.

Why? It would be a pain at Stafford, but the HS2 could stop in 3 and a Pendo use 4 bi-directionally. Crewe would be P6 and 11?

 

[Energy]

My full proposal is available on LinkedIn - it’s not confidential. Comments welcome on LinkedIn. Better ideas that don’t involve millions of pounds of extra public money this is not currently available, and will be ready in a little over five years, are welcome and should also be made public. I’m not saying I have the best idea, I just want to start a debate as no other plans are published and the clock is ticking. Phase 1 is being built, the trains are ordered, and that’s what the rail industry must now make the best of. I believe we can deliver big benefits to millions of people across the UK: the same or more seats on all WCML + HS2 routes, reduced journey times and capacity for more freight. Chris Gibb

It’s all in the proposal. As I said comments welcome on LinkedIn.

There was a thread a while ago that may interest you on fitting 400m platforms into Manchester Picadilly and came up with a somewhat feasible lines-on-a-map level idea. I believe 400m platforms at Picadilly, SDO elsewhere, and a new line from Handsacre - Crewe is the most feasible until NPR or similar is delivered

Description: Lines on OpenRailwayMaps detailing an option for 400m platforms at Picadilly.
Credit: @Nottingham59

I think more detail on what would be required for 155mph pendolinos. Going off the ETR 600, 155mph would require the new motors to be ~550kw (or 2x275kw if bogey mounted). With new bogies and traction electronics I would think this would be feasible but I'm not sure whether the existing transformers, pantographs, and associated cabling can handle the extra power draw.

 

[The Ham]

Part of the issue being fixed is the fact that there's 200m trains vs 266m trains.

The issue with that though is that not all trains are created equally when it comes to capacity per train length.

The HS2 trains would have around 525 seats (up to 528, but I'll take a few off for comparison purposes to be robust) whilst the 390's have up to 607, although they higher number is only 1/3 of the fleet as the other 2/3 have 467 seats.

Therefore, even before we look at how the 525 seats compare to the 607 seats, this would only be relevant IF the entire fleet serving a given route were to be 11 coaches long. As with the 11:21 ratio of the existing fleet had an average capacity per train of 515.

Therefore there's a range of seating capacities for the existing fleet depending on how they are deployed. Currently is roughly a 50:50 split in the Avanti services, which gives an average seating capacity across the day of around 590 seats, so actually over the day the number of seats would increase by using HS2 stock.

There's one other factor to consider, this assumes that the capacity is an issue beyond where 400m HS2 trains can operate, as if the capacity is an issue from London to Crewe then it's not a problem to a have less seats north of Crewe.

Anyway back to the 607 seats, assuming a 80% loading of this train that's 486 seats occupied, whilst that makes things a bit more cosy the 200m HS2 stock is still at 93% capacity.

Whilst that's not ideal, there's unlikely to be many services which are likely to be 80% loaded each day.

Some of that you could manage by ticket pricing, to encourage a few people to use services which aren't as busy.

However, if you're spending a significant amount of money on making the 390's fit, maybe it would be better to either allow the 400m trains fit or to allow extra services to run.

One potential outcome could be taking the option which HS2 was proposing of a train which split on it's way to Scotland so one half goes to Glasgow and the other half goes to Edinburgh. That would effectively give you a 400m service to all the stations until the services diverged.

Another could be to run a high frequency service to a hub station so that any change time is limited. That could include trying to get a reasonable timetable change to a TPE service to Glasgow.

The other thing to beat in mind is that Wigan to Glasgow TPE can do that in 2:49 whilst there 390's can do it in 2:35 (14 minutes) whilst HS2 (full) would reduce the London to Wigan time by 24 minutes (net saving of 10 minutes), so with only HS2 phase 1 I would expect the journey time (with no improvements over the existing journey time) to be fairly close and probably with little benefit from running the 390's all the way (even assuming that you could get the faster speeds from them suggested on the HS2 tracks.

