If you would like to consider supporting the channel click: www.patreon.com/Chris_Rail_Focus or become a Member here on TH-cam Or you can support the channel by making a purchase on my Redbubble gallery www.redbubble.com/people/engphotography/shop Or alternatively by becoming a TH-cam
I struggle with the logic of this. Some Pendos that currently operate on WCML will move to HS2 with the services that they currently operate. As they'll be faster each diagram can run more journeys with them. On top of the new HS2 trains. There'll be less need for Pendos on HS2 as most of the traffic has shifted across.
New HS2 trains + Pendolinos = more trains. Use 11 car unis on HS2 services and keep the 9 cars for classic WCML. My prediction is that they will still be in service after 2040 anyway.
For HS2 to be truly viable, and make any sort of financial sense, the trains need to be running at very high speeds (at least 180-200mph) and cut journey times between London and Birmingham down to 20-30 minutes. It is definitely feasible, as most of the current planned line is mostly straight. The top speed recorded on the almost 20 year-old HS1 line is 186mph, so it has to be better than that. It still feels like billions down the toilet at this point.
Birmingham to Euston will be 49 minutes, but includes stops at Interchange (Birmingham and Old Oak). For HS2 to be of any long term benefit north of Birmingham it needs to go to Euston and Crewe as a bare minimum.
@@AFCManUkwell 117 miles in 49 minutes ain’t to bad heck we get trains doing 40 odd miles in 50 minutes glasgow to Edinburgh so 49 is quite good and my guess is hs2 will start off at 150 odd mph using existing fleets or slightly modified but then they will increase it to somewhere in the ranges of 180-200 once they have the line fully operational and all meaning all sections of part 1 complete
@@Thatspuremental Let's hope so. Just seems like a massive waste of money if we aren't reducing the travel time enough. France and Germany have trains that can do upwards of 200mph. We used to pride ourselves on our railways, and now we have some of the slowest journey times in Europe.
7:02 of course hs2 is about capacity, but I'd stress that speed IS capacity, with a higher speed you can fit more trains in or at least more reliability in the timetable
Not quite right. Higher speed means longer headways, so technically fewer services. And if you have to stop for some reason on the running lines, the consequences for reliability are worse for higher speed trains due to time it takes to stop, the bunching effect and so on What speed does do is give you the opportunity to take traffic off the ECML and still be quicker than today (if the Eastern leg was built). It also attracts more passengers out of planes and cars. There's a bit of gain in that you need slightly fewer trains but that's fairly insignificant compared to the whole project.
This is true for a mixed traffic railway, but with HS2 being segregated and using automatic train control then you can operate more trains. Faster = fewer trains needed.
@@Rail_Focus even with moving block you need to keep a stopping distance away from the train in front. The faster you go, the longer that is - and the kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity, so a 300kmh train has 2.25x the energy of one doing 200kmh. Being able to get more trips per diagram is good, but not that significant. But yes, you're right, mixing speeds on one track is even worse.
@@Rail_Focus also, don't forget that it takes 10km to accelerate to 300kmh, and about the same to stop. That means that a 200kmh train will only be about 10-15 minutes slower between OOC and BHX. Over the course of a day a few diagrams would be able to have one extra trip if they were faster. A nice bonus, but not huge.
The fact that this is even a question should show that the 390s are Really Explitively Good Trains. Presumably "train capable of HS2-level speeds" and "train capable of tilting in order to reach 125mph on the WCML" are mutually exclusive things.
@@owensmith7530 Class 390 Pendolino axleload (tare) is 13 tonnes. ETR675 - non-tilting is 14.3 tonnes, HS2 new trains projected to be 14 tonnes axleload - so not a significant weight penalty for tilt
Above all else, this just shows that we don't need a high speed line. What we need is a high speed network to almost entirely replace existing intercity services. We also need to stop building terminus stations. Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham need through stations served by high speed rail which allows high quality and high capacity trains to travel further North from Manchester and Leeds. Under current plans, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds to the North and Scotland services will go from second class to third class service.
Would argue for the eastern arm to be constructed rather than running Leeds trains through Manchester. But a terminus does not preclude running running else and the HS2 + NPR Junction that was designed for Piccadilly was quite clever, allowing for maximum throughput while allowing trains to head east.
