High Speed 2

[eXSBass]

Surely terminating HS2 at St Pancras or Stratford International makes sense, linking it with HS1.

[CalumCookable]

Originally Posted by eXSBass

Surely terminating HS2 at St Pancras or Stratford International makes sense, linking it with HS1.

There will be a rail link between HS2 and HS1. Trains will run direct from northern cities to Europe.

[citybus]

Originally Posted by CalumCookable

There will be a rail link between HS2 and HS1. Trains will run direct from northern cities to Europe.

As much as I'd like that to be true, it's not something I've ever heard. Are you sure about HS1 terminating north of London.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by eXSBass

Surely terminating HS2 at St Pancras or Stratford International makes sense, linking it with HS1.

Stratford International makes no sense as it does nothing for the vast majority of passengers who want Central London. The lines from Stratford to Central London are highly congested, and even with Euston, the line from Old Oak Common to Central London is going to be congested, let alone if it serves as the main station for Central London.

There's also no room at Stratford for a large terminus - for some reason, the area has been redeveloped in a massive way over the past couple of years.

And speaking of lack of room, that brings us on to St Pancras - if there was room, then they'd have planned the HS2 terminus there. But there's not room. After all, they squished the MML and Javelins onto the site as there wasn't room for a more typical N/W of London amount of terminating platforms. So they settled for the station that they are going to have to rebuild anyway, that's not far from St Pancras and can be linked via a travelator.

Originally Posted by CalumCookable

There will be a rail link between HS2 and HS1. Trains will be able to run direct from northern cities to Europe.

Fixed it for you - there's no definite plans, though it's now, with the 18tph planned service, more than the theoretical service it once was. Certainly a better thing than Heathrow - cheaper (even if you build a proper connection) and more likely to be used.

[CalumCookable]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Fixed it for you - there's no definite plans, though it's now, with the 18tph planned service, more than the theoretical service it once was. Certainly a better thing than Heathrow - cheaper (even if you build a proper connection) and more likely to be used.

Sorry, that's what I meant. I wrote about this here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=#post92033953

I do suspect that it will be Regional Eurostar 2.0, but I remain optimistic.

I would add that I seem to remember reading that the capacity of the HS1-HS2 link will be 3tph. Can't remember if this is in one or both directions, but either way it's not a lot.

[sotonsi]

Bare in mind that HS1 south of Ashford sees maybe 3tph peak (in both directions) and half that off-peak. 3tph (even if that's both directions) is quite enough for an HS1-HS2 link, as if London doesn't get an hourly service to Brussels (11/day and 17/day to Paris, 20 on Fridays), then it's unlikely that the northern cities would get more than 1tph to the continent.

[Jon10]

Of course, there were trains built, that were going to connect the north of England to the continent, when the tunnel originally opened.

Can anyone give a paragraph's explanation about whose cunning plan that was, why it didn't work, and what happened to the wretched trains?

[TRaji00]

Originally Posted by Jon10

Of course, there were trains built, that were going to connect the north of England to the continent, when the tunnel originally opened.

Can anyone give a paragraph's explanation about whose cunning plan that was, why it didn't work, and what happened to the wretched trains?

Not the best of places to get a source from, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Eurostar

Whilst officially regional Eurostar services have not been cancelled but are on hold or under review, there are no longer many people who expect them to operate on current lines, although this may be reconsidered if the proposed High Speed 2 line comes to fruition. The most often cited reason given why they have not run is that economically they are unviable. The 1990s saw a huge expansion in air travel across Europe with low-cost airlines flying from most major cities in the UK to locations on the continent, against which regional Eurostar services, with predicted journey times of [almost nine hours for Glasgow to Paris, could not compete.

[TedStriker]

Originally Posted by Jon10

Of course, there were trains built, that were going to connect the north of England to the continent, when the tunnel originally opened.

Can anyone give a paragraph's explanation about whose cunning plan that was, why it didn't work, and what happened to the wretched trains?

I'm not going to give a paragraph, but I will list some reasons;

1. Cost of providing customs facilities at beyond-London stations

2...

I'll leave it at point 1. That was the main reason, it still is the overriding reason and it will remain so.

I don't know why some people are getting so aroused over an HS1-HS2 link and the lack of capacity on the North London Line, because there's no certainty that by the time HS2 opens there will be any agreement to fund customs facilties at either Birmingham or Manchester, for example.

[CalumCookable]

Originally Posted by Jon10

Of course, there were trains built, that were going to connect the north of England to the continent, when the tunnel originally opened.

Can anyone give a paragraph's explanation about whose cunning plan that was, why it didn't work, and what happened to the wretched trains?

The daytime Eurostar trains saw use on domestic ECML services, where they were restricted to 110 mph. They are now used in France. The sleeper trains were sold.

Eurostar run trains to Avignon and the Alps (albeit once a day or whatever it is). People on this thread have looked at air demand and concluded that a few trains per day between Birmingham/Manchester and Paris could be justified. HS2 will give this route an acceptable journey time. It will be scandalous if it doesn't happen, but we do have reason to suspicious.

[sotonsi]

Actually it's far more about lack of demand and lack of paths (especially cheap paths) on busy mainlines leaving London than it's about customs facilities.

After all, the daily Disney service runs - OK, Disney is a huge multinational that can waste money on barely used border facilities, so how about the twice weekly, winter-only trains from Calais-Fréthun, Moûtiers and Bourg-Saint-Maurice? or the weekly, summer-only trains from Avignon? Those four stations need the customs/passport control and security checks.

Before someone says that we should join Schengen to stop this farce, the tunnel security checks would still need to be there, unless you also ease security on the tunnel.

And with HS2, the stations will be new build, so it's not like shoehorning the facilities in at a cost, unlike all the continental stations. Plus the times would drop, so demand would increase. That said, the change in London is easy enough, especially if there's services on HS1 that end at Old Oak Common (which was certain an option when HS2 was at 14tph, so no room for non-London trains).

As for the trains - some units ran from London to Leeds on the ECML and now all the 'NoL' sets run on the French domestic network. Some of the sleepers were sold to Canada, and some of those locos move freight about.

[Tyr]

We just dont need a HS2-HS1 link. Its a nice childish idea to be able to jump on a train in Liverpool or wherever and get to Paris but if you think about it seriously then theres no point. Why spend billions doing that when all it will take with current plans is a quick switch to another train in London?
Not even to mention that flying is the obvious better option.

[Trances]

There are plans of ways to connect Euston to KXST floating around that I have seen online with people mover to pedestrian routes.

[JayPeeDee]

Originally Posted by Tyr

We just dont need a HS2-HS1 link. Its a nice childish idea to be able to jump on a train in Liverpool or wherever and get to Paris but if you think about it seriously then theres no point. Why spend billions doing that when all it will take with current plans is a quick switch to another train in London?
Not even to mention that flying is the obvious better option.

What works for you may be childish for someone else and vice versa. Granted, there may not be a huge demand for direct services north of London (at the moment, but who's to say it won't create the demand) but if I can get from Birmingham to central Paris in under three hours on the train and the costs are comparitive to flying then I will take the train. The reason - waiting time and connections.

If I can arrive at the station 30 mins before my train and it takes me all the way to central Paris without having to get out of my seat then I can spend the time working, strolling about, viewing the scenery, making phone calls, sending emails, etc.. Having to connect through London is similar to having to connect through Schiphol for example and unless I really need to then this is something I avoid (i.e. I fly direct).

I think you underestimate the importance placed on direct travel, especially for business. A recent survey of business leaders concluded that 92% said that direct travel to a destination influenced their inward investment decisions.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by JayPeeDee

What works for you may be childish for someone else and vice versa. Granted, there may not be a huge demand for direct services north of London (at the moment, but who's to say it won't create the demand) but if I can get from Birmingham to central Paris in under three hours on the train and the costs are comparitive to flying then I will take the train. The reason - waiting time and connections.

That's quite a big if, though, given the price of low-cost airlines. Business travel is a different kettle of fish though.

Out of interest, what is the speed limit on LGV Nord? Would Birmingham-Paris direct trains be limited to 300 km/h in France, even if they're capable of doing 400 km/h? Ideally, if LGV Picardie is ever built, sub-three hours could become feasible...

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by JayPeeDee

Having to connect through London is similar to having to connect through Schiphol for example and unless I really need to then this is something I avoid (i.e. I fly direct).

Now that you mention it, both times I've changed flights at Schipol (Leeds to Lima and Leeds to Nice), my route from gate to gate must have been further than the walking distance from Euston to St. Pancras. Although of course I didn't have to take my hold luggage with me.

[Nathan Dawz]

Originally Posted by Tyr

We just dont need a HS2-HS1 link. Its a nice childish idea to be able to jump on a train in Liverpool or wherever and get to Paris but if you think about it seriously then theres no point.

Why is it childish? Just because you don't agree with it?

Personally, I'd say it would be moronic if they didn't include a HS1-HS2 link. People always prefer direct connections to having to change trains.

Having to change from Euston to St. Pancras will still be an unnecessary inconvenience, even if they are only a short distance apart.

[CharlieP]

I don't think he was being particularly pejorative when he said "childish" - just implying that it's an innocent but naive suggestion that doesn't consider all the important facts.

I think everybody would love to see a proper high-speed connection from HS2 to HS1, but there are many reasons why it's unlikely to happen in reality. Birmingham to Paris ridership would be a fraction of both Birmingham to London and London to Paris, and as direct trains would take up a path on each line, the number you'd be able to run would be severely constrained so as to not impact on capacity. Combining this low number of trains per day with the cost of a high-speed link makes it look a pricey prospect indeed.

[makita09]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

That's quite a big if, though, given the price of low-cost airlines. Business travel is a different kettle of fish though.

Out of interest, what is the speed limit on LGV Nord? Would Birmingham-Paris direct trains be limited to 300 km/h in France, even if they're capable of doing 400 km/h? Ideally, if LGV Picardie is ever built, sub-three hours could become feasible...

Trains don't exceed 300km/h at present. The line is built and ready for 350km/h operation though I should imagine the next step will be 320km/h.

There will not be a large difference allowed between the top speeds, as speed differences lower capacity, and its already full.

And also, don't assume HS2 trains will be able to do 400km/h - this is only what the track is built for. 360km/h is assumed in the business case, this is more likely.

[makita09]

Originally Posted by Nathan Dawz

Personally, I'd say it would be moronic if they didn't include a HS1-HS2 link. People always prefer direct connections to having to change trains.

Me too. Even if its 2 trains per day its worth it. Having the option is important. And useful for Champions league High Speed Train Charters