High Speed 2

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by Christopher125

As has been explained many times, building HS2 to replicate the WCML with trains using sections of both also wastes capacity on both, for minimal benefit. There is nothing new or unusual about long distance intercity trains stopping at few (if any) intermediate stops, and keeping trains changing between fast and slow lines to a minimum, despite running alongside them through substantial towns - something HS2 is deliberately avoiding.

Chris

And i am suggesting that it may be time to reconsider this.

The high speed rail systems in Japan and Korea work well and have many stops. No one would suggest building a motorway from Londont to Birmingham with no junctions so why are we thinking it is worthwhile doing it with a railway.

[NCT]

The Tokaido Shinkansen is to be complemented by the Chuo Shinkansen Maglev line because the Tokaido suffering from capacity constraints partly caused by complex stopping patterns. Chuo Shinkansen is to be significantly straighter and to have much fewer stops. In comparison what HS2 is trying to do is something out of the ordinary.

[Christopher125]

Originally Posted by Angle42

...No one would suggest building a motorway from Londont to Birmingham with no junctions so why are we thinking it is worthwhile doing it with a railway.

Railways are not roads, though both HSL's and Motorways have to justify the relatively high expense of junctions with the amount of traffic that will use them and the consequences of that extra traffic - an especially important consideration for railways such as HS2 which can only cope with 20ish tph.

With the London-Birmingham corridor already served by the double-track Chiltern Mainline and 4-track WCML it is already well served by railways - what it needs is more capacity. Not only does HS2 do that by allowing many more trains on the fast lines to call at intermiediate stops, but it cuts journey times too - neither of which requires expense connections to the existing line south of Lichfield and/or a change to the overall route alignment.

Chris

[Angle42]

I belive that we need to build a new rail network to handle the additional demand; it is only logical that it should be built to the highest standard - high speed and larger gauge. However, I am not convinced that the argument for HS2 is being won.

It is not just the route - a lot of people do not see why we should spend that much money. I'm saying that we may need to reconsider what is planned or the argument my not be won.

If you look at where HS2 might go north the West Midlands, I would suggest that a stop at Crewe would open up possiilities for more people. I would then, in the first instance, head north curtting between Manchaster and Liverpool and get as far north as possble. A spur to Manchester would come later and I would use Manchaster Victoria rather than Picadilly because I think it has better connections to the north, east and west.

[Tyr]

Yep. Especially on roads and rails being totally different.

Also Japanese geography is very different to that in the UK. There are quite frequent shinkansen stops on many lines (famously the tokkaido) because the population is so tighly packed along narrow corridors. Between London and Birmingham on the other hand things are pretty rural. Very different settlement patterns call for different train services. See also the local non-high speed lines in Japan. Far far more frequent station placement than in the UK.

Also consider the technology differences. In Japan the HS and local lines use different track guages. To give somewhere access to the HS network it needs a full shinkansen station. With the UK on the other hand existing lines are compatible with high speed lines. Though there won't be a high speed station between Birmingham and London I would welll see it being probable somewhere down the line that the occasional train might stop at Milton Keynes to give them quicker access to the north (its a bit pointless for linking them to Birmingham and London).

And...yep. The Chuo shinkansen is in development since the way there are too many different services on the Tokkaido shinkansen means there are big capacity problems there.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Angle42

I belive that we need to build a new rail network to handle the additional demand; it is only logical that it should be built to the highest standard - high speed and larger gauge. However, I am not convinced that the argument for HS2 is being won.

It is not just the route - a lot of people do not see why we should spend that much money. I'm saying that we may need to reconsider what is planned or the argument my not be won.

If you look at where HS2 might go north the West Midlands, I would suggest that a stop at Crewe would open up possiilities for more people. I would then, in the first instance, head north curtting between Manchaster and Liverpool and get as far north as possble. A spur to Manchester would come later and I would use Manchaster Victoria rather than Picadilly because I think it has better connections to the north, east and west.

The construction cost is on the high side due to the ridiculous nature of construction in the UK. Nonetheless the scheme still delivers a brilliant benefit-to-cost ratio, which is a no-brainer really. HS2 WILL generate long-term benefit for the country, and in the short- to medium-term it will support a good number of much needed jobs which is an added bonus. If there's any time strategic long-term thinking is needed it is NOW.

HS2 is designed to provide additional capacity primarily to complement the overloaded WCML. The way it achieves this is to simplify service patterns on both old and new infrastructure. The moment you start complicating things you begin to reduce potential capacity gains. Most of the capacity constraint is south of Manchester and Liverpool so I don't see how it's not sensible to put those services (and Birmingham ones obviously) onto the new metals first. The exact routing and station options for Manchester are still being considered, so it's not as though there is a mad rush to 'get it done' is there. HS2 isn't meant to solve all of the world's transport patterns.

[makita09]

Originally Posted by Angle42

I belive that we need to build a new rail network to handle the additional demand; it is only logical that it should be built to the highest standard - high speed and larger gauge. However, I am not convinced that the argument for HS2 is being won.

It is not just the route - a lot of people do not see why we should spend that much money. I'm saying that we may need to reconsider what is planned or the argument my not be won.

If you look at where HS2 might go north the West Midlands, I would suggest that a stop at Crewe would open up possiilities for more people. I would then, in the first instance, head north curtting between Manchaster and Liverpool and get as far north as possble. A spur to Manchester would come later and I would use Manchaster Victoria rather than Picadilly because I think it has better connections to the north, east and west.

what exactly are your criticisms? you said that there should be 3 stops between london and birmingham. why should there? all of your criticisms so far have been appeals to something or other without really saying what.

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by Tyr

Yep. Especially on roads and rails being totally different.

Also Japanese geography is very different to that in the UK. There are quite frequent shinkansen stops on many lines (famously the tokkaido) because the population is so tighly packed along narrow corridors. Between London and Birmingham on the other hand things are pretty rural. Very different settlement patterns call for different train services. See also the local non-high speed lines in Japan. Far far more frequent station placement than in the UK.

Also consider the technology differences. In Japan the HS and local lines use different track guages. To give somewhere access to the HS network it needs a full shinkansen station. With the UK on the other hand existing lines are compatible with high speed lines. Though there won't be a high speed station between Birmingham and London I would welll see it being probable somewhere down the line that the occasional train might stop at Milton Keynes to give them quicker access to the north (its a bit pointless for linking them to Birmingham and London).

And...yep. The Chuo shinkansen is in development since the way there are too many different services on the Tokkaido shinkansen means there are big capacity problems there.

Yes the geography of Japan does make a difference but my point is that there are stops along the line to feed passengers in. The rail system in Japan, particulalrly in the Tokyo area, is configured to allow easy exchanges between diferent speed trains.

The HS2 route as defined is very rural. If you move the track only a short distance to the north then it could connect with Milton Keynes, Northhampton, Rugby and Coventry.

You mention that in the future Milton Keynes might be added as a stop; it certainly won't with its current alignment.

[Christopher125]

Originally Posted by NCT

HS2 is designed to provide additional capacity primarily to complement the overloaded WCML. The way it achieves this is to simplify service patterns on both old and new infrastructure.

Precisely

Conflicts reduce capacity - HS2 helps deal with the WCML's capacity crisis by giving fast services their own pair of lines, instead of fighting with slower semi-fast and slow services over the current four track route.

Trying to move services back and forth between the WCML and HS2 (at far greater expense than crossovers between adjacent lines) would continue those conflicts for no real journey time benefits. It doesnt make sense.

Chris

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by NCT

The construction cost is on the high side due to the ridiculous nature of construction in the UK. Nonetheless the scheme still delivers a brilliant benefit-to-cost ratio, which is a no-brainer really. HS2 WILL generate long-term benefit for the country, and in the short- to medium-term it will support a good number of much needed jobs which is an added bonus. If there's any time strategic long-term thinking is needed it is NOW.

HS2 is designed to provide additional capacity primarily to complement the overloaded WCML. The way it achieves this is to simplify service patterns on both old and new infrastructure. The moment you start complicating things you begin to reduce potential capacity gains. Most of the capacity constraint is south of Manchester and Liverpool so I don't see how it's not sensible to put those services (and Birmingham ones obviously) onto the new metals first. The exact routing and station options for Manchester are still being considered, so it's not as though there is a mad rush to 'get it done' is there. HS2 isn't meant to solve all of the world's transport patterns.

You do not need to sell the merits of HS2 to me. It is needed and in the very near future.

The problem is that others are not convinced and a change in what is proposed may be required to win the argument.

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by makita09

what exactly are your criticisms? you said that there should be 3 stops between london and birmingham. why should there? all of your criticisms so far have been appeals to something or other without really saying what.

Why - to make HS2 relevent to more people.

You may not realize it but somone from somehwere like Milton Keynes might want to travel to a point to north of Manchaster. Without some intermediate stops HS2 is of little use to most people...

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Angle42

You do not need to sell the merits of HS2 to me. It is needed and in the very near future.

The problem is that others are not convinced and a change in what is proposed may be required to win the argument.

That others are not convinced doesn't necessarily mean they are right. Convincing them shouldn't take the form of pretending they are right when they are not.

HS2 cannot solve all of the world's problems. High-speed-rail's speciality is big city to big city services where there are lots of people making the same journey. Unfortunately there is not enough critical mass for this-smaller-place-to-that-smaller-place type of journeys and this is where conventional rail steps in either by providing more direct but slower journeys or by interchanging with high-speed services. It's not worth reducing capacity for intercity trunk services to cater for the more obscure journeys.

Curzon Street isn't ideal but it is pretty much next to New Street. Other super-station-complexes spanning similar distances in the world are not unheard of. As long as there is proper sign-posting and integrated ticketing (as I am sure there will be) I don't see much problem in terms of connections.

Originally Posted by Angle42

Why - to make HS2 relevent to more people.

You may not realize it but somone from somehwere like Milton Keynes might want to travel to a point to north of Manchaster. Without some intermediate stops HS2 is of little use to most people...

And just to make it absolutely clear, what you describe is certainly not 'most people'. In any case most of these people will benefit from HS2 as well.

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by NCT

That others are not convinced doesn't necessarily mean they are right. Convincing them shouldn't take the form of pretending they are right when they are not.

Have you considered the possibility that they may be right? You seem to think that the current proposals for HS2 are the right solution; they represnt just one option and another may win more people over.

Originally Posted by NCT

And just to make it absolutely clear, what you describe is certainly not 'most people'. In any case most of these people will benefit from HS2 as well.

So, exactly how will most people benefit? The majority do not live at either end of HS2.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Angle42

Have you considered the possibility that they may be right? You seem to think that the current proposals for HS2 are the right solution; they represnt just one option and another may win more people over.

So, exactly how will most people benefit? The majority do not live at either end of HS2.

Other people, including HS2 Ltd and Atkins, have considered a number of options have reached their conclusions based on critical evaluations of all pros and cons, which have been explained in this thread countless times and which I do not wish to repeat. Come now, asking 'but what about that' every time the reasoning is explained to you as though you've not taken in a single word is starting to look a bit silly.

The sizable majority of the British population live in the major cities - just study the population figures. Nothing ever benefits everyone equally such is the fact of life. The population between London and Birmingham will benefit from more frequent services albeit with perhaps slightly longer journey times. For example, currently MK only receives 1 fast train per hour, whereas post HS2 you could well end up with a regular 3tph doing

Birmingham - Birmingham International - Coventry - Rugby - Northampton - MK - HH - Watford Junction - Euston,

which in terms of intra-regional connectivity would also be a vast improvement on the current fast services with sporadic stopping patterns.

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by NCT

Other people, including HS2 Ltd and Atkins, have considered a number of options have reached their conclusions based on critical evaluations of all pros and cons, which have been explained in this thread countless times and which I do not wish to repeat. Come now, asking 'but what about that' every time the reasoning is explained to you as though you've not taken in a single word is starting to look a bit silly.

I suspect that I am understanding far more than you are. I am not saying 'but what about that' - i never even mentioned it.

You seem unable to grasp the possibility that the arguments for HS2 are not being accepted by many people. If it is going to be built, other options may need to be brought to tthe table, including those that were not selelcted before. It would not be the first time that well considered plans have to be revised.

If you find that silly then you are not following me.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Angle42

I suspect that I am understanding far more than you are. I am not saying 'but what about that' - i never even mentioned it.

You seem unable to grasp the possibility that the arguments for HS2 are not being accepted by many people. If it is going to be built, other options may need to be brought to tthe table, including those that were not selelcted before. It would not be the first time that well considered plans have to be revised.

If you find that silly then you are not following me.

Again, it is you who is ignoring the reasoned arguments put forward by a number of people here and in the industry. The only 'other options' you have been talking about have been intermediate stations, which is precisely the 'but what about that' I was referring to, and such options have indeed been considered extensively. If you think other options need to be brought to the table then the onus is on you to justify them or indeed to outline them. I think makita was spot on when he said

all of your criticisms so far have been appeals to something or other without really saying what.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by Angle42

I suspect that I am understanding far more than you are. I am not saying 'but what about that' - i never even mentioned it.

You seem unable to grasp the possibility that the arguments for HS2 are not being accepted by many people. If it is going to be built, other options may need to be brought to tthe table, including those that were not selelcted before. It would not be the first time that well considered plans have to be revised.

If you find that silly then you are not following me.

I don't think you really understand the strengths and weaknesses of classic and high speed rail - it is pointless building a high speed line (top speed 186mph or more) between large urban conurbations 100-200 miles apart and then grinding to a halt every 20 or 30 miles at much smaller centres of population en-route. By doing so you reduce the carrying capacity of the new line, waste energy, make it less attractive against other transport modes and increase the journey time for the majority of long-distance travellers who do not want to stop at every blade of grass.

This isn't a new or difficult concept - express and stopping trains date from the 19th Century. Large speed differentials are what kills capacity on any busy railway line and the professionals that calculate the benefits of new build have clearly demonstrated that intermediate stations on the 95 mile route between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange would do far more harm than good, especially in terms of the desired 18TPH.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by Angle42

One of the problems with HS2 is that it is planned as a completely independant network. It will benefit people in Birmingham (later in Manchester and Leeds) but as far as everyone else is concerned it would not benefit them.

If you look at Japan, the distance from Tokyo to Nagoya is perhaps twice the distance from London to Birmigham. In the course of the route between the two cities the Shinkansen has around a dozen stops; at these there are links into the exisitng rail network. The trains have different stopping patterns (with some not stopping) but overall the system benefits far more people that HS2 will (as planned).

Schoolboy error: HS2 will benefit all points North of Lichfield on the WCML from day 1. And I suggest you look at the distance between Paris and Lille / Le Mans to see that your argument about distances holds no weight in relation to modern HS lines - the Shinkansen was intended to replace very slow narrow-gauge lines.

[Tyr]

Originally Posted by Angle42

Yes the geography of Japan does make a difference but my point is that there are stops along the line to feed passengers in. The rail system in Japan, particulalrly in the Tokyo area, is configured to allow easy exchanges between diferent speed trains.

The HS2 route as defined is very rural. If you move the track only a short distance to the north then it could connect with Milton Keynes, Northhampton, Rugby and Coventry.

You mention that in the future Milton Keynes might be added as a stop; it certainly won't with its current alignment.

In the Tokyo area the shinkansen is quite irrelevant, its more about cross-country travel.

Move the track to more urban areas and the opposition and construction costs shoot up for no gain.
And MK certainly can make use of HSR as it stands. We dont want every train stopping at MK, it just isnt important enough for that, so having it on a spur makes sense- considering HS trains can use existing lines it pretty much already has access; though of course such access is pointless for getting to London or Birmingham, it will only be used once the line stretches to the north.

One of the problems with HS2 is that it is planned as a completely independant network. It will benefit people in Birmingham (later in Manchester and Leeds) but as far as everyone else is concerned it would not benefit them.

If you look at Japan, the distance from Tokyo to Nagoya is perhaps twice the distance from London to Birmigham. In the course of the route between the two cities the Shinkansen has around a dozen stops; at these there are links into the exisitng rail network. The trains have different stopping patterns (with some not stopping) but overall the system benefits far more people that HS2 will (as planned).

And in between Tokyo and Nagoya you have one of the most densely urbanised areas of the country, if not the planet

HSR certainly will benefit other people.
You dont actually need a HSR station to use HSR services. Even if HSR doesnt go to say, Newcastle, trains can start there and go to Leeds and then use HSR line to get to London quicker than with the existing mainline.

Also- bumping all those major city connecting cross country services onto a specialised line will massively improve local services.
In my part of Japan we dont have a shinkansen yet. This means express trains and local trains all have to use the same line. This drastically limits the amount of local trains that can run and can really impact their speed. It is completely normal for a local train to have to stop at a station for 10 minutes whilst it waits for the express train to shoot past. Areas with the shinkansen don't tend to have this problem, local trains have free reign over the local line.
HS2 will give us the same thing. Whilst the Birmingham-London trains are free to do their thing on their own special line the various trains connecting smaller towns to Birmingham and London or to each other can stop and start as much as they like without having to schedule themselves around the comings and goings of express trains.

[*Nurse*]

Angle42 seems confused by the concept of HS2. It is a high speed railway. The clue is in the name. What you are proposing is a low speed railway.

High speed, few stops; low speed, many stops.

or another way

High speed + stops = low speed.

The HS2 is not being built to benefit Buckinghamshire. I repeat, it will not benefit Buckinghamshire. It is not meant to, and it would defeat the object were it to do so. It wil not be tailored to do so. That would be wrong. There is a lot of the country which is not in Buckinghamshire. There are places in the Midlands and the North with people and railway tracks and everything. HS2 will integrate with these tracks and the new trains will zoom off connecting them with London and beyond. Yes, there is life north of Milton Keynes, and we need long-term infrastructure investment like HS2 to bring an area on the periphery of Europe closer to the centre and stop it from becoming a post-industrial museum.

If we were to build a new slow railway line, apart from costing almost the same, it would primarily benefit the people of Buckinghamshire (and Beds and Northants and Oxon, of course). You must see that this would be wrong. They are already getting the East-West line and other upgrades as a political sop. Anything else would be quite unwarranted.

/rant