Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 38 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 2746 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Will HS2 Fail or Succeed?

Dave Perton
I believe it will do both, it just depends on the measure you use. In an project there are three measures of success or failure, cost, time-scale and outcome and I believe it will fail on two but succeed on the most important and have set out my argument in a blog post here https://communities.theiet.org/groups/blogpost/view/27/231/6920


The project is so complex to think costs will not overrun or timing slip is to be naive, as it is impossible to predict them when the timescales are so long and the complexity so great, but the outcome will be a success
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Helios, that's why HS2 as is will fail, is a waste of money, and needs to be cancelled asap. How we do business, have meetings, need sustainable net zero energy and net zero environment impact, etc, will have changed for 2 decades before the first train leaves the station. 19th century solution to a 20th century problem not fit for the 21st century requirement.
  • 0
    Well that drew an interesting range of responses. From the "It's a waste of money and should be cancelled", through "it's the wrong transport system", to general support.I am not expecting to challenge the entrenched views with any success. 


    Personally I believe  transport systems will always find a market, ticket pricing will match market needs to create it. Although we are now working differently and I expect Zoom meetings will continue to be the new normal, they will not eliminate the need to travel. People also work while travelling and enjoy travelling.I know I do. Even if f the passenger numbers don't appear then at least we will have freight capacity to take diesel lorries of f the road. by the time it is ready pretty much all electricity will be renewables or nuclear.


    We clearly currently do not have enough capacity on our rail system and this will make a big difference to that, although local infrastructure will also need to be improved and capacity added.


    The same leap of faith is required that the Victorians took with the first railways, or digging the canals before that and I for one, support taking it, it is what British Engineers do best.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Personally, I think they should have started by spending some of the billions on improving the loading gauge. As it is very few lines in this country were built to the Berne gauge and by upgrading certain lines (especially commuter lines) to this standard or better would allow significantly greater loadings (double decker carriages anyone?).
  • 0
    The main problem for your average voter is that HS2 is just about a line from London to Birmingham that saves 10 minutes. Both assumptions obviously completely wrong, but the government and industry have never properly managed to win the battle about what this project is. It hasn’t helped that HS2 and the government failed to adequately compensate businesses and households – had they much of the negative campaigning would have been quashed and they could have focused their attention to the details to optimise the design.

    “Fast” speed is another issue. It has only now taken FOI requests and announcements from Stephenson to say that running trains at slower speeds actually costs more money as the reduction in construction costs (-4% v 300kmph lines [Stephenson] or -9% v 200kmph line [HS2 FOI] are outweighed by the loss in benefits of shorter journey times – it’s more than 10 years since this scheme started and this battle is still being fought by anti HS2 journalists and campaigners.

    The biggest failing is connectivity. Network Rail’s early 2000s plan for a new line showed London to Glasgow but with a link via Manchester which would have begun to create fast regional connections. This is still not included in any HS2 plan, even using classic compatible trains. The realisation of this poor northern connectivity is beginning to be tackled as the Northern Powerhouse and northern mayors have had this poor connectivity dumped on their laps. Slowly connectivity is being corrected with plans for a through station at Manchester (and hopefully also Leeds) that allows for extended NPR and running to Scotland. HS2 should never have been regarded as London to somewhere; the benefits should always have been regional cities to other regional cities. Even the proposal by Weston Williamson:
    https://www.westonwilliamson.com/thinking/high-speed-station-square
    for the NIC still lacks an adequate direct connection for future HS2 type trains from Manchester and Leeds to Glasgow (as the station box doesn’t provide this and then such a journey would go south via Manchester Airport), but it is an improvement over today’s plans. At some stage the government will realise that Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham are the keystones of this project and that through stations or provision for such links are absolutely essential.

    In the end this project will succeed, but only after major errors have been corrected, hopefully before construction, or in the years ahead after people start using it and we realise that connections are not optimised for NPR or East West Rail, or for extended off network running to Scotland, or even SW to Bristol (some safeguarding provision for a 1 or 2 mile tunnel from Curzon St to SW Birmingham lines towards the SW should have been considered allowing any northern city fast HS2 journeys through/under Birmingham).

    Fundamentally HS2 is a system and we are dependent on what trains run over the entire network to achieve the highest benefits. Tilting trains on the West Coast Main Line were always a compromise when they were first proposed in the 1960s, yet here we are 60 years later and who honestly believes that another £40bn will be spent on a new line from Leeds to Edinburgh or Manchester/Wigan to Glasgow. So the train selection is as much an essential part of this project as the line itself.

    With the availability of the latest tilting trains from Alstom (Avelia Liberty for Amtrak) and the Talgo Avril (to which a tilt capability can be selected at procurement) then extended running to Scotland using classic compatible HS2 trains would allow HS2 speeds on the dedicated track and up to 300kmph for the Avelia in tilt mode and probably higher with the Avril. With upgrades to the WCML over the next few years for signalling and long passing places, these new trains now make the 1970-80’s plans for 155mph tilt speeds easily achievable north of Preston. Indeed, if there were brand new HSL north of Preston then these trains can operate to those higher speeds as on HS2. This is a compromise that is cheap. No bridges are burned by not selecting such trains (which are due to be decided upon in the autumn this year) and they offer full flexibility and maximum speeds from partial track upgrades, which also could form the basis of the strategy for the NPR upgrades and new lines.

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/18256341.running-tilting-trains-next-generation-track-bring-benefits-scotland/
    https://www.alstom.com/our-solutions/rolling-stock/avelia-liberty-innovation-and-proven-design-very-high-speed
    https://www.talgo.com/en/rolling-stock/very-high-speed/avril/

    Finally, if we were anything other the “Great” Britain & NI, with a long record of having governments destroying and failing to invest and follow through on our world leading technical ability, then I’d never have proposed HS2 in 2020. We’d have gone and worked with the German’s at Siemens and Thyssenkrupp and done what Japan and China are pushing ahead with – a core 500 to 600kmph maglev line. Essentially Siemens have given away their HSR and maglev technology to the Chinese who in the end will sell it all back to us as our governments’ failed to understand the future.

    https://www.railwaygazette.com/technology/dynamic-trials-start-with-600-km/h-maglev-prototype/56830.article

    It is sad to say, but HS2 will be out of date 20 years after it opens, but we can still optimise it for “our” future with connectivity improvements and procurement of new 350kmph+ tilting trains.

  • 0
    "It hasn’t helped that HS2 and the government failed to adequately compensate businesses and households – had they much of the negative campaigning would have been quashed and they could have focused their attention to the details to optimise the design."


    It's a bit more than that, there are two other very big issues which affect and concern people not on the route (and hence a much larger number of people):
    • Whether the HS2 money could have been better spent on other projects (rail or otherwise)

    • The environmental damage, in particular the loss of ancient woodlands. That may be thought of as a matter of compensation, but it isn't. When it's gone it's gone (at least in human lifetime measures). 


    To persuade people that it's a good thing those two issues must be addressed.


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    Hi Andy,

    I wrote to a number of Ministers, MPs, TSC, and members of the HoL, expressing my sentiments above and did receive acknowledgements – it may be another reason why Stephenson has just said a few days ago that HS2 Phase 2b will still be built for 360kmph running. 

    Although there were potentially better ways the money could have been spent, the decision has been made. I simply believe that the DfT and HS2 have failed in their duty to keep up to date with their knowledge of the capabilities of the latest tilt train technology from Alstom and Talgo. Had they done so, less damage would have been done to areas such as the SSSI as the line could have gone around the area while trains still maintained over 300kmph in tilt mode. They have completely failed to stop and reappraise what cards they had to play.

    I’ve included below what is still possible for the Phase2b and NPR new lines if these tilt trains are bought so that others who face the similar life changing problem (of a line taking out their home, business or local SSSO) and be able to do something about it.

    Under UK Freedom of Information requests to HS2 and the Department for Transport, (FOI15-1461 Jan 11, 2016, FOI15-1257R/1276R Ref: FER0591609 Nov 11, 2015), HS2 have published the following minimum radius of curve for the HS2 line without tilt:
    200kmph = 2100m
    250kmph = 3300m
    300kmph = 4640m
    360kmph = 7310m
    400kmph = 9030m (and if relaxed 8210m with 80mm cant deficiency)

    HS2 have never worked out the Radius of Curve for higher speed tilting, but using cant of Heq=150mm, and a cant deficiency of Hdef=200mm, I've worked out the following values for a train with tilt from h[eq+def]=11.8xV^2/R:
    200kmph = 1348m (UK Pendolino max speed)
    250kmph = 2107m (latest Pendolino speed used on Italian-Swiss route)
    300kmph = 2457m (Possibly the max permitted tilt speed for the Alstom Avelia Liberty)
    350kmph = 4130m
    360kmph = 4369m (HS2 normal operating speed, but Alstom Avelia & Talgo Avril can reach 360kmph in non-tilt mode)
    400kmph = 5394m (HS2 route alignment speed)

    We now need to consider how we make Phase 2b, NPR and the whole scheme better. Applying the lessons from Phase 1 & 2a, and taking on board the fact that new fast HS2 speed tilting trains exist (Alstom’s only rolled out the upstate NY factory late 2019), then more sinuous lines can be built that are routed around sensitive areas (population, terrain, SSSI), and still provide the same journey time savings, capacity and overall return to the UK taxpayer over the 60-100 year period. These trains can also allow for a UK wide upgrade to the network of other main lines for less cost than a new line.

    I am sensitive to the requirement to protect SSSIs, however do the French, German, Spanish, Italians or Japanese not have their own unique ancient SSI areas of their own? Somehow they manage to build and move forward. If we do in fact have globally unique areas (which they may well be) then engaging with the bioscience community to extract the DNA and store this for future re-planting is a solution. There are experts in that area that can assist in minimising any permanent loss, but given the width of a standard HSL line I think the fears are significantly over-egged and I would suggest that we will not lose a single plant species from this line being built and most of the existing plants will be transplanted in an attempt to minimise area loss.

    We could also have completely tunnelled the route below SSIs, and in terms of cost the 45 mile long line from Bologna to Florence only cost around €5bn about 10 years ago. So there were options, we just have politicians who aren’t technical; indeed we are probably one of the few European nations where ministers run departments having had no previous technical skills whatsoever. It’s almost a feather in the cap to go round the houses as quickly as possible, which isn’t good for UK taxpayers having effective Ministers. Anyone remember Caroline Nokes at a NI select committee having admitted she hadn’t read the full Good Friday Agreement even though she was 6 months in post as the Secretary of State? Now we’ve had Grayling and now Shapps – he’s got a PPL you know but he can’t seem to come up with a viable scheme to directly connect what will be the UK’s two biggest infrastructure schemes – Heathrow and HS2, eg, the HS2 spur continues to Gatwick, or Southampton, or forms part of the line to Waterloo and Heathrow also becomes a national interchange hub.

    HighSpeedUK was cheaper, but as this design is for the next 100 years I would have gone for maglev. Yes it is new technology, but who did write the report recommending the system choice to government? Rob Eddington, an aviation insider. Maglev would have decimated UK domestic aviation – the industry he spent his life working in.

    Adjusted for inflation, the total cost of the Siemens/Thyssenkrupp maglev per km, applied to the whole 330 mile / 530km HS2 route would have been just £24.2bn. Replacing the full 330miles / 530km HS2 line with the German maglev including trains, stations and dual track.
    = US$23.1bn [2004 prices]
    = US$31.4bn [2019 including 36% US inflation]
    = £24.2bn [2019 converted using $1.3/£]
    Then there are the advantages or less noise, maintenance, 99%+ reliability.

    So we are where we are. HS2 needs to be a success. If you see a problem, use your MP and write to Ministers and the Transport Select Committee.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I agree, and as stated previously, raised track over motorways and new less environmentally vandalism new raised routes, using maglev or hyper loop, is the mass transit technology of the future. Covid-19 has shown that working patterns will change quite significantly in the coming decades to remote and non-office-based methods, so many of the passenger number assumptions are no longer valid for a fixed-seat and train size, no matter the passenger demand, HS2 train. Thus we should accept the wasted sunk costs of HS2 now, stop forging ahead not matter how stupid with 20th century train technology, review and restart with a sustainable, adaptable and future-resilient modular and demand led passenger and cargo mobility technology.
  • 0
    Hi Angus,


    Without wanting to get bogged down on this point...
    "I am sensitive to the requirement to protect SSSIs, however do the French, German, Spanish, Italians or Japanese not have their own unique ancient SSI areas of their own? Somehow they manage to build and move forward. If we do in fact have globally unique areas (which they may well be) then engaging with the bioscience community to extract the DNA and store this for future re-planting is a solution."



    Unfortunately it's not that simple (and of course just because it's an approach that has been used in the past and elsewhere does not necessarily mean it's an appropriate approach). Perhaps a good way to visualise it is an analogy where we consider a motorway plan that involved going through Birmingham and completely removing New Street Station and its tracks. We could capture the design of New Street, and we could rebuild it elsewhere, but the rail network would be fundamentally broken. It's not like a motorway going through York and causing the museum to be lost, which I think is how it's often seen. That's the problem with habitat loss in the UK, it's no longer about saving a small space for a bit of scientific interest, we've reached the point where we're losing the key corridors which allow the network to operate. Any argument that a particular piece of incremental destruction is justified (which is what is being made in the case of HS2) needs to be made on that understanding of the consequences.


    I'm not commenting on the rest of the argument because as a rail industry consultant that's the day job! (Reminds me of a doctor I knew who, if asked any medical question in the pub, would reply "my surgery hours are...") It's a pain, but on some issues it's just not worth the risk expressing personal opinions in public which may or may not be taken as those of my employer - plus for professional credibility I'd only want to do so if it could be a fully referenced and researched opinion. (Apologies that reads very pompously, which it's not meant to, that's just life as an engineer - you'll appreciate a question like this needs several hundred pages to answer properly!)


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    I cannot disagree with you Andy, it is the ecological connecting corridors that matter. I'm a member of the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and am torn as I am a believer in the need for HS2 to increase capacity and be the staring point for HS3 and more. I believe it will generate prosperity and without that the wild life trusts will fail anyway. The mitigation works promised by HS2 need some joined up thinking to ensure joined up mitigation and joined up habitats. Nature does have a way of always bouncing back, and will no doubt survive the human race, but now we're getting into philosophy!

  • 0
    Dave Perton:

     I believe it will generate prosperity and without that the wild life trusts will fail anyway. 

     


    There's an interesting discussion there that my wife and I have been having for about the last 30 years - given that she's spent most of those years employed by or freelancing for Wildlife Trusts (and indeed The Wildlife Trusts) amongst other similar organisations! I've always had concerns that the Trusts can very much focus on conservation rather than sustainability of the whole ecosystem (hence if they fail it wouldn't actually have much wider impact), but as my wife has (reasonably) patiently explained to me it's not really that simple of course...and again as many conferences could be  (and indeed are) held about that as are about HS2 - involving people who, unlike me, actually understand this!


    Going back to basics, when I'm looking at any potential rail project my key questions are: has the scope of the complete project, including all potential interfaces (including the non-engineering ones) been defined? And then have the people who thoroughly understand those interfaces been allowed to provide input to the potential risks? Where rail projects far too often get it wrong is by basing the decisions on people (engineering, financial, whatever) who don't know what they don't know, so make perfectly rational, logical decisions which are based on complete misunderstandings of the problem. Yes, it's expensive, time consuming, tedious, and sadly tends to end up with giving lots of work to over paid consultants (sorry!!! ?) but it's vital if we're going to get the results we demand from infrastructure projects. So the one thing I will say on HS2 is that if it is going ahead for purely political reasons and that therefore concerns are not being sought, listened to and risk assessed - which at the moment I have a nasty feeling may be happening to a greater or lesser extent - then that would definitely not be good rail engineering practice. But whether that risk assessment result in any particular action is for the project to defend.


    Actually it is a philosophical issue - it can be a hard fact for many engineers to face, but there is no "right" answer to any engineering challenge, just options that we may decide are more or less preferable at the time. And the most most important thing (which is what it feels like I spend most of my day telling clients!) is that we get the best information we reasonably can on those options, decide what we're going to do and why (basically, risk assess them), and then record that decision. We may have got it "wrong", as in we may get a consequence that the customer or wider society didn't want, but at least we can show we're being open about why we did what we did, and that we did the best we could.


    Cheers,


    Andy


Community Rules & Guidelines