Arguably the thing to do would be to use the 390's on the Liverpool to Glasgow (TPE) services so that the fastest journey time for between stations north of Wigan swapped to the TPE services meaning that those travelling only on that section would be marginally more inclined to swap from the Avanti services to the TPE services, especially given the TPE services would have greater capacity (even if they were using the 9 coach 390's).

That extra capacity would mean that the overall line seating capacity between Wigan and Glasgow would be quite a bit higher as whilst some Avanti/HS2 services would reduce from 707 to 625 (-83 seats) whilst around half would increase from 467 to 525 (+58 seats) and the TPE services from Liverpool would increase from 286 to 467 (+181 seats), giving a hourly seat increase of either 98 seats or 239 seats.

Pair that upgraded TPE service with a HS2 service (for example a Blackpool service, or even a future where there's a Morecome service) which connects at either Wigan or Preston and you could offer a service which was (say) 8 minutes faster with a change, which again would encourage a few people to swap from the through service (especially if it was cheaper).

That's before you even consider doing anything expensive which would allow extra services to be run to Glasgow and/or reduced the journey time for HS2 services on the classic lines.

 

[Nottingham59]

Part of the issue being fixed is the fact that there's 200m trains vs 266m trains.

The obvious way to solve that issue is to run 10-car 250m HS2 trains from London to Manchester and Liverpool. They would have a capacity of 10/8x528 = 660 seats, significantly more than the Pendolino option. And they would be around 20 minutes faster.

The acceleration of a 10-car train might be less than an 8-car, but the top speed should be about the same. And the discrepancy would be far less than between HS2 stock and these 155 mph super-Pendolinos.

As discussed in other threads, having 10-car units does imply the complication of a mixed fleet, and the 250m units cannot be joined. But you get those issues too with the HS2 + Pendolino proposal.

By all means, capitalise on the investment in ETCS by upgrading the Pendolino fleet. But there are plenty of routes they can be used on, like Liverpool-Edinburgh, Manchester-Glasgow, Birmingham-Manchester instead of clogging up HS2.

 

[Grimsby town]

Surely the solution would be to get HS2 extended to Crewe as quickly as possible, even if that is at a lower speed than HS2. That would eliminate most capacity issues.

As for Glasgow services, if no additional services can be operated, then considering diverting some of the Birmingham services to London might be a sensible solution to maintain and increasing seating capacity. There'd be plenty of connections into Birmingham services available at Crewe and Birmingham Interchange. Not an ideal solution but a good stop gap pending further upgrades or longer units being ordered.

 

[Martin222002]

The obvious way to solve that issue is to run 10-car 250m HS2 trains from London to Manchester and Liverpool. They would have a capacity of 10/8x528 = 660 seats, significantly more than the Pendolino option. And they would be around 20 minutes faster.

The acceleration of a 10-car train might be less than an 8-car, but the top speed should be about the same. And the discrepancy would be far less than between HS2 stock and these 155 mph super-Pendolinos.

As discussed in other threads, having 10-car units does imply the complication of a mixed fleet, and the 250m units cannot be joined. But you get those issues too with the HS2 + Pendolino proposal.

By all means, capitalise on the investment in ETCS by upgrading the Pendolino fleet. But there are plenty of routes they can be used on, like Liverpool-Edinburgh, Manchester-Glasgow, Birmingham-Manchester instead of clogging up HS2.

Exactly this. In the longer term, when a 400m platforms can be delivered at Manchester Piccadilly, said 10 car 250m HS2 trains can then be used on services like Birmingham-Manchester and Birmingham-Edinburgh/Glasgow via whatever new line is built north of Handsacre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly this. In the longer term, when a 400m platforms can be delivered at Manchester Piccadilly, said 10 car 250m HS2 trains can then be used on services like Birmingham-Manchester and Birmingham-Edinburgh/Glasgow via whatever new line is built north of Handsacre.

Or even somewhere like the ECML. By then, the 80x are going to be getting a bit old.

I'd still go 275 though, it should be possible to deal with that length by careful use of platforms and ASDO, and it would be a significant capacity increase.