@@Rail_Focus Oh, absolutely, I wasn't suggesting that trains from London to Manchester should go on to Leeds. Rather than both Leeds on the Eastern leg and Manchester on the western Leg need through platforms to allow trains to continue North from those locations so that they can benefit from better services northwards as the current TPE and XC provision is very poor.
@@EuroDC1990This what NPR in full wouldve done, There would still need to be terminuses to turn trains around. I think its best terminus at curzon street because there is a way around birmingham to connect to wales unlike Manchester or leeds. They have to be through running
I think your a big negative to terminus stations. A station being designed as a terminus rather than a through station does not prevent trains from going onwards. It just means the drivers need to switch ends meaning longer stops. In return you are able to build a shorter station which is very useful since the land you buy is often much more square than the long rectangles that stations are
Thanks for another very useful explanation. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. At 8:26 - remember there was to be a huge MPD built north of Crewe to stable and service half the HS2 fleet.
I did wonder about the Crewe depot. But I think that was only needed once the second bath of units were ordered once HS2 opened to Manchester and Leeds.
What a mess the railways have been left with with the cancelation of HS2 north of Brum! I've been a big supporter of high speed for a long time to increase capacity. Unfortunately I think the present government will cancel the route to Euston and all we will be left with is a shuttle service from Birmingham to Old Oak Common without any link to WCML!
But eventually - in the future - wiser heads will prevail; we cannot keep widening the M6 and the UK's population grew, in 2023, by around 0.8million people. Something has to give.
It's all kicking the can down the road. A UK high speed network is an inevitable need, and all that beancounters, NIMBYs, Nostalgic Traditionalists and pencil pushers are doing is cheating the country out of years of benefitting from such a valuable piece of infrastructure and kicking the can down the road on its inevitable construction.
For years I've wonder why the new HS2 trainsets could not be equipped with the air spring-powered active tilting system used by some of newest and fastest Bullet Trains of the Japanese Shinkansen, the JR East's E5 and H5 Series Shinkansen running at 200 MPH. The degree of tilt is small, only 1-degree (I read that tilt of 2 degrees is possible) but it would still offer some compensation in passenger comfort for increasing speeds on the WCML for the currently non-tilt HS2 trainsets.
1 or 2 degrees still wouldn't allow 125mph on some of the curvier sections. Best to make use of the rapid acceleration and operate at 125mph on straighter sections.
@@Rail_FocusWhy is a high speed route even having so many curvier sections in the first place. One of the points of a high speed route is to eliminate as many curves as possible.
@@B-A-L we're talking about the West Coast Mainline. HS2 will allow 225mph (360kp/h) running without tilt. But tilt is required on the WCML.for comfortable operation at 125mph (200km/h)
@@gorgu08 as I said 2° tilt will not for 125mph running on the WCML. But tilting beyond that requires heavy tilting equipment which isn't ideal if you want to build lightweight high-speed trains. But as I keep pointing out, the non-tilt penalty has been over stated. It's certainly nowhere near 17 minutes.
The key aspect is tilt trains allow higher speeds on the non high speed rails north of Birmingham. HS2 transits are non tilting and would be slower than the current tilt trains without high speed tracks north of Birmingham. HS2 transits are also at a much larger loading gauge than standard UK loading gauge.
The HS2 trains currently on order are being built to a "UK" loading gauge so can fit on the WCML. That shouldn't be confused with current story in the press regarding the step down to the platform. Yes non-tilting trains will be slower, but the time penalty has been over stated and things are already being put in place to allow non tilting trains to travel faster on straighter sections of the WCML.
Sunak left HS2 in a complete mess. I am hoping sense will prevail and we'll at least get something back like Phase 2A to Crewe, maybe under a different name.
And the only reason he did it was to make a few whiny motorists happy because the Tories only JUST kept one seat at the local elections because of the whole ULEZ thing. Which has since become a nothing burger and actually been proven to be a positive thing people are largely happy about. Also I'm still baffled how a PM has the power to over-turn a decision by Parliament given HS2 was voted into law by Parliament.
@ephphatha230 and they are already halfway through their design lives. The Alstom refurb of the past two years is effectively a rebuild after two decades.
We'll see. As far as HS2 Ltd is concerned Euston Tunnels are being built. I think the question will be how big the station will be and if Labour will sell off any land around Euston.
Why is there such limited capacity between Crewe and Warrington? Is it due to local trains or is it only 2 tracks there? Would speed increases help this situation?
