How *should* HS2 have been built?

[Manutd1999]

How much capacity would that add?

It's obviously hard to say exactly, but quite a lot? Remember Phase 2b only releases 4-5ph unless NPR is also built

It's more of a general point that I was making - there are many schemes out there that get ruled out as "too expensive" but are nowhere near as expensive as HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's obviously hard to say exactly, but quite a lot?

Try ‘none’ to ‘very little’

 

[weeklycommuter]

Because the same cost drivers that have driven the cost of HS2 into the stratosphere will have done it for a 125mph railway.

Meanwhile you get a railway that is of no use at all for relieving the MML or ECML, and thus will never be filled.

Trains from London to Edinburgh take a lot of capacity on the East Coast Mainline. The arguments in the abandoned May 2022 East Coast Mainline timetable proposal about various places losing out were a result of trying to run faster trains to Edinburgh. A combination of HS2 and the West Coast Mainline can be used to provide additional capacity with high speed trains to Edinburgh. There is a proposal for two 400 metre long double set trains an hour from London Euston to serve both Edinburgh and Glasgow with the two sets joining and separating at Carlisle, one set for Edinburgh and one set for Glasgow. They could presumably also run double sets to Edinburgh and Glasgow from Birmingham Curzon Street. HS2 combined with WCML will therefore provide capacity relief for the East Coast Mainline by providing a lot of additional seats on fast limited stop trains from London to Edinburgh which will therefore not need to be provided on the East Coast Mainline.

 

[HSTEd]

Trains from London to Edinburgh take a lot of capacity on the East Coast Mainline. The arguments in the abandoned May 2022 East Coast Mainline timetable proposal about various places losing out were a result of trying to run faster trains to Edinburgh. A combination of HS2 and the West Coast Mainline can be used to provide additional capacity with high speed trains to Edinburgh. There is a proposal for two 400 metre long double set trains an hour from London Euston to serve both Edinburgh and Glasgow with the two sets joining and separating at Carlisle, one set for Edinburgh and one set for Glasgow. They could presumably also run double sets to Edinburgh and Glasgow from Birmingham Curzon Street. HS2 combined with WCML will therefore provide capacity relief for the East Coast Mainline by providing a lot of additional seats on fast limited stop trains from London to Edinburgh which will therefore not need to be provided on the East Coast Mainline.

I'm not sure a 125mph HS2 is going to really result in a fast enough Edinburgh journey time to decisively beat the ECML. At which point you will struggle to get passengers to switch.

 

[Blindtraveler]

The simple answer to this question from my point of view is it shouldn't. For me the cost benefit analysis never stacked up and as the journey time to the north in particular just wasn't going to be a significant enough saving it would not have persuaded me and many others no doubt to switch, and in the process pay the no doubt not insignificant increase in price, if full fat fairs on hs1 services are ending to go by. We simply should have reconfigured services on our existing main lines to get some stops out or other performance improvements in and this could have been done along with many other rail projects for the money that's being spent on effectively a commuter train for Midlands commuters that are no longer commuting because apparently everyone works from home these days, although there is plenty of evidence to the country that I myself have observed

Apologies to all the many on here peddling the climate emergency which again in my view isn't there but you're going to need to save me significantly more than 30 to 45 minutes on a London to Scotland end to end journey time not to mention a lot of money in fares and an increase in onboard facilities before you tempt me away from the plane. Every time I do the train these days it either goes wrong or costs me a fortune because standard class facilities have been paired back so much, particularly on the East coast where four plus hours on an ironing board awaits for the hardy souls doing London to Edinburgh etc

A similar length and distance of journey in a lot of other European countries would see a much more comfortable and spacious standard class interior and a full restaurant service for those wanting it at reasonable prices, but here in the UK we provide less comfort than your average park bench with hundreds of people compressed into metal and plastic smarty tubes with a overpriced and substandard catering service and then we wonder why so many people drive or take the plane

 

[matacaster]

Several knowledgeable people have noted that tunnelling costs are often cheaper than surface lines. How would costs of tunnelling HS2 throughout compare assuming Birmingham and Manchester were built as underground through stations and a through station at st pancras with connection to hs1 rather than Euston?

If one considers journey time and capacity to get to London, speed and capacity appears to be directly proportional to the distance from London.

 

[RobShipway]

The simple answer to this question from my point of view is it shouldn't. For me the cost benefit analysis never stacked up and as the journey time to the north in particular just wasn't going to be a significant enough saving it would not have persuaded me and many others no doubt to switch, and in the process pay the no doubt not insignificant increase in price, if full fat fairs on hs1 services are ending to go by. We simply should have reconfigured services on our existing main lines to get some stops out or other performance improvements in and this could have been done along with many other rail projects for the money that's being spent on effectively a commuter train for Midlands commuters that are no longer commuting because apparently everyone works from home these days, although there is plenty of evidence to the country that I myself have observed

Apologies to all the many on here peddling the climate emergency which again in my view isn't there but you're going to need to save me significantly more than 30 to 45 minutes on a London to Scotland end to end journey time not to mention a lot of money in fares and an increase in onboard facilities before you tempt me away from the plane. Every time I do the train these days it either goes wrong or costs me a fortune because standard class facilities have been paired back so much, particularly on the East coast where four plus hours on an ironing board awaits for the hardy souls doing London to Edinburgh etc

A similar length and distance of journey in a lot of other European countries would see a much more comfortable and spacious standard class interior and a full restaurant service for those wanting it at reasonable prices, but here in the UK we provide less comfort than your average park bench with hundreds of people compressed into metal and plastic smarty tubes with a overpriced and substandard catering service and then we wonder why so many people drive or take the plane

So how do you explain the rise in water levels in oceans and rivers around the world? How do you explain that the UK in the last 15 years or more, is having warmer temperatures through the year, whereby the Autumn/Winter months are about 5 to 10 degrees centigrade warmer in 2023, than say they where in 1976 which was a warm year in it's self?

It has also been noted that in recent years around the UK coasts, more tropical fish that has never before been seen around the UK coast is beginning to be seen. This apparently is down to the fact that the waters are not only rising, but also getting warmer around the UK coast. How do you explain that?

Now, admittedly the weather climate changes are not all down to aviation fuel, a good amount is down to diesel fuel used by ships, lorries etc.... But also from fumes from Petrol vehicles. Now, there is better fuels that many Airlines are starting to use, that does not give out the same amount if any carbon emissions. But until all jet/[propeller planes are adapted or changed over to use less to none carbon emission fuels, then there is still going to be the issue that your plane flight between England and Scotland on a per person basis gives out about three times more emissions than the same number of people taking 2 Advanti class 221 units between Euston to Glasgow or Edingburgh. Admittedly though, it does depend on the type of plane used for your fight.

Where we can agree, is that costs for travelling by train between England and Scotland need to come down. The quality of the experience does need to change from having bucket seat trains to trains that have comfortable seats much like the seats that where in the original MK3 passenger carriages when introduced. Although, I would add that depending on where you are travelling from and how you are travelling to the Airport, I would say that in my experience the costs has not been that much different between taking a plane to Scotland to taking the train.

Apologies, for taking the thread off subject.

 

[HSTEd]

Several knowledgeable people have noted that tunnelling costs are often cheaper than surface lines. How would costs of tunnelling HS2 throughout compare assuming Birmingham and Manchester were built as underground through stations and a through station at st pancras with connection to hs1 rather than Euston?

Tunneled staions are often extraordinarily expensive, although they have become comparably less so over time. The reduction in cost is largely the arrival of ever larger tunnel boring machines, which allow traditionally excavated stations to be eliminated.

However, I would suggest the sensible option is to tunnel pretty much everything except for stations.

It is worth noting that the cost per km of HS2 is comparable to or greater than building Alpine Base Tunnels. It's 160 ish kilometres from London to Birmingham, or about ten Ceneri Base Tunnels, which would come to about 25bn CHF, which is £22bn.
We are reaching the point where bored tunnels are increasingly replacing other infrastructural options across the world, and where the traditional idea of conserving excavatated volume to save money is being abandoned.
The most extreme version of that I've seen would be the San Jose BART extension, where they've decided to adopt an even larger tunnel throughout to allow the stations to have both platforms on the same level.

Metro line being built inside a continuous 54' (16m!) diameter tunnel, as opposed to the 48' one that was proposed when it was going to be double deck.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well there were figures that showed that knocking something like one hour of London to Glasgow/Edinburgh could drastically reduce air travel on the same route. I recall comparisons were made with London/Paris and the effect Eurostar has had on that sector. Might need to add in the advantage that the rail stations are more convenient (on average) compared to their airports. But rail fares are amazingly expensive for something that does not have to float in the air.

It is apparent that the advantages of HS2 have not been shown broadly enough. I often have to point out to people that it is not the speed on its own but the fact that the speed improvement will draw long distance passengers from other very old and crowded lines - particularly the West Coast Main Line. Most lines in the UK are less suitable for high speed rail than those in Europe as in Europe they were built later when speeds were higher, in Europe a lot of routes got a lot of modernisation courtesy of Hitler (demolishing) and the Marshal plan (re-building). It is amazing really that the UK has plodded on without High Speed lines for so long whereas Europe got on with it last century despite their newer and improved heritage routes !.

As for upgrading. Too many short memories forgetting the lessons of the West Coast Mainline Upgrade. Money spent tinkering on a mainline that must be the oldest in the world - start again.

But in these austere times many things will have to be canned. I will be dumb struck if Old Oak to Euston does not get built and its already going to be late. As for beyond Birmingham (the chance to build on the experience gained on HS2 phase 1) I feel its got as much chance as more electrification (those teams of experience too will dissolve). Furthermore there is a risk homeworking has passed the railways by - Most people I talk to hated commuting and love the chance to do work at home thus making their weekend longer.

In conclusion - Best way to do HS2 differently would have been to have got on with it twenty or more years ago, ideally before the WCML upgrades.

 

[Sweetjesus]

Indeed, the current plan is:
- 3tph to Birmingham (3,300 seats per hour)
- 3tph to Manchester (3,300 seats per hour)

With a through station at Birmingham that could be
- 6tph to Birmingham and on to Manchester (6,600 seats per hour)



Whilst that true or could have given broad brush examples:

One platform used by 2 long distance services an hour could then be used by 3 (probably 6 as they're half length) local trains an hour, cut those services are from other platforms, which can now run longer trains.



The near doubling of Euston isn't down to speed of the track.



For example London Manchester:
Current trains (each hour 11 coaches, 11 coaches and 9 coaches) 155 coaches for the 5 hour round trip

Alternative route with a mid way speed, which cuts journey time by 30 minutes each way but with 16 coach (400m) trains 192 coaches for the 4 hour round trip.

HS2, cuts journey time by 1 hour each way, with 16 coaches 144 coaches for 3 hour round trip

On the old rule of thumb of £100k per coach per year that's an extra £1.68bn over 35 years of the trains life (plus the extra staff costs). That rule of thumb is probably old enough that least costs would be double that now, so between £3bn and £4bn extra.

Whilst not 9% of 100bn, it's made a fair debt in that difference, the extra speed would likely also make it more likely that people would use it, which would mean more income.

Would it have been cheaper to build Birmingham HS2 station as a through station and remove the spur in its entirely?

 

[HSTEd]

Would it have been cheaper to build Birmingham HS2 station as a through station and remove the spur in its entirely?

Probably not, but all the costs are so screwed up now it is hard to tell.
With massive and so strongly variable inflation throughout the project, making such comparisons is difficult at best.

 

[Sorcerer]

To be honest, even if a Birmingham through station was a bit more expensive than a bypass route, I think that it might've just as well have been good value since it could've also relieved the Birmingham-Manchester traffic, and to an even similar extent, the Birmingham-Scotland and Birmingham-Liverpool traffic. At a potential capacity of 18tph (one every 3 minutes) there would've been no shortage of space on HS2 for such train services.

 

[JamesT]

To be honest, even if a Birmingham through station was a bit more expensive than a bypass route, I think that it might've just as well have been good value since it could've also relieved the Birmingham-Manchester traffic, and to an even similar extent, the Birmingham-Scotland and Birmingham-Liverpool traffic. At a potential capacity of 18tph (one every 3 minutes) there would've been no shortage of space on HS2 for such train services.

Rather than a bit more expensive, a through Birmingham station would likely have been a lot more expensive. The spur is mostly above ground as is Curzon Street. If you're going out the other side, it's going to need tunnelling as there isn't such a clear route in the opposite direction. You'd also have to bury the station, as you're not going to get up and down from the surface to the approach tunnels.
I'm confused at the claim you need a through station to relieve some of these other services. The proposed services for HS2 included Birmingham to Manchester and Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh.

 

[cle]

Interchange was/is the through Birmingham station. If everything stopped there, it became more of a focus, and instead New St was used on classic lines for a final trundle, that would replicate the set-up in places like Lyon, Tours, Turin and so on.

But HS2 was always doing too many things at once. For air, it needs to service Edinburgh and Glasgow. Liverpool and Manchester, sure? But Leeds is also important. And York/Newcastle far more than Preston/Carlisle. Easy wins for the East Midlands too, especially with the EMP plan.

So taking it back to an incremental approach is probably more realistic. Take the victories we can, hopefully we get to Crewe fast (knocking a very respectable and equitable 35 mins off hourly journeys to each of Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow - but also North Wales connections no doubt) - and below there, frequency and stopping patterns into Euston can abound.

And let's see what Labour do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If New St was used, though, 400m trains couldn't be. And 200m would mean a capacity cut.

(A lot of things do seem to point to single 300m units and no multiple working being a better idea)

 

[PMN1]

Tunneled staions are often extraordinarily expensive, although they have become comparably less so over time. The reduction in cost is largely the arrival of ever larger tunnel boring machines, which allow traditionally excavated stations to be eliminated.

O/T but anyone have the history of TBM diameters?

 

[thaitransit]

It would have been 2 separate corridors one starting at Glasgow and the other from Edinburgh. The Junction would have been at Birmingham. Then run together to central London. Then it would split into two routes one running south then west to cornwell and the other route would through route in to Europe. (Immigration would be near the channel tunnel) one stop for both exit and entry Immigration.

Birmingham would have been a deep level underground station connected to existing station.

London Central would be a brand new very deep level station near existing kings cross. This station could be 100 metres below street level and completely built from underground to minimise surface disruption and building demolition.

Each of the 4 branches would be electrified double track with a line speed of 400kph and moving block signal system to allow trains every few minutes. The section between new London Central and Birmingham would be Quad track with 400kph line speed.

The stations would be built for 16 car double deck high speed trains. With trains made up of 8 car double deck units that can be coupled into pairs. The trains would be 2 class with a 1 + 2 seating 1st class and a 2 + 2 seating 2nd class. Each unit would have a full cafe car serving quality hot and cold food.

In regional areas outside of major cities track would be at grade or elevated with any requirements for land purchased using compulsory acquisition and reasonable compensation. There would be zero options for protesting the route under any circumstances. Separate laws would have to be passed to make protests illegal for HS2 with jail time as a penalty!

Once completed peak time train frequency would be at least every 10 minutes on all 4 branches. Peak times its 16 car units and off peak its 8 car units. The train service would be 24 hour on Friday and Saturday. Otherwise its operates 4am to 1am in both directions.

This how to do it properly and totally transform the transport system of the UK. With 400kph trains even Scotland is within daily commute of central London. It should allow hundreds of thousands people to commute into London essentially turning England into the world largest co urbanisation where everyone is within easy commuting distance of London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Separate laws would have to be passed to make protests illegal for HS2 with jail time as a penalty!

Other than it being expensive the rest of it isn't a terrible idea. But this is not acceptable in a civilised democratic country. I'd perhaps suggest you might consider relocating to China or North Korea.

 

[Arkeeos]

Other than it being expensive the rest of it isn't a terrible idea. But this is not acceptable in a civilised democratic country. I'd perhaps suggest you might consider relocating to China or North Korea.

In a democratic country a small highly motivated mob shouldn't be able to interupt a pledge in a democratically elected party's manifesto.

 

[thaitransit]

Other than it being expensive the rest of it isn't a terrible idea. But this is not acceptable in a civilised democratic country. I'd perhaps suggest you might consider relocating to China or North Korea.

Australia in most states have either 5 figure fines or jail time for protests related to climate change or even protests in general (South Australia)¡

 

[Trainbike46]

It would have been 2 separate corridors one starting at Glasgow and the other from Edinburgh. The Junction would have been at Birmingham. Then run together to central London. Then it would split into two routes one running south then west to cornwell and the other route would through route in to Europe. (Immigration would be near the channel tunnel) one stop for both exit and entry Immigration.

Birmingham would have been a deep level underground station connected to existing station.

London Central would be a brand new very deep level station near existing kings cross. This station could be 100 metres below street level and completely built from underground to minimise surface disruption and building demolition.

Each of the 4 branches would be electrified double track with a line speed of 400kph and moving block signal system to allow trains every few minutes. The section between new London Central and Birmingham would be Quad track with 400kph line speed.

The stations would be built for 16 car double deck high speed trains. With trains made up of 8 car double deck units that can be coupled into pairs. The trains would be 2 class with a 1 + 2 seating 1st class and a 2 + 2 seating 2nd class. Each unit would have a full cafe car serving quality hot and cold food.

In regional areas outside of major cities track would be at grade or elevated with any requirements for land purchased using compulsory acquisition and reasonable compensation. There would be zero options for protesting the route under any circumstances. Separate laws would have to be passed to make protests illegal for HS2 with jail time as a penalty!

Once completed peak time train frequency would be at least every 10 minutes on all 4 branches. Peak times its 16 car units and off peak its 8 car units. The train service would be 24 hour on Friday and Saturday. Otherwise its operates 4am to 1am in both directions.

This how to do it properly and totally transform the transport system of the UK. With 400kph trains even Scotland is within daily commute of central London. It should allow hundreds of thousands people to commute into London essentially turning England into the world largest co urbanisation where everyone is within easy commuting distance of London.

Other than it being expensive the rest of it isn't a terrible idea. But this is not acceptable in a civilised democratic country. I'd perhaps suggest you might consider relocating to China or North Korea.

I fully agree that the right to protest is very important, and that banning protest about a specific issue is absolutely unacceptable, and fits better in North Korea than in a democratic country. The government has in fact banned lots of tactics used by HS2 protestors under the public order act 2023, and the possible sentences do include jail time

Australia in most states have either 5 figure fines or jail time for protests related to climate change or even protests in general (South Australia)¡

And that is a clear sign that Australia is moving away from a democratic state and more towards being an authoritarian one

 

[Bletchleyite]

Australia in most states have either 5 figure fines or jail time for protests related to climate change or even protests in general (South Australia)¡

Disgraceful.

In a democratic country a small highly motivated mob shouldn't be able to interupt a pledge in a democratically elected party's manifesto.

Protest is banner waving etc - I'm not supporting e.g. criminal damage, which has its own offences.

 

[snowball]

In a democratic country a small highly motivated mob shouldn't be able to interupt a pledge in a democratically elected party's manifesto.

People decide their vote on the basis of dozens of issues but they only have a small number of parties to choose from. You can't assume they agree with everything in the manifesto.

Furthermore, parties constantly do things contrary to their manifestos.

 

[stuu]

In a democratic country a small highly motivated mob shouldn't be able to interupt a pledge in a democratically elected party's manifesto.

A country which gives a government a parliamentary majority when 57% vote against it is not democratic

 

[The Ham]

It's obviously hard to say exactly, but quite a lot? Remember Phase 2b only releases 4-5ph unless NPR is also built

It's more of a general point that I was making - there are many schemes out there that get ruled out as "too expensive" but are nowhere near as expensive as HS2.

Many suggestions were made about lengthening to 12 coaches, even at 80x capacity, whilst you'd get to about 880, that's still quite a long way short of 1,100 AND the existing trains.

You also don't free to platform space, which even at 2tph releasing one while platform could allow 6 new trains (6 coaches long, so two trains very for in the space of one) in the same platform space for to the shorter turn around times (20 minutes per service rather than 30 minutes).

If it's too lengthen existing services you could across three platforms lengthen 9 services from 4 coaches to 6 coaches (previously 3 services staked in each platform, now two).

The simple answer to this question from my point of view is it shouldn't. For me the cost benefit analysis never stacked up and as the journey time to the north in particular just wasn't going to be a significant enough saving it would not have persuaded me and many others no doubt to switch, and in the process pay the no doubt not insignificant increase in price, if full fat fairs on hs1 services are ending to go by. We simply should have reconfigured services on our existing main lines to get some stops out or other performance improvements in and this could have been done along with many other rail projects for the money that's being spent on effectively a commuter train for Midlands commuters that are no longer commuting because apparently everyone works from home these days, although there is plenty of evidence to the country that I myself have observed

Apologies to all the many on here peddling the climate emergency which again in my view isn't there but you're going to need to save me significantly more than 30 to 45 minutes on a London to Scotland end to end journey time not to mention a lot of money in fares and an increase in onboard facilities before you tempt me away from the plane. Every time I do the train these days it either goes wrong or costs me a fortune because standard class facilities have been paired back so much, particularly on the East coast where four plus hours on an ironing board awaits for the hardy souls doing London to Edinburgh etc

A similar length and distance of journey in a lot of other European countries would see a much more comfortable and spacious standard class interior and a full restaurant service for those wanting it at reasonable prices, but here in the UK we provide less comfort than your average park bench with hundreds of people compressed into metal and plastic smarty tubes with a overpriced and substandard catering service and then we wonder why so many people drive or take the plane

HS2 would allow, through much longer trains, far better seating options than the current trains offer.

Also even if the same ratio of airline to table seats are provided, until the trains reach the same percentage full you've got a better chance of getting a seat at a table (if that's what you want).

Anyway if away comfort is what you want, actually the amount of leg room and elbow room you have on a train is much better (often better than first class on an aircraft, but in standard class on the train).

As to comparing HS1 for ticket prices, a lot of HS1 (domestic) services are small (6 coaches, 122m, 340 seats) with double length trains being something being considered as an upgrade.

HS2 isn't going for that, it's going for most of its services being full length (16 coaches, 400m, 1,100 seats) with half length trains (550 seats, so more than a double length Javelin) being used for off the core services.

A train carrying 240 passengers with a driver cost of £1 per person when changed to a 550 seat train will cost 44p whilst a train with 1,100 seats that per seat cost for the driver fails further still to 22p.

Only that's only half the story, due to the HS2 services being faster than the existing WCML services the amount of driver time falls from 5 hours to do the round trip to Manchester to 3 hours. Whilst the Javelins are faster than the current WCML services, they'll still be slower, let's say out would take them 4 hours, then that 22p would fall to 17p.

That's before you consider the reduced costs of rolling stock (do I need to repeat it, if I do it's below the next paragraph, however I've added in the "Javelin+" option which would be double length trains like is run on HS1).

Whilst HS1 and HS2 share similarities in their names, their operations are going to be very different.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Existing 9+11+11 coach trains taking 5 hours would require 155 coaches

"Javelin+" with 12 coach trains taking 4 hours would require 144 coaches

"80x+" with 16 coach trains taking 4 hours would require 192 coaches

HS2 services with 16 coach trains taking 3 hours would require 144 coaches

Whilst that's the same as the "javelin+" trains they would have 480 seats compared with 1,100 for the HS2 services.

I'm sure, either those arguing against HS2 never read this, or they don't understand this, or they just ignore it as it do doesn't fit their narrative, but until someone challenges me on the above I'll keep repeating it - sorry for those who get it and get board of reading the same thing.

 

[eldomtom2]

Several knowledgeable people have noted that tunnelling costs are often cheaper than surface lines.

How's that calculated? I've heard others argue the opposite - what's being included in the costs?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Well there were figures that showed that knocking something like one hour of London to Glasgow/Edinburgh could drastically reduce air travel on the same route. I recall comparisons were made with London/Paris and the effect Eurostar has had on that sector. Might need to add in the advantage that the rail stations are more convenient (on average) compared to their airports. But rail fares are amazingly expensive for something that does not have to float in the air.

It is apparent that the advantages of HS2 have not been shown broadly enough. I often have to point out to people that it is not the speed on its own but the fact that the speed improvement will draw long distance passengers from other very old and crowded lines - particularly the West Coast Main Line. Most lines in the UK are less suitable for high speed rail than those in Europe as in Europe they were built later when speeds were higher, in Europe a lot of routes got a lot of modernisation courtesy of Hitler (demolishing) and the Marshal plan (re-building). It is amazing really that the UK has plodded on without High Speed lines for so long whereas Europe got on with it last century despite their newer and improved heritage routes !.

As for upgrading. Too many short memories forgetting the lessons of the West Coast Mainline Upgrade. Money spent tinkering on a mainline that must be the oldest in the world - start again.

But in these austere times many things will have to be canned. I will be dumb struck if Old Oak to Euston does not get built and its already going to be late. As for beyond Birmingham (the chance to build on the experience gained on HS2 phase 1) I feel its got as much chance as more electrification (those teams of experience too will dissolve). Furthermore there is a risk homeworking has passed the railways by - Most people I talk to hated commuting and love the chance to do work at home thus making their weekend longer.

In conclusion - Best way to do HS2 differently would have been to have got on with it twenty or more years ago, ideally before the WCML upgrades.

I have wondered if we would have been better off building high-speed rail earlier. I suppose the best time would have been after the failure of the APT project in the 80s. Leaving the WCML to solder on in the state it was for another 20 years is rather astonishing looking back. I suppose a London-Birmingham-Manchester high speed line, designed in the 80s and opened by the year 2000 would have been great, but then you'd run into the current problems. Namely; approaches to city centres getting filled up with suburban trains and these TGV type trains. So you'd either have to extend, what would inevitably have been nothing more than an LGV into and through city centres or live with the congestion.

I expect this is what an earlier British high-speed rail network would have looked like if it was planned any time between the 80s to the early 2000s. So perhaps there is no time like the present to build high-speed rail

 

[HSTEd]

How's that calculated? I've heard others argue the opposite - what's being included in the costs?

The whole argument turns on what the costs of surface construction turn out to be.

If you were in completely empty wilderness, surface construction will often turn out to be far cheaper, but the problem is England is emphatically not like that.

HS2 originally planned to use a surface alignment on the New North Main Line corridor out of London, but it turned out rebuilding bridges etc for the loading gauge requirements put the cost up so high it was cheaper to bore a tunnel out. And that was an alignment already in government hands!

Interactions with infrastructure on the surface, roads, buried services et al, imposes lots of costs, delaays and schedule complexity on the scheme.
You have to move every utility system and road along the route into prearranged culverts/corridors so that you can start earth moving, and if you find something you didn't expect it can cause huge delays. This has caused major schedule and cost problems in the past for stuff like gas pipelines as well.


This is why viaducts are considered to be faster, since all you care about it is whether stuff is in the footprint of your support piers which only form a small portion fo the route. In addition, there is normally a simpler relocation process because they only have to move the service a few metres and can do it independently of the route construction process.

Its even more extreme for tunnels, that largely pass below all other infrastructure, so you only have to care about utilties and the like at your compact access points.
Tunnel digging appears to be one of the few things in the HS2 project that has gone according to plan.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The whole argument turns on what the costs of surface construction turn out to be.

If you were in completely empty wilderness, surface construction will often turn out to be far cheaper, but the problem is England is emphatically not like that.

HS2 originally planned to use a surface alignment on the New North Main Line corridor out of London, but it turned out rebuilding bridges etc for the loading gauge requirements put the cost up so high it was cheaper to bore a tunnel out. And that was an alignment already in government hands!

Interactions with infrastructure on the surface, roads, buried services et al, imposes lots of costs, delaays and schedule complexity on the scheme.
You have to move every utility system and road along the route into prearranged culverts/corridors so that you can start earth moving, and if you find something you didn't expect it can cause huge delays. This has caused major schedule and cost problems in the past for stuff like gas pipelines as well.


This is why viaducts are considered to be faster, since all you care about it is whether stuff is in the footprint of your support piers which only form a small portion fo the route. In addition, there is normally a simpler relocation process because they only have to move the service a few metres and can do it independently of the route construction process.

Its even more extreme for tunnels, that largely pass below all other infrastructure, so you only have to care about utilties and the like at your compact access points.
Tunnel digging appears to be one of the few things in the HS2 project that has gone according to plan.

ISTR that the most expensive part of a new railway is the track and signalling. So perhaps a tunnel, even if more expensive than on the surface, is not a significant cost.

 

[London Trains]

(A lot of things do seem to point to single 300m units and no multiple working being a better idea)

By far the best idea - would also knock some of the cost off building the stations and would only require very short extensions of existing platforms as an 11 car Pendolino is 275m and smaller stations can use SDO.

Capacity to Birmingham and Manchester can be exactly the same as planned by having 4tph to each instead of the planned 3tph, and everywhere else would have a lot more capacity than is planned on HS2 as their trains would be 1.5x the length.