If HS2 was canned, how could infrastructure be improved on the south WCML?

[Bevan Price]

I think that the best way of reducing costs might be to build HS2, but with a reduced specification - reduce the maximum speed to 150, or even 125 mph. That way, you would need a less expensive infrastructure than for a 200+ mph line, and have lower energy costs when operating the trains. Ensure that all platforms are long enough to cater for very long trains, to allow room for future growth in passenger numbers. Where space / ground conditions permit, change planned alignments and build new stations (possibly underground) close to some existing stations, rather than build totally new "out of town / park & ride" stations.
Whilst it would not allow massive reductions in journey times, it would relieve congestion on WCML.

 

[matacaster]

I think that the best way of reducing costs might be to build HS2, but with a reduced specification - reduce the maximum speed to 150, or even 125 mph. That way, you would need a less expensive infrastructure than for a 200+ mph line, and have lower energy costs when operating the trains. Ensure that all platforms are long enough to cater for very long trains, to allow room for future growth in passenger numbers. Where space / ground conditions permit, change planned alignments and build new stations (possibly underground) close to some existing stations, rather than build totally new "out of town / park & ride" stations.
Whilst it would not allow massive reductions in journey times, it would relieve congestion on WCML.

It's not particularly obvious why HS2 needs to be very fast at southern end when the slow parts of rail infrastructure are north of Birmingham and Stockport /Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

I think that the best way of reducing costs might be to build HS2, but with a reduced specification - reduce the maximum speed to 150, or even 125 mph. That way, you would need a less expensive infrastructure than for a 200+ mph line, and have lower energy costs when operating the trains. Ensure that all platforms are long enough to cater for very long trains, to allow room for future growth in passenger numbers. Where space / ground conditions permit, change planned alignments and build new stations (possibly underground) close to some existing stations, rather than build totally new "out of town / park & ride" stations.
Whilst it would not allow massive reductions in journey times, it would relieve congestion on WCML.

So starting the entire planning process again then?

 

[HSTEd]

It's not particularly obvious why HS2 needs to be very fast at southern end when the slow parts of rail infrastructure are north of Birmingham and Stockport /Manchester.

Because otherwise using it to displace MML and ECML journeys is impractical, at which point we won't fill the line at which point the whole thing has a terrible business case.

Unless you want to build a line with 14 400m trians per hour just for Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless you want to build a line with 14 400m trians per hour just for Birmingham and Manchester.

Does it have to have 14tph? Why can't it just have 9tph, removing all the ICs off the classic WCML to provide spare capacity, which is what it's for? What is it in this country about having to whack something to full capacity straight away?

A key advantage of a 140mph speed would be that you could just use existing (Pendolino and 80x) stock. No need to change the route, just build cheaper.

But anyway, this thread assumes it isn't built

 

[HSTEd]

Does it have to have 14tph? Why can't it just have 9tph, removing all the ICs off the classic WCML to provide spare capacity, which is what it's for?

Because that means the cost per train is nearly double what it is if the line was full?

What is it in this country about having to whack something to full capacity straight away?

If you expect me to agree that the public should be on the hook for this project, don't be surprised if I expect it to be used intensively!

A key advantage of a 140mph speed would be that you could just use existing (Pendolino and 80x) stock.

Are the Pendolinos in any condition for 140mph? Is the current maintenance regime suitable?

And this is not really a big advantage given that a captive 200m trainset costs something like €25m
They cost virtually nothing compared to the infrastructure cost

No need to change the route, just build cheaper.

Without changing the route, how much do you expect to save?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because that means the cost per train is nearly double what it is if the line was full?

And therein lies the problem all over the UK - HS2, Castlefield, Euston, whatever.

We need spare paths for resilience.

 

[JonathanH]

And therein lies the problem all over the UK - HS2, Castlefield, Euston, whatever.

We need spare paths for resilience.

Maybe we need to reduce the demand for travel then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe we need to reduce the demand for travel then.

So let's say we move the present 9tph of IC, made up of a combination of 9 and 11-car Pendolinos and 5 and 10-car Voyagers, to HS2 and nothing else. In that one stroke, ignoring residual services, that's somewhere between a 33% and 50% capacity increase if you're talking 400m trains on HS2.

Given that the 3 Manchesters and 3 Brums are not overcrowded at least, I bet that'll be enough for the foreseeable.

But moving back to the subject of the thread, it's quite possible that once we've maxed everything out we might have to price people off. That said, there's a fair bit of maxing out that could be done on slower services i.e. LNR. There are a lot of 4-car sets running around off-peak that with some platform and SDO work could be 8 or 12, though Stone is a right nuisance in this regard by preventing anything going that way from being more than 4.

 

[furnessvale]

Maybe we need to reduce the demand for travel then.

That was the policy of BR as instructed by government. Price passengers off. Much cheaper than building new infrastructure and trains.

 

[HSTEd]

And therein lies the problem all over the UK - HS2, Castlefield, Euston, whatever.

We need spare paths for resilience.

We have spare paths on the 14tph timetable.
The technical headway permits 24.

How would you feel if we build a building with a hundred flats but then left people on the street whilst fifty of them empty 'for resiliency'

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would you feel if we build a building with a hundred flats but then left people on the street whilst fifty of them empty 'for resiliency'

In what way is that even vaguely similar?

 

[Starmill]

Ledburn is probably the one that would have the most gain, as it's used several times an hour now.

Can you imagine how daft it would be to close the line for weekends on end, with some longer closures, to totally rebuild some junctions, all for drastically less benefit than just building it out in a field.

 

[JohnR]

The best way to improve the southern end of the WCML is to add more capacity. An extra pair of tracks, where the fast express services could use, freeing up the current 4-track railway for semi-fast and stopping passengers - and more importantly freight. This would allow many more places to be given direct trains to London, for instance, who at the moment just seen Pendolinos whizz through.

The problem with this is that the existing solum in many places is highly constrained, especially in built up areas. So the solution would be to route these tracks adjacent to the existing railway, along a route that is less urban - after all the fast trains using it arnt stopping at the intermediate stations.

Since we're doing that, we can design our new pair of tracks for the 21st century and not the 19th - make it straighter and faster.

Before you know it, you've built HS2.

 

[class26]

That was the policy of BR as instructed by government. Price passengers off. Much cheaper than building new infrastructure and trains.

BR just didn`t receive the investment for new infrastructure and also there was huge pressure to increase income.
These days people will still want to travel and so if priced off railways will either fly or jump in their cars, both of which we are now being told we must do less. To get our of flying air tax would have to increase hugely and cars fuel tax similar, both certain vote losers so back to the railways and increase greatly the number of seats on offer..............

 

[furnessvale]

In what way is that even vaguely similar?

Only if the residents move flats every few minutes!

 

[JonathanH]

BR just didn`t receive the investment for new infrastructure and also there was huge pressure to increase income.
These days people will still want to travel and so if priced off railways will either fly or jump in their cars, both of which we are now being told we must do less. To get our of flying air tax would have to increase hugely and cars fuel tax similar, both certain vote losers so back to the railways and increase greatly the number of seats on offer..............

There is a pretty convincing argument that all travel should be restricted, regardless of the means, because of climate change.

So, we should keep the capacity on the Railways pretty much as it is, increase prices to keep demand relatively constant and gradually price people off cars and planes and then reduce capacity on roads by creating segregated cycle and walking routes.

 

[ashkeba]

Does it have to have 14tph? Why can't it just have 9tph, removing all the ICs off the classic WCML to provide spare capacity, which is what it's for? What is it in this country about having to whack something to full capacity straight away?

A key advantage of a 140mph speed would be that you could just use existing (Pendolino and 80x) stock. No need to change the route, just build cheaper.

If you move existing stock to the new line, what provides the extra capacity on WCML?

If buying new trains anyway, are 140mph trains that much cheaper than 186mph trains to make it worth it?

And is building 140mph track going to be that much cheaper than 186mph even if not used at that speed initially? 200mph? 225mph? I think the main thing higher speeds mean is straighter track and straighter should mean shorter which should mean cheaper on average, no?

 

[ashkeba]

There is a pretty convincing argument that all travel should be restricted, regardless of the means, because of climate change.

So, we should keep the capacity on the Railways pretty much as it is, increase prices to keep demand relatively constant and gradually price people off cars and planes and then reduce capacity on roads by creating segregated cycle and walking routes.

Doesn't the reduced speed and smaller/no vehicles mean cycling and walking routes increase capacity? Similar in part to how moving fast traffic away would increase capacity on WCML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you move existing stock to the new line, what provides the extra capacity on WCML?

An order of 110mph doors-at-thirds EMUs to add to the existing ones.

 

[ashkeba]

An order of 110mph doors-at-thirds EMUs to add to the existing ones.

Would they be much cheaper than new 185mph stock? Than a follow-on order of 140mph Hitachis?

 

[markymark2000]

A two questions here.
If you remove the Southern service from MKC/Watford Junction, does that free up another path right the way down into Euston?
The thought being
1. you get a link from the Harlesden flyunder over to the tracks that southern use then the Southern service could effectively just use the DC lines and maybe skip stop or even call all stops. Though not ideal, if it frees up a path for WCML services, why not do it to benefit the longer distance passengers.
or 2. get an extra BiDi track alongside the WCML fast line (it would be very tight) to link from the Wembley Central diveunder to the diveunder which Southern use near the post office (more paths north of

If you remove London Overground from Euston, how much capacity would that free up?
1. you could extend some of the Queens Park terminators on the Bakerloo line to Stonebridge Park or Harrow and Wealdstone.
or 2. you could tunnel adjacent to the Northern line and try to expand the Underground station to put the services down there.

 

[HSTEd]

In what way is that even vaguely similar?

Because you have the capability to house them, but refuse to do it.

Underloading HS2 deliberately is refusing to carry people you can in the name of "resilience".

 

[furnessvale]

Because you have the capability to house them, but refuse to do it.

Underloading HS2 deliberately is refusing to carry people you can in the name of "resilience".

Most industries have some sort of resilience built into their operations. To attempt to run at 100% where a simple failure can cause serious trouble is asking for just that.

 

[HSTEd]

Most industries have some sort of resilience built into their operations. To attempt to run at 100% where a simple failure can cause serious trouble is asking for just that.

But 14tph is nothing close to HS2's technical capability.
If I was proposing 24 trains per hour then you might have a point.

 

[furnessvale]

But 14tph is nothing close to HS2's technical capability.
If I was proposing 24 trains per hour then you might have a point.

That is a decision made by experts in their field.

If that decision impacts the viability of the scheme that is a different consideration.

 

[adamedwards]

The problem with this is that the existing solum in many places is highly constrained, especially in built up areas. So the solution would be to route these tracks adjacent to the existing railway, along a route that is less urban - after all the fast trains using it arnt stopping at the intermediate stations. Since we're doing that, we can design our new pair of tracks for the 21st century and not the 19th - make it straighter and faster. Before you know it, you've built HS2.

This is of course the reason why HS2 is planned as it is. Get it built!

Then build a whole lot more class 350s (or bring back the 350/2s), uprate to 110 mph and then give Milton Keynes the fast commuter service it should have to London. I remember reading that MK is about the equivalent of Woking in size and location. Woking gets 9 fast trains to Waterloo per hour, MK gets 3. Why? Because MK is on the WCML which is full. (Imagine Woking being on the mainline to Bristol and Plymouth as well as Southampton and Salisbury!)

 

[158756]

Can you imagine how daft it would be to close the line for weekends on end, with some longer closures, to totally rebuild some junctions, all for drastically less benefit than just building it out in a field.

At a cost of £106bn, and based on HS2's 'progress' so far odds must be on the final price tag being much higher than that, the benefits of HS2 are very questionable. Grade separation at Ledburn, or any combination of potentially sensible works on the WCML, will not result in the same capacity HS2 would provide. But the aim of any investment is to make a return, not to maximise traffic.

If they make sense from a financial point of view, piecemeal upgrades to the WCML, longer trains, maybe some form of Chiltern upgrade, are likely preferable to HS2 even if the end capacity is not the same. On top of that, if capacity is now the problem rather than speed, the WCML can be restricted to 110 or 100mph, and as passenger capacity is the crucial issue with freight growth nothing like expectations (shrinking in fact over the last five years) daytime freight should go as well.

 

[Starmill]

At a cost of £106bn, and based on HS2's 'progress' so far odds must be on the final price tag being much higher than that, the benefits of HS2 are very questionable. Grade separation at Ledburn, or any combination of potentially sensible works on the WCML, will not result in the same capacity HS2 would provide. But the aim of any investment is to make a return, not to maximise traffic.

If they make sense from a financial point of view, piecemeal upgrades to the WCML, longer trains, maybe some form of Chiltern upgrade, are likely preferable to HS2 even if the end capacity is not the same. On top of that, if capacity is now the problem rather than speed, the WCML can be restricted to 110 or 100mph, and as passenger capacity is the crucial issue with freight growth nothing like expectations (shrinking in fact over the last five years) daytime freight should go as well.

The evidence was examined in great detail in a review before Phase 1 received Royal Assent. The value for money for as you put it piecemeal schemes wasn't as good. It's not particularly surprising given the vast costs imposed on the projects by the closure of the lines.

Grade separation at Ledburn alone might achieve no capacity uplift at all between Rugby and London, if work elsewhere isn't done.

As to capacity vs journey time, this is entirely true. You could extend average journey times to make some very marginal gains in capacity. Of course, you're then negatively affecting the commercial position through worsening journey times.

The benefits of HS2 aren't questionable at all, as you put it. The costs might be but that's a separate matter.

 

[158756]

The evidence was examined in great detail in a review before Phase 1 received Royal Assent. The value for money for as you put it piecemeal schemes wasn't as good. It's not particularly surprising given the vast costs imposed on the projects by the closure of the lines.

Any comparison with HS2 is completely outdated though with the costs of HS2 spiralling out of control. If all the analysis was redone with HS2 priced at £200bn would it still come out on top? And if the result of that analysis was that nothing should be done, or that we should build a motorway instead for our new electric cars, so be it - the aim is not to maximise rail traffic.