Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[HSTEd]

If you want HS2 trains to be able to run onto the existing tracks and stop at existing platforms (which is pretty much essential) then the standardised platform height HAS to be roughly the same height as existing UK platforms.

So Class 395s can't operate? Or Class 373s cant operate?
Strange that.

I'm struggling to see how you could have level boarding and double-decks with that platform height, unless you're planning on making the trains about 2m taller than all existing UK trains to accommodate the upper level.

760mm platforms and the GC gauge is quite enough, an that is rather larger than modern UK trains, but not by 2m.

Double decker trains would be captive to the HS2 routes only - no running onto the classic routes possible. For phase 1/2a, that would basically mean London-Birmingham only, although phase 2 would open up Leeds and Manchester. Still pretty restrictive though.

The primary justification for level boarding is dwell times at Old Oak Common.
Phase 1/2A has far less traffic so the dwell time criterion is kinda irrelevant there.

And in Phase 2B, when we reach 18tph, something like 10 of them could be captive stock at the least.
And with NPR it might rise further.
(3 Manchester, 3 Birmingham, 3 Leeds and a Crewe terminator)

 

[The Ham]

Until you cant afford to travel as much as you want because the fares are 40+% higher to pay for this?

40% higher than what, if the trains were double decker?

Given that the trains will be cheaper to operate than the current trains, even before you start to look at the potential for the extra capacity which would be released by using double decker trains.

For instance to run the current 3tph between London and Manchester requires between 135 (all 9 coach units) and 165 coaches (all 11 coach units). Now compare this with the 144 coaches which would be required (assuming 16*25m coaches) to run the same frequency under HS2, as such you'd need a broadly comparable number of coaches to the existing services.

As such the cost per seat drops as rather than there being 589 seats there's then 1,100 seats. The costs drop further when you consider that the number of drivers (driving trains at any given time) will also fall from 15 to 9.

Even with the growth seen to date the need for double decker trains (which generally add 50% seating capacity) is likely to be low for some time.

If we get to that point then chances are we'd be better off looking at more new HS lines. Such as an Eastern line out of London, which would then free up paths on the phase 1 link by it not needing to run as many services heading to the Eastern Arm.

However if there's a need for double decker trains by 2060 (about the time that new trains could be on order to replace those purchased to run phase 1 services) then it would just show that we should have got on with HS2 much sooner.

 

[HSTEd]

40% higher than what, if the trains were double decker?

Yes.

Given that the trains will be cheaper to operate than the current trains, even before you start to look at the potential for the extra capacity which would be released by using double decker trains.

But the current trains are far too expensive for the general public to embrace them in the way that they might.
So cutting costs as low as possible is good.

If we get to that point then chances are we'd be better off looking at more new HS lines. Such as an Eastern line out of London, which would then free up paths on the phase 1 link by it not needing to run as many services heading to the Eastern Arm.

But these lines are astronomically expensive, cutting capacity by 40% by not allowing double deckers effectively costs us something like £30-40bn, at current prices, and with construction inflation being so high, t he true value is likeley more than that.

However if there's a need for double decker trains by 2060 (about the time that new trains could be on order to replace those purchased to run phase 1 services) then it would just show that we should have got on with HS2 much sooner.

But then it will be too late and we will be stuck with this infrastructure.

But my other point is simple - the costs of these projects now seem to bear little relation to how much rock/soil gets moved, how much concrete gets poured and how much steel gets emplaced.

We need simple to manage projects, and tunnels are fairly simple projects to manage, especially outside cities where there are no other tunnels to avoid.
Far fewer interactions with the public, far fewer protests over construction and operation impacts, and they can go in straight lines.

Work sites can eb positioned anywhere along the route that is convenient, within reason. And a worksite will spend most of the project life with a spoil train a day out and a train of tunnel segments a day in. And its probably near an existing line anyway.

 

[JamesT]

I’m still confused as to how 1200 high platforms preclude double deckers. Surely you’d have doors at the end at platform height then stairs both up and down to the two seating levels, just like current double deck trains for high platforms?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’m still confused as to how 1200 high platforms preclude double deckers. Surely you’d have doors at the end at platform height then stairs both up and down to the two seating levels, just like current double deck trains for high platforms?

Yes, if you really had to have double deckers with 1200 high platforms, that's how you'd presumably do it. Trouble is, stairs up and down would make it virtually impossible for wheelchair users and extremely hard for people with buggies etc. and some elderly/inform people to use the trains. Would never be acceptable in new-build trains in the UK these days.

And that's before you take into account that these are long distance trains so a high proportion of passengers will have suitcases etc. Plus if everyone has to negotiate stairs to get on or off the trains, that's very likely to increase dwell times at stations (as well as more people having to use each door).

 

[tomuk]

395s stop at specific UK height platforms on HS1 - 915mm
And if I remember correctly 373s have a second step which folds down when stopping at low platforms 760mm

 

[Grannyjoans]

What will happen to the Virgin Pendolinos once HS2 opens ?
I take it there won't be any need to run as many Pendolinos on the WCML if there is a new faster service.

 

[HSTEd]

I’m still confused as to how 1200 high platforms preclude double deckers. Surely you’d have doors at the end at platform height then stairs both up and down to the two seating levels, just like current double deck trains for high platforms?

Thus rendering the trains horrendously impractical. Every passenger has to ascend or descend stairs.
The TGV Model is the only way they are going to work in any reasonable sense.

For example, you would put first class entirely on the upper deck of vehicles (saved one lower deck for disability access), alongside (non-disabled) toilets and other less dense portions of the seating pattern.
If you were going to have catering, which we shouldn't, it would also be entirely on the upper deck.

And if I remember correctly 373s have a second step which folds down when stopping at low platforms 760mm

If we were to contract with Talgos for the classic compatibles you could get the deck in the doorways down rather low since there are no bogies in the way.
Either way, classic compatibles will only form a small portion of the completed HS2 systems's service, and if the system isnt completed then there is no need for the dwell times they are pushing.

And even if they weren't - the cost of two additional platforms at Old Oak is going to be a tiny fraction of building a new route, which is what we have to do if you block out double deckers.

 

[krus_aragon]

What will happen to the Virgin Pendolinos once HS2 opens ?
I take it there won't be any need to run as many Pendolinos on the WCML if there is a new faster service.

Phase 1 to Birmingham is due to open ~2026, and phase 2 around 2033. By that time, the Pendolinos will be 30 years old, pretty much the same age as the IC225s that are now being withdrawn from the East Coast. Some may be used on WCML South semi-fast services, but if some surplus units are withdrawn or displaced, they'll have had a fairly good innings.

 

[Journeyman]

Phase 1 to Birmingham is due to open ~2026, and phase 2 around 2033. By that time, the Pendolinos will be 30 years old, pretty much the same age as the IC225s that are now being withdrawn from the East Coast. Some may be used on WCML South semi-fast services, but if some surplus units are withdrawn or displaced, they'll have had a fairly good innings.

Cue "My idea for displaced Pendolinos" threads in ten years' time.

 

[158756]

Either way, classic compatibles will only form a small portion of the completed HS2 systems's service, and if the system isnt completed then there is no need for the dwell times they are pushing.
.

Even if the whole thing is completed half the trains stopping at Old Oak Common would be classic compatibles, you can't ignore the dwell times. However if the timetable would collapse from an extra 30 seconds it's too tight - but infrastructure that isn't, on a good day, strictly necessary, is hard to get funding for, so speeding up dwell times wins over expanding Old Oak against a background of escalating costs.

 

[HSTEd]

Even if the whole thing is completed half the trains stopping at Old Oak Common would be classic compatibles, you can't ignore the dwell times. However if the timetable would collapse from an extra 30 seconds it's too tight - but infrastructure that isn't, on a good day, strictly necessary, is hard to get funding for, so speeding up dwell times wins over expanding Old Oak against a background of escalating costs.

Half of the trains perhaps, but certainly not half the passengers. And NPR stands to reduce this fraction further. (It is highly likely to mean that Liverpool trains will also be captive, which takes us to at least 11/18)
Trimming a few seconds off the dwell times for half the trains and less than half the passengers in return for substantially reducing the line's ultimate capacity is a terrible trade.

This is penny wise and pound foolish, but written far larger than anything else I've ever seen.

And it doesn't even gain us any dwelling time benefits for Classic Compatibles, it just means they have more companies to build them.
UK1 gauge demonstrates that an articulated vehicle with the appropriate floor height can be built for classic gauging.

 

[underbank]

Thus rendering the trains horrendously impractical. Every passenger has to ascend or descend stairs.

But aren't double deckers with stairs common throughout Europe? I've been on them recently in France, Germany and Netherlands. There are a small number of seats around the doors for disabled etc so they don't have to use the stairs. Why are they impractical in the UK but not across the channel?

 

[a_c_skinner]

Loading gauge means the smaller coaches are possible as two decks but very cramped, moving about in them is slow, continental double decks allow you to walk normally. Similarly the lower height makes the stairs much more awkward to negotiate. All of this means a big bottle neck to loading and unloading with dwell times reducing line capacity. The space given to stairs means the gain in seating isn't anything like as big as you'd think and in effect there isn't really a capacity gain at all when dwell times and the complete lack of standing space is take in to account. Luggage space is very limited too again down in large part to loading gauge. The few coaches the old Southern Railway built actually turned out just like this.

 

[kevin_roche]

I’m still confused as to how 1200 high platforms preclude double deckers. Surely you’d have doors at the end at platform height then stairs both up and down to the two seating levels, just like current double deck trains for high platforms?

Thus rendering the trains horrendously impractical. Every passenger has to ascend or descend stairs.

I was on a double decker in Italy recently (Florence to Pisa) and that was exactly how it was. There is a porch area at platform height were there is space for wheelchairs and buggies.

 

[HSTEd]

Loading gauge means the smaller coaches are possible as two decks but very cramped, moving about in them is slow, continental double decks allow you to walk normally. Similarly the lower height makes the stairs much more awkward to negotiate. All of this means a big bottle neck to loading and unloading with dwell times reducing line capacity. The space given to stairs means the gain in seating isn't anything like as big as you'd think and in effect there isn't really a capacity gain at all when dwell times and the complete lack of standing space is take in to account. Luggage space is very limited too again down in large part to loading gauge. The few coaches the old Southern Railway built actually turned out just like this.

Whereas if you load directly onto the lower deck, like on a TGV, many of these problems dissapear.

To be clear, I am proposing Talgo style single deck classic compatibles with a floor height about 900mm, and taller TGV-Duplex type double decker vehicles for captives.
Platform height would be the standard 760mm, with about five inches step up into classic compatibles and five inches step down into captives.

5" is probably just as good as completely level boarding.
And like the Greater Anglia FLIRTs, the Classic Compatibles would be level boarding at Classic stations.

I was on a double decker in Italy recently (Florence to Pisa) and that was exactly how it was. There is a porch area at platform height were there is space for wheelchairs and buggies.

Once you do that though, you've used up enough of the train length that the capacity advantages start to dissapear.

 

[kevin_roche]

Once you do that though, you've used up enough of the train length that the capacity advantages start to dissapear.

There wasn't much space and it would have been an unpleasant place to travel. Especially if there were lots of stops where lots of people push past to get on or off, though that may not be an issue on HS2.

 

[MarkyT]

Whereas if you load directly onto the lower deck, like on a TGV, many of these problems dissapear.

I thought the next gen Alstom duplexes for SNCF will have a couple of steps down into the lower deck from level boarding at the French standard 560mm platform height. The stairs going up also start from the same intermediate level boarding area and there is an innovative lift/turntable module at doors that can take a wheelchair down to the lower floor level. A continuous level floor exists throughout the train and its inter-car gangways at the upper level, while there are no inter-car connections at all below this. I suspect the design can be tweaked so within a given carbody height the boarding area could be adjusted for alternative platform heights, with numbers of steps adjusted to access lower and higher saloons. The Talgo design is also flexible in terms of platform height, with its split axle concept allowing a range of floor heights to pass between the wheels.

 

[HSTEd]

I thought the next gen Alstom duplexes for SNCF will have a couple of steps down into the lower deck from level boarding at the French standard 560mm platform height. The stairs going up also start from the same intermediate level boarding area and there is an innovative lift/turntable module at doors that can take a wheelchair down to the lower floor level. A continuous level floor exists throughout the train and its inter-car gangways at the upper level, while there are no inter-car connections at all below this. I suspect the design can be tweaked so within a given carbody height the boarding area could be adjusted for alternative platform heights, with numbers of steps adjusted to access lower and higher saloons. The Talgo design is also flexible in terms of platform height, with its split axle concept allowing a range of floor heights to pass between the wheels.

Yes, in a TGV Duplex the floor is only about ~314mm above rail level, but since we are building HS2 to GC and not GB+ loading gauge we gain a few hundred millimetres extra, which can be used to raise the floor level.
So we can get something like 650mm above rail level.

 

[The Ham]

5" is probably just as good as completely level boarding.

5" is ~ 125mm which is a typical kerb height (100-125mm is normal, 25mm is a driveway and 0-6mm is a pedestrian crossing point) although not ideal most people can manage if it's an infrequent activity (i.e. not crossing several roads in succession) or if there's not too much time pressure (i.e. no large lorry bearing down on you).

However it's not something which would likely be acceptable for a new scheme.

If you were going for those train heights you'd probably opt for the lower level +25 to 50mm for the platform level and then have a a 200 to 225mm step for the classic compatibles. Although this would make one step bigger it would likely be on services (like those to Liverpool) which had fewer stops on the core compared to the captive stock (i.e. those going to Manchester and Birmingham)

 

[HSTEd]

However it's not something which would likely be acceptable for a new scheme.

And yet the proposed rolling stock in the HS2 proposal will have huge gaps at all non HS2 stations, because it will be designed for a 1200mm platform and not 915mm

In addition almost all new platforms on the national network will have steps, for the same reason - the platform height standard is different to the traditional train height standard.

All this is despite the fact it has been shown to be possible to build a British flat entry train for a 915mm platform, as the FLIRTs now demonstrate and as the UK1 profile appears to allow.
There appears little justification for the derogation HS2 Ltd is requesting and as a result it will probably fail
(the fact they've been pursuing it for years and have not appeared to get anywhere is probably telling)

I would be able to tolerate a 915mm platform height, even though it is suboptimal, because as you say a 250mm step is not necessarily the end of the world for captive stock.

 

[kevin_roche]

An interesting piece in Ian Visits about HS2 and the work being dome at OOC, called Taking a look at HS2's huge Old Oak Common station.

In the article he makes a great argument for HS2.

Building from scratch means we can take advantage of modern engineering to build new rather than bolt onto old, and often bolting onto old means demolishing vast numbers of houses and factories that are right up against the existing railway tracks. Building new means a better railway for faster more reliable services without the clutter of the old suburban services.

And what that new railway will do is suck away the intercity traffic from the older lines, releasing huge amounts of space for more frequent services to be added connecting the towns. That’s the real reason for HS2 — it’s to improve the regional connections.

How that happens is that if you’re running intercity trains on tracks also occupied by stopping services, you need long gaps between the slow trains so that the intercity trains aren’t held up by the slower trains.

At the moment, sharing the tracks means that local commuter services are reduced to ensure the intercity trains can get through – which is great for the big cities, but hardly ideal for the regional towns and cities who struggle to fit in a regular train service.

So HS2 is about providing more space for more trains outside the main cities.

It is a pity that the DfT didn't explain it so well.

 

[Sceptre]

It now appears the scheme is going to cost rather more than £56bn, as the government has stopped defending that figure in public.

I'm pretty sure that HS2 is due for another uprating due to inflation this autumn; expect the new figure to be £63bn.

Of course, this is entirely inflation, but the likes of Mr Buslanes and Natalie Bennett to not grasp that.

 

[The Ham]

I'm pretty sure that HS2 is due for another uprating due to inflation this autumn; expect the new figure to be £63bn.

Of course, this is entirely inflation, but the likes of Mr Buslanes and Natalie Bennett to not grasp that.

However even that won't be the total amount. Cue those opposed to HS2 getting excited about this....

Spoiler: ...and why they shouldn't.

The reason being that the last bits of work are scheduled to be completed over a decade away and so, guess what, there'll be yet more inflation to consider. As such, although the final bill could be £100bn (it could also be less than that) that's because £100bn in 10 years time isn't the same as £100bn now.

 

[PR1Berske]

However even that won't be the total amount. Cue those opposed to HS2 getting excited about this....

Spoiler: ...and why they shouldn't.

The reason being that the last bits of work are scheduled to be completed over a decade away and so, guess what, there'll be yet more inflation to consider. As such, although the final bill could be £100bn (it could also be less than that) that's because £100bn in 10 years time isn't the same as £100bn now.

It's still £100bn. That's the entire net worth of the UK creative industries.

 

[Adsy125]

It's still £100bn. That's the entire net worth of the UK creative industries.

And, inflation will increase that value by the time HS2 has been built. The cost of any long term project will increase due to inflation, anyone who can’t see that is lying or kidding themselves. There are far, far better arguments against HS2 than, “But inflation will make it more expensive!”

 

[PR1Berske]

And, inflation will increase that value by the time HS2 has been built. The cost of any long term project will increase due to inflation, anyone who can’t see that is lying or kidding themselves. There are far, far better arguments against HS2 than, “But inflation will make it more expensive!”

But why should it be more expensive?

Please can you justify why it should be more than £55bn, or perhaps why it shouldn't be capped at £55bn?

 

[Adsy125]

But why should it be more expensive?

Please can you justify why it should be more than £55bn, or perhaps why it shouldn't be capped at £55bn?

Because inflation means prices increase over time, which is inevitable on a project which will begin to open in 7 years!

 

[The Ham]

But why should it be more expensive?

Please can you justify why it should be more than £55bn, or perhaps why it shouldn't be capped at £55bn?

Let's take for example a train ticket which this year costs £100, next year it will cost £102.80 due to inflation.

Assuming 15 years of 2.8% of inflation and that ticket would cost £151.30. However wages will also increase year on year so the real term increase would likely be comparable to the £100 in today's money (depending on how much above/below inflation wage increases are).

By capping the cost at 2013/2015 prices (I forget which that £56bn figure is) what you are saying is that you want it built for less money than that as you need to allow for ~20 years of inflation.

It's much the same as telling staff that they are going to have a 20 year pay freeze and then seeing how many are still there after 5 (I would guess not many).

 

[Grannyjoans]

Don't most big projects like this end up costing 5 times more than what they expected ?
So maybe £500 billion ?