 

[Trainbike46]

Surely the solution would be to get HS2 extended to Crewe as quickly as possible, even if that is at a lower speed than HS2. That would eliminate most capacity issues.

As for Glasgow services, if no additional services can be operated, then considering diverting some of the Birmingham services to London might be a sensible solution to maintain and increasing seating capacity. There'd be plenty of connections into Birmingham services available at Crewe and Birmingham Interchange. Not an ideal solution but a good stop gap pending further upgrades or longer units being ordered.

just build phase 2a - it will be quicker and cheaper to build a line for which you've already got the land, the design, and the parliamentary approval compared to anything designed new, which a lower-speed line would be

 

[HSTEd]

just build phase 2a - it will be quicker and cheaper to build a line for which you've already got the land, the design, and the parliamentary approval compared to anything designed new, which a lower-speed line would be

Well there will be years to stand up a new delivery body, given that I doubt anyone in politics is going to let the HS2 management near any further projects.

And that's assuming the powers that be actually trust HS2's designs after the mess that's come out over Phase 1 and such.

 

[Nottingham59]

just build phase 2a - it will be quicker and cheaper to build a line for which you've already got the land, the design, and the parliamentary approval compared to anything designed new, which a lower-speed line would be

I agree. At the minimum, build 2a to at least as far as Baldwin's Gate, 10 miles short of Crewe, where it can merge onto the WCML fast lines. If you had to choose, I'd say that was more important even than the spur to Handsacre.

 

[Trainbike46]

Well there will be years to stand up a new delivery body, given that I doubt anyone in politics is going to let the HS2 management near any further projects.

And that's assuming the powers that be actually trust HS2's designs after the mess that's come out over Phase 1 and such.

I don't think there is any reason to distrust the phase 2A design, especially given that it is the easy bit. I also think it should just stay with HS2 ltd

However, even if you do set up a new delivery body, it will still be quicker because you don't need to do a new act of parliament, a completely new design, or restart land acquisition from scratch. A new slower route would require that. Phase 2A will be quicker and cheaper than a new, slower design, which would offer less benefits anyway

 

[Speed43125]

Chris Green discussing his proposal on Green Signals.

Like I thought when I read the article in RAIL, seems to make more sense than it sounds when you first hear of the idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like I thought when I read the article in RAIL, seems to make more sense than it sounds when you first hear of the idea.

Certainly it coming from an experienced railway manager who has worked on the WCML gives it a lot of credibility compared to one of us coming up with it.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think there is any reason to distrust the phase 2A design, especially given that it is the easy bit. I also think it should just stay with HS2 ltd

However, even if you do set up a new delivery body, it will still be quicker because you don't need to do a new act of parliament, a completely new design, or restart land acquisition from scratch. A new slower route would require that. Phase 2A will be quicker and cheaper than a new, slower design, which would offer less benefits anyway

It is almost certain a 155mph route could be engineered within the land already acquired for Phase 2A.

This means that no act of parliament is needed to gain powers for land acquisition or construction. Any residual requirements could be acquired at the stroke of a pen by a Transport and Works Order.

As for it being the "easy bit" - that doesn't mean that it can't suffer from the same project management problems and runaway cost increases as the rest of HS2. Before its cancellation even HS2 was admitting to a £7bn cost for Phase 2A, it is still one of the most expensive high speed rail projects in the world. It only appears cheap relative to the rest of HS2.

 

[Sorcerer]

It is almost certain a 155mph route could be engineered within the land already acquired for Phase 2A.

You could engineer it but would that be any better value for money than doing it for what was originally planned? As I understand it the cost of engineering a lower speed line for Phase 1 was not significantly cheaper enough to warrant scaling back the speed aspect. I know that HS2 is about capacity rather than speed, but having a line with trains reaching at least 300km/h strengthens the environmental case and allows proper competition with airlines and motorways as well as just being better for a time-pressed business traveller.

 

[Trainbike46]

You could engineer it but would that be any better value for money than doing it for what was originally planned? As I understand it the cost of engineering a lower speed line for Phase 1 was not significantly cheaper enough to warrant scaling back the speed aspect. I know that HS2 is about capacity rather than speed, but having a line with trains reaching at least 300km/h strengthens the environmental case and allows proper competition with airlines and motorways as well as just being better for a time-pressed business traveller.

higher speeds also increase staff productivity, as it increases passenger-km per staff-hour

That leads to lower operational costs - which is another benefit

It is almost certain a 155mph route could be engineered within the land already acquired for Phase 2A.

This means that no act of parliament is needed to gain powers for land acquisition or construction. Any residual requirements could be acquired at the stroke of a pen by a Transport and Works Order.

As for it being the "easy bit" - that doesn't mean that it can't suffer from the same project management problems and runaway cost increases as the rest of HS2. Before its cancellation even HS2 was admitting to a £7bn cost for Phase 2A, it is still one of the most expensive high speed rail projects in the world. It only appears cheap relative to the rest of HS2.

I'm not denying that every part of HS2 is expensive - it clearly is.

What I'm disagreeing with is that replacing 2A with a lower speed line will make anything better - it won't, it'll just be more expensive in the form of new design costs. I also don't have any faith that a new, slower speed design will have better project management. It'll just take longer, end up more expensive than if we continue with phase 2A as is, and reduce the benefits

 

[Bald Rick]

It is almost certain a 155mph route could be engineered within the land already acquired for Phase 2A.

Of course you could.

The incremental cost of going from 250kph to 300kph / 320kph within the consented footprint is, essentially, nil. Indeed, given that there is a reference design for HS2 2a, which would need to be redesigned for a 250kph railway, it may well cost more to get to 250kph, given where we are starting from.

 

[Sorcerer]

So I just had a listen to Chris Gibb's proposal on the Green Signals podcast on YouTube (linked above by another user) and clearly the man does at least know what he's talking about. It does indeed make the most of what we have by re-engineering Pendolinos to run on high speed and classic lines given that there won't be enough platforms to accommodate a 400m train while a single 200m long train won't be as long as an 11-coach Pendolino at 265m long. The idea of having both 250km/h and 300km/h capable high speed trains sharing a dedicated line also isn't unknown since that is how Trenitalia and Italo operate their high-speed services.

I also like how it doesn't prevent the construction of further high-speed lines in future, because ideally what should come of Phase 1 is full completion into Euston and then a reformation in the approach to how this country approaches infrastructure and project management as well as building on experience. One of the biggest mistakes of HS2 in my opinion was not drawing upon the experience of Rob Holden and those who built HS1. I've no doubt this would bring down costs in future so we can then bring back the branches to Manchester and Leeds for the full capacity relief on all three mainlines to the north out of London along with a bigger Euston to fit the platforms necessary.

 

[MarkyT]

I see no benefit whatsoever down-speccing the alignment to limit curve speed. To take it to ridiculous extremes, would they also add unnecessary curves on straight bits just to ensure it can never be upgraded in the future? Deliberately weaken a bridge design? 19th century engineers designed their railways with theoretical curve speed way in advance of what was possible at the time. It's sensible to incorporate an upgrade margin in an asset that will be around for hundreds of years. Railway systems: track, electrification, signalling etc can be downspecced a little of course, but they're all renewable items that will be totally replaced many times over a century. Each renewal is an opportunity for upgrade if desired.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Or even somewhere like the ECML. By then, the 80x are going to be getting a bit old.

I'd still go 275 though, it should be possible to deal with that length by careful use of platforms and ASDO, and it would be a significant capacity increase.

That sounds like a good plan. Upgrade most bits to 140mph with a few sections to 155mph? Would probably want a new line/bypass to avoid Welwyn. Or maybe a 155mph Azuma? Has anything similar been proposed for the ECML beyond just 140mph running? For the HS2/WCML plan how many trains will run to Edinburgh? Surely one of the issues with cutting back HS2 is that the ECML continues to be the main London-Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh corridor?

 

[Chris Butler]

Thanks for posting.

So the proposal is dependent on:

• Building a new 155mph "New North Line" from Fradley Junction to Manchester. (Presumably on the planned HS2 alignment?)
• ETCS on ....

Have I got this right?

I'm a bit hazy on this bit, but I don't think that the idea of mixed fleets for HS2 (speedier Pendolinos + slowed HS2 stock) is dependent on building Fradley to Manchester. I think that idea still works using (ETCS enabled) 140mph Pendolino services on the existing network.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm a bit hazy on this bit, but I don't think that the idea of mixed fleets for HS2 (speedier Pendolinos + slowed HS2 stock) is dependent on building Fradley to Manchester. I think that idea still works using (ETCS enabled) 140mph Pendolino services on the existing network.

Chris G clarified in the LinkedIn discussion that his proposals should apply with just HS2 phase 1 operational. But in that case they would still be constrained by the limited capacity at Colwich junction.

 

[Chris Butler]

Chris G clarified in the LinkedIn discussion that his proposals should apply with just HS2 phase 1 operational. But in that case they would still be constrained by the limited capacity at Colwich junction.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

 

[The Ham]

Having listened to the Green Signals episode, I'm more convinced that this is a fairly high cost option with a significant risk associated with the re-engineering of the 390's having the potential not to work as well as would be liked (see the 769's).

This is in part due to the motor/wheel costs being cited as being (from the memory of the individual stating it) somewhere in the region of 1/3 of the total cost of the trains when new. That's got the potential to be a bit higher when adding these to existing trains.

Most of the journey time savings from the 390's were from North of Preston, especially with the introduction of ETCS.

As such I come back to the point, why do something this risky when you could deploy the 390's on existing services (like the TPE services between Liverpool and Glasgow and Manchester and Edinburgh) to provide extra capacity along the line.

With a switch from a HS2 train (non Glasgow service) to a 390 being the fastest option (should fairly easily match the super 390 for end to end journey time from London) but still having the through trains from London so people who aren't willing to change can still do so.

You have a single train fleet running on the HS2 track.

Yes you'd need to build infrastructure to allow 400m trains to get to Crewe to split, however that can be done whilst the 390's are still in intensive service and this would likely need to happen anyway. Building a super 390 would likely mean taking it out of service for a while, with the first probably needing to be out of passenger use for quite a while.

Whilst that's probably doable if passenger numbers stay depressed, which is possible for the short term, however what happens if passenger numbers improve noticeably following a deal on pay which removes the strikes, could there still be capacity to do so, or would the super 390 project then need to start once phase 1 is in operation?

As I said before passenger uplift across the day from using only HS2 stock (9,375) vs the current mix of 9/11 coach 390's (8,925) happens over the northern section (south of Crewe the passenger capacity uplift is provided by 400m trains). If you could get an all 11 coach fleet there would be an uplift (10,607). However, even in a 0.5tph basis using 9 coach 390's to run to Glasgow rather the current 397's you'd gain an extra 1,267 seats (using all 11 coach super 390's would gain you 1,232 seats across the day), if you could deliver an hourly (assuming 0.5tph to each Glasgow and Edinburgh) TPE 390 fleet with 11 coaches the extra capacity north of Preston increases a lot.

Whilst you could run 390's on the TPE trains as well as using the super 390's to increase capacity further, the point being is that you could introduce the TPE 390's from day one of HS2 being open and use them until you could build the super 390's.

If you then find there's issues with delivery of the super 390's you can still deliver an uplift in passenger capacity over the current situation.

However if passenger numbers are so good that the uplift from the TPE 390 fleet isn't enough, then passenger numbers would have grown significantly and the super 390 scheme would likely not be enough for very long either and extra infrastructure capacity would be needed, one of the easiest to deliver could be platform lengthening to allow 400m trains to run further north before splitting.

 

[HSTEd]

What is the actual minimum infrastructure necessary to operate 400m trains across the WCML corridor?

400m platforms at Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow?