Andrew*Debbie
Member
Yes. Siemens already have submitted their bid.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Government announces independent review into HS2 programme
- Thread starter CeeJ
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Siemens already have submitted their bid.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
[Lack of link to HS1]
Totally ridiculous, and together with the stupid idea of plonking an "East Midlands Hub" at Toton demonstrates all that is wrong with the concept behind this project.
If there's no connectivity to continental services then it might as well be built as a 125mph relief line for the WCML, for that's all it will be in effect.
This review is a very welcome one from my POV. A chance to fix some of the glaring errors at the eleventh hour before it it's too late.
But it won't be a mega station as you describe. It'll be a totally separate terminus half a mile away down Euston Road (or miles away at Old Oak Common?). And the HS2 platforms will be massive so you've potentially a long walk just to get to Crossrail or the Tube or whatever to get to St Pancras. Hauling all of your luggage, kids etc for your 2 weeks in France, Spain, Italy.
Totally ridiculous, and together with the stupid idea of plonking an "East Midlands Hub" at Toton demonstrates all that is wrong with the concept behind this project.
If there's no connectivity to continental services then it might as well be built as a 125mph relief line for the WCML, for that's all it will be in effect.
This review is a very welcome one from my POV. A chance to fix some of the glaring errors at the eleventh hour before it it's too late.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No longer, indeed probably quite a lot shorter, than the walk to the gates from the entrance at most airports. I really don't get why people disregard that in their choices. It's a bit like the way people think it's an absolute killer to walk 50m (if that) on the level to change between a TPE service and a potential Airport shuttle from say P11 at Manchester Pic.
Nobody uses old style suitcases any more, it's all rucksacks and wheeled luggage designed for this sort of thing.
Old Oak Common to Paris!
Joking aside, it could be possible that a link is formed for a future Wales/Southwest High Speed line with future connection at Old Oak Common. As then you've opened up a larger market and some across between platform changes (maybe even a dedicated international platform/platforms at OOC) could start to make some serious inroads into those opting to fly. Even if the journey time is ~4 to 5 hours. Especially if the cultural acceptance of flying drops away.
Just what would the size of market be for a family of 4 wanting a direct train service from Liverpool or Leeds to Milan or Madrid? Don't forget you'd have to mostly change trains in Paris whatever the links in London were like.
There are plenty of ways to make connecting between Euston, StP and LKX quicker and easier without a HS rail link costing several billion. CrossRail2 is calling their proposed station "Euston StPancras" as it will effectively link the two existing stations together: https://crossrail2.co.uk/stations/euston/
It'd be difficult to take more than 15 minutes to transfer between Euston and St Pancras or Kings Cross on the surface by foot today. There's very little point in anyone using the tube for the transfer, as the routes to and from the platforms at each end add up to about the same as the surface distance. The nearest parts of St Pancras and Euston are only around 500m apart but any realistic walking routes are somewhat indirect unfortunately with many at grade road crossings and appalling air quality if you choose to go along Euston Road. A high quality pedestrian route is required IMHO to unite these termini into a London Hauptbahnhof complex, possibly enhanced with moving walkways or some kind of automated pod shuttle and at least partially covered and segregated from road traffic. A better link from Euston would not only link HS2 and residual WCML with continental services, but also with the many destinations accessible via Thameslink and the Kent HS1 domestics, as well as the additional tube lines and bus routes available at Kings Cross. The whole Kings Cross Goods Yard redevelopment area would also be better linked in with nationwide high speed travel options.
This could create a proper high frequency international hub and spoke operation, totally unlike the highly unattractive notional service of just one or two daily direct trains that might be possible between a tiny handful of stations in the north of England and on the continent via a notional rail link between HS1 and HS2.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,401
You're making mountains out of molehills.
Yes, it be would nice if HS2 and HS1 were directly linked, but it would cost billions for the benefit of comparatively few passengers. If people are going to use trains to go on holiday in Europe then a half mile walk in central London is not going to be a showstopper for them. People already do it, they'll carry on doing it. Besides, most journeys to southern Europe would likely require a cross-Paris change as well, which is far less convenient than a short walk down Euston Road. By the way, it's interesting to note that even when Paris has a direct high speed bypass, most rail journey planners still route through the centre of Paris because the train frequency is much better; I suspect any HS1-HS2 link would suffer from the same issue.
Also yes, it would be nice if HS2 served the centres of Derby and Nottingham directly. But again it would cost billions extra and the gain is comparatively small, particularly if train frequency is reduced. I'd certainly use Toton station if travelling to the east midlands. It would be a massive improvement on the current service.