Warrington to Golborne junction is a constraint, as is Crewe to Warrington, which is 2 track. The junction of Bank Quay is a bit of a mess. A speed increase would likely make the situation worse. The greater the speed differential between services, non-stop, local and freight the less capacity there is.
"The Winsford Gap - a long twin-track blockage which would have been bypassed by Golborne Link. Once again, proving that once you start fiddling with an integrated plan, you simply beggar it up so quickly that you put the Grate back into Britain!
@@mikehindson-evans159 Is this the one that Boris had cancelled so one of his MP's wouldn't vote against him with his no confidence "situation"? After which he buggered off anyway.
Thanks for the vid. Was unsure about this proposal when I heard about it. It just doesn't seem worth the effort to reengineer an entire fleet in such a way. At that point, you may as well just order new rolling stock surely. Either way, we need HS2 or some other new line to Crewe to connect with the line near Handsacre to relieve capacity on the WCML between Handsacre and Crewe
Probably a silly question but why can't trains run in tilting mode between Glasgow and Handsacre, then join HS2? Do trains have to be either tilting or non-tilting?
Another rolling stock option would be to use the new US (Alstom, really) 'Avelia Liberty: a tilting train; aiming for 165mph on Amtrak's legacy NorthEast Corridor; designed for up to 186mph with tilting system engaged; designed for up to 220mph with tilt switched off. How about using a train like this at 200+mph London-Birmingham, then upgrading West Coast Main Line signalling for 140mph from Midlands to the North?
Too late for that, the HS2 trains have been ordered and are probably already designed. Although it shouldn't be too late to reconfigure some units to be 260m long
Nice idea, but even if HS2's new trains hadn't already been ordered that option wouldn't be feasible technically...unless the design platform Alstom is using for Avelia is capable of being shrunk to suit British infrastructure clearances.😊
"30-year-old trains" - the 1989 Class 91 Electra locomotives were scrapped at 30 years, as were many of the original Class 373 Eurostars (admittedly after operating in a damp tunnel... oh, hang on, HS2 is in tunnels for half the Brum to EUS route.....)
There is zero point to an extensive refurbishment of 30 year old stock, it would only have around 5 years service life left at that point, the bodyshells nowadays with the crash readiness means that they don't last as long as they used to.
To be fair the 390s were really well made and I believe they could last into their 40s. But hammering them at 155mph won't do much for their longevity.
The only long (er than 12 coaches) platforms are at Euston, Crewe, Preston and Glasgow, and not on every platform; Manchester, Stockport, Macclesfield and WIlmslow are limited to 12 coaches.
@@Rail_Focus It ought to be possible to restore Euston platforms to their previous length by extending backwards under the concourse. Crewe, Preston and Carlisle have long platforms and as far as I know, so does Glasgow Central. The modern 26 metre stock makes inefficient use of the space due to the tapered ends and wide gaps between vehicles. Close coupled 20 metre vehicles are probably still optimal for the British system. The Mark 1 dimensions were established after a thorough research programme. Those responsible knew what they were doing. Using modern methods of construction the mass should not be more than 32 tons with AC, and a basic 28 tons should be achievable.
A 12 coach Pendolino would be around 280m long, so is still some way off 400m required to operate HS2 trains in multiple. There's a graphic with the video which shows just how much longer the HS2 platforms will be compared to the existing Piccadilly platforms.
Still need extra platforms at Euston, so may as well continue to build HS2 to Euston. The longest Glasgow Central platform is 350m. Carlisle and Preston were both due to be lengthened to allow 400m trains, but this work has now been cancelled after the cancellation of HS2 to Golborne
Not sure how practical it would be to be honest. Without HS2 to Manchester the business case for the demolition required for even a couple of platforms may not stack up.
HS2 in Manchester was supposed to be underground, which would require a lot of building work. The old, disused Mayfield station has been mentioned by many but this is far too short to be of any use.
The original plan was to be underground and with the (relatively) essay ability to continue the tunnels on so it could link up to what was supposed to be HS3/Northern Powerhouse Rail, to go on to Leeds. They then decided to just tack it along side the existing station and destroy a huge tract of existing things on the approach close to where the current viaduct is rather than have it in tunnels allowing things to still be built on top.
What about having some services terminating at Old Oak (sold at a cheaper price) and operating some premium services from Euston to the North without stopping at Old Oak? That should benefit the journey time, too.