It's inevitable that large infrastructure projects have to make compromises and in these instances they have been made after considerable work has gone into the alternatives which have been dismissed for good reasons. Feel free to disagree with the choice by all means, but you can't sensibly describe these as 'glaring errors'. More reasoned argument always welcome. Polemic, not so much.
I'm not sure how relevant the journey times of late running trains are - Most passengers are looking to avoid late running trains, I believe.As far as the vast majority of passengers are concerned the current journey time is 1 hour 15 minutes, because that's what the trains are (mostly) scheduled to achieve. In my experience, late running Crosscountry trains only become later, due to the constraints of operating on the congested UK network. High Speed 2 services would bypass that issue.
Though the recent promotional "fast" run between Birmingham and York did demonstrate that there are some improvements that could be made to the schedules of existing services in light of the Derby remodelling works. If it's possible to reduce journey times on the "classic" network to something more akin to the projected HS2 journey times then that lessens the case for the eastern arm, as long as (in my view) HS2 services can still reach Leeds via Manchester, though still at some detriment to the London - East Midlands/South Yorkshire market.
In a recent Modern Railways article it stated that there would be 22 minutes removed from the Birmingham - York timings, mainly due to the work at Derby.
Families, business people, whatever. The market will be a lot bigger than it is today when flying is curtailed (as it will have to be if we are serious about climate change, it's the fastest growing source of emissions).
It wouldn't be a high speed rail link between Euston and St Pancras. It would be a high speed rail link between the channel tunnel, HS1 and the rest of the country. It would indeed cost billions to build it close to those termini, the obvious solution if that's unaffordable is to branch off HS2 further out and tie it in elsewhere.
A through journey is always going to be more attractive and more competitive with other modes of transport than one that involves changes and long walks.
Brum to Paris ?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
5 flights per day, operated using Embraer ERJs. Not exactly a massive demand, nice though those aircraft are. The passengers would all fit in a 4-car EMU, never mind a Eurostar.
Hit the nail on the head.
Why are attitudes so different now today compared to say the 60s when the motorways were built? I watched a program about the building of the M62 and it said people were excited, there was positivity about the jobs created by construction, and folks couldn't wait to drive long distances at speed. Nowadays there can seem to be a lot of negativity to change, anything which costs a lot compared to small schemes, and anything where scenery may be affected.
The bigger picture in a long term evolution progress environmental point of view probably ought to be: infrastructure is a positive thing. Who ever regretted building a long distance intercity style railway? Mass job creation in construction and operation would be a good thing, as would speeding up the country where there is gridlock on certain roads and motorways. And building capacity and a railway fit for the next 200 years.
What could be bad about that when we look at say a 100 year view? Nothing ever came for free. It's no good people wanting it again in 50 years and it's 10 times the cost.
The project seems to have been mis-sold in some media outlets. Only today newspapers talk of phase one as far as Birmingham with the railway possibly continuing to the North later. And yet phase one will take trains to the North via rejoining the mainline at Rugeley which I don't think has ever been made clear to the public.
matacaster
On Moderation
HS2 supporters make much of the need to avoid 'doing a wcml upgrade' as it's very costly to upgrade a functioning railway. So why on earth do exactly that with HS2 at Euston?
Rather than make Euston much bigger at phenomenal cost, either stop at old oak common or make a new connection to get slow wcml stoppers to go to old oak common as 12 coach instead, then use released capacity to accommodate extra long distance trains. The reason wcml trains go to Euston is perhaps more historic than rational.
Rather than make Euston much bigger at phenomenal cost, either stop at old oak common or make a new connection to get slow wcml stoppers to go to old oak common as 12 coach instead, then use released capacity to accommodate extra long distance trains. The reason wcml trains go to Euston is perhaps more historic than rational.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Add to the fact that Euston is in central London and OOC isn't?
Terminating at OOC would make as much sense as terminating all the Abellio Greater Anglia IC services at Stratford (the distance out, Tube/Crossrail connectivity and the idea of the development is very similar). It would become a pointless, expensive white elephant. If it isn't going to central London (or being fed into the WCML to reach Euston that way), it should be scrapped entirely.
By the way, Euston isn't "upgrading a functional railway", it's building a new station next to it. OK, we did lose P17 and P18, but they were the least used anyway.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 17,541
Euston isn't as disrupted as many think, platforms 17 & 18 are already gone and there will be very few all stations blocks as its all on the one side.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,401
Last year we flew to the south of France for a family holiday. We needed to change (at Schiphol), and in retrospect it was no more convenient than if we'd taken the train and had to change stations in London and Paris.
So the same concept as the Paris LGV interconnection? Even with this in place, most long distance journeys get routed via Paris rather than changing at Lille as there are more destinations on offer at greater frequencies.
Only if the direct service goes where you want to go at a time you want to travel. Otherwise people will accept walking a short distance.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's basically a new station built next to the existing one.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
One end of AMS to the other is just as long a walk as from Euston to St Pancras - it's a massive airport!
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,097
How do you know??
How many people get off a train at Euston, Kings Cross or Paddington and make their way to St Pancras for Eurostar - or, indeed, how many don't make that journey and go by air instead as that way you DON'T have to cross London?? Point being, how many of those crossing London would LOVE to travel from their town to the continent without having to cross London and would use a direct service instead??
412,000 passenger a year (2018). Thats 34,333 a month or an average of 1144 per day. And there are several 320 in the mix also (Air france)
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,666
Flying won't be curtailed significantly, it's simply too convenient for too many people. Planes will become more environmentally friendly, but I very much doubt there will be any wholesale reduction of routes or frequencies.
Well we shall see, but exponential growth in aviation is not compatible with reducing emissions. Aeroplanes are getting more efficient but that's swamped by growth in the sector. And forget electrifying commercial aviation, it's just not feasible with current technology.
Sooner or later we are all going to have to make big changes to how we live. Conveniently being able to travel cheaply by air to anywhere the world whenever we feel like is likely to be one of those things that has to change.
Governments aren't being honest about the fundamental changes that need to be made. And they will have to mandate those changes, because as you point out, personal convenience trumps other considerations for most of the population.
It's still 572 each way per day, call it 650 and it's still only one train, maybe at a push two, a day in each direction.
People are more likely to accept a 15 minute walk with a choice of trains at a wider selection of times over a direct service which runs at most twice a day.
Provide a moving walkway to improve things as well as provide through ticketing and you'd probably get 98% of people willing to use it who would use a direct train at a much lower cost.
Do that so you can see (read count) passenger numbers and then justify the link when there's the usage.
Agreed. I went through Schipol a couple of years ago flying to Milan(KLM) from Brum. The ticket said it was a 20 minute walk to connecting flight and it was reasonably accurate given luggage and having two teenage sons in tow.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,401
Walking from Euston to St. Pancras is hardly 'crossing London'; King's Cross to St. Pancras is barely crossing a road. I'll grant you Paddington is a schlep.
As for how do I know, let's see how many direct North of London Eurostar services are running... answer, zero. The infrastructure already exists for such journeys; it was built into St. Pancras international throat. Eurostar could extend services to Birmingham or Manchester or Leeds, just as they have to Amsterdam and Marseilles. But they have concluded that they aren't worth running. They offer few advantages over the relatively easy transfer already available. There is no large unmet demand for direct services. The best thing to do would be to improve the transfer between stations - better walking route, travelators, PRT etc.
Chances are there'll be rules brought in, such as taxes based on journey being made (so even long distance flights made with a linking flight would be charged or rules starting that carbon offsetting to be used by any airline going through European airspace (most would force their passengers to pay as the extra costs of going around would be too high for them to bear).
If the EU did that I'd expect other countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Greenland, etc.) to follow suit.
This is why we're failing at dealing with emissions. Society is still struggling to accept the extent of change required to deal with climate change. Aviation will have to be scaled down. There is no other way around it. Where we struggle to accept this is due to the economic crisis of 2008, which we're still recovering from from a wages perspective, people are now very frightened about a thread to business. We didn't used to hear half as much talk about 'protecting business', as if business is a person. But people fear for the long term viability of their employment and this is linked into business in the minds of society.
I.e. politically it's too sensitive to take action which is likely to inevitably cause some multiple airlines to go bust. Bit if their model is based around sell em cheap pile em up and people are able to hop to the med for 3 days at will how will we ever scale back emissions carrying on like that?
Airports are still expanding, and political figures are still bigging this up as a positive thing. How possibly can this fit in with a zero carbon future? An electric railway on the other hand...
That argument only goes so far. Firstly, electric aircraft are in production so maybe there's some chance of that taking off (ho ho). But the other side of it is: where does the electricity for aircraft or train come from? Not everything is clean yet.
The train is hurtling along at ground level where the air is densest. Does anyone have a link to a sensible comparison of energy per person per mile between a 400mph turboprop and a 200mph train?
It would.
But how would it provide additional capacity? In fact, by speeding up the Pendolinos you would probably reduce capacity!
- Status