Not sure I'd be keen on that. But there should be a single ticket from the North to Central London via Old Oak, instead of having to pay to get to.Old Oak, then Zone 2 prices on the Elizabeth Line
I calculated that a 250m long HS2 train could have 710 seats. I made 2 assumptions but to simplify the calculation I won't worry about those. The 2 assumptions I made were: 1. Every coach has the same seating layout (ie both driving coaches will have the same capacity and all intermediate coaches the same capacity). Of course in real life provision needs to be made for disabled access, luggage and bike storage, maybe buffet car etc. 2. All seating is in one class (in real life trains will probably have first class but again for simplifying the calculation I'm ignoring first/second class differences). I assumed that given a 23m HST mk3 could take 80 seats, a 25m long intermediate coach on an HS2 train could easily take 80 seats with more legroom than on a mk3 with the same capacity. 6 intermediate coaches per 200m set gives 480 seats with 35 seats in each driving coach (70 in total) making 550 seats. If we're adding 2 intermediate coaches, 2x80 = 160 so 550 + 160 = 710 seats. That's more than even a refurbished 11-car Pendolino with 607 seats.
I would like to see Class 390 Pendolinos reaching up to 155mph. But I don’t think they would be suitable to operate on HS2. Would be ideal to have trains to be used on HS2 that can reach speeds up to 200mph max.
The main problem I see is that the WCML Is limited to 110 mph for non tilting and 125 for tilting meaning and last time they tried to put a train that went higher than 125mph it went really badly 😂.
@@AnoujRajput Basically the APT was meant to be a future for British high speed trains but they completely rushed everything and it suffered from suspension and tilting failures and other problems as the sets where not properly tested before entering services and they were withdrawn fairly quickly afterwards because of all of the problems that they had and that’s the main reason why the HST became a huge success as after the APT sets were pulled focus was turned on the HST instead.
The decision to scrap the further legs of HS2 is a completely short sighted decision. Personally as it is already well ongoing it ahould be built to Birmingham, and trains just run London to Birmingham as putting trains from HS2 on current routes to Manchester will seriously effect available paths on current Birmingham to Manchester routes, and also most likely effect local services on Manchester to Crewe section and the routes that run from Manchester to South Wales for example. Birmingham to Manchester/Crewe to Manchester are already a heck of a bottleneck and something will have to give. I think everyone is realising this, however everyones solutions are focused on how many people can get to London as soon as possible, because there are of course no reasons why anyone would want to go anywhere else.
Capacity into London is important. But the whole point of HS2 was to move those passengers onto dedicated lines, releasing capacity between cities for improvement connectivity. This will still be the case between Birmingham and London. But as it stands Sunak has left us with a mess to try and u tangle. HS2 simply must go to Crewe as a bare minimum.
@@Rail_Focus your correct about the mess to untangle. You are correct on that. Problem is that we will now be trying to fit the HS2 trains onto the existing tracks. So if they wish HS2 to go to Manchester Crewe to Manchester will be a huge bottleneck. Either the current London to Manchester service via WCML will have to be reduced to accommodate, or more likely I see local trains reduced and the regional services such to South Wales reduced, or more likely to truncated at Crewe.
With some luck. Some government will eventually come to the conclusion we need this... like the previous Labour government did, then the Tories agreed to but then took their sweet ass time actually starting. Then... cancelling it to the point of it being effectively useless for its intended original purpose. Then the economy is in a better state maybe, given the massive hole in the budget right now. They have 14 years of things to try and fix, hopefully this will be one of them.
A 9 car before entry into service only made 140 mph on limit when testing in controlled conditions, If they are left as they are I doubt very much if they would achieve the speeds. My job at the time I was a NR ops manager on board the train.
If Pendolino has already run with tilt at 155mph (in test), why would the trains need new bogies and traction motors? Technically, the test at 155mph was to prove the 10% overspeed requirement over the 140mph design speed, but if the trains can be prevented from exceeding 155mph on HS2 by ETCS, is there actually a requirement for the trains to be proven at 170mph? If upgrade of the trains is not required, that rather changes the cost equation away from splitting the HS2 order into 200mt and 250mt sub-fleets.
Class 390s would be 25-30 years old by the time HS2 opens and I don't think were ever intended to be thrashed at 155mph for long periods. Overspeed is quite different from operational speed.
@@Rail_Focus Age should not be issued given that they have been maintained and overhauled by the OEM since build, and worth remembering that HSTs entered service in 1976 so 40 years of frontline service. I'm not sure that you can thrash an electric train in the way you thrash a steam or diesel train and Pendolinos in Italy run at 250kph non tilt. Aluminium bodyshells so no corrosion. On journey times, they would also benefit if speed limit north of Carlisle increased to 140mph.
Operating relatively heavy electric vehicles (due to tilting equipment) at speeds they were never designed to operate at in regular service would be thrashing them.
@@Thatspurementalnot really, HSTs were in operating service for nearly 50 years, in fact they still run to this day with ScotRail! And the pendolinos are going to be around 30 years old by the time HS2 is completed, but I don’t believe there’s any plans to withdraw them atleast until 2037-2040
We should hand the entire project over to the Japanese and buy N-700S shinkansen that have a minimum tilting capacity and battery power for emergencies. Mind you, buy the time HS2 is finished they'll be on the N-900 and their mag-lev from Tokyo to Osaka will be finished!
HS2 should have been London to Glasgow and Edinburgh, via Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds & Newcastle. It would have been in any other country. High Speed rail to Birmingham only, is, if anything, a very marginal improvement on what we currently have. HS2 has been an absolute disaster during pre-construction & physical construction. Too expensive & too long to build, not because of the engineering involved but from the sheer incompetence & middling from the Government & it's partners.
I hear this a lot from people I know in eastern Scotland "It's lovely here, so quiet with so much space" & then they complain "Everything happens in the south, nothing happens here". The 2 are a result of each other: You can't have city amenities without accepting city drawbacks like congestion. Try driving from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, then try driving from London to Birmingham. You'll see why the latter is in more need of assistance.
@TheRip72 Much the same in North East England. The Eastern side of the country North of the Humber has been totally left out of any improved transport.
Ah, HS2, another British Railway success story like GWEP. Honestly, either the government needs to build the damn thing in full, or scrap the whole thing altogether. No point pansyfooting it here. Either all in or all out.
The WCML is full. Have you tried driving along the M1 & M6 in the last few years? During the day, heavy traffic causes delays. During the night, there are diversions to allow maintenance. We need more transport. New Motorways have been so unpopular that no major stretches have been built since the M6(Toll) over 20 years ago. We have had bypasses & re-alignments but nothing more. The best remaining solution is HS2.
As someone from Glasgow, I fail to understand making HS2 not do the full thing and I will see as a failed projected until it it runs on it owns tracks for the full length
Even HS2 to Golborne (south of Wigan) would have provided transformational benefits for Glasgow and Edinburgh. Much faster journeys and much more capacity.
The whole thing is hugely expensive & I am sure it will be done eventually, but needs to be built in smaller sections with smaller budgets. The railways were originally built in shorter sections then joined together. It is always the same "we need this here" 'ok, we'll start with the area which needs it more & work our way there' Then the project stalls & gets restarted several times.
Seems to me the realistic version of his plan is that the existing trains run on HS2 at 140mph and the HS2 trains are reduced in speed to match. Crap, but nobody is going to invest the money in the old trains to get a small speed improvement. Re: train length. Surely if the HS2 trains can't be longer than 200m they can easily be reduced to 130m and run as 2x130 . In fact, the internet tells me platforms 5 and 8 at Manchester Picadilly are 340m long - i.e. 2x170, which would be a big improvement. I'm sure somebody will now tell me why that isn't possible...
Om not sure 130m would be ideal, but I don't see why 260m units can't be ordered. It just goes to show there are solutions beyond operating old stock on HS2
If people think this is crazy, the government 'solution' is to drive people away from trains, when we should be trying to increase modal shift towards public transport. This country is a joke. If this was Japan, it would have been fully built by now at half the price.
Half the price? Japanese are a lot more efficient than you say bruh. Tale of two HSR projects: *Countries:* UK vs India *Projects:* HS2 vs MAHSR *Cost:* $125 Billion vs $21 Billion (after cost overruns) *Length:* 230 km vs 508 km *Operating Speed:* 155 mph vs 200 mph *Rolling Stock:* Class 390 (Italy/France) vs Shinkansen E5 (Japan) *Construction:* On level ground vs Elevated on viaduct all throughout the length *Build time:* 2017-2033 vs 2020-2028
@death_parade Ummm, the speed on HS2 will be 225mph (360 km/h) and will use Hitachi-Alstom HS trainsets. There will also be massive tunnels, viaducts, and giant station rebuilds which are a lot more complex to build than the MAHSR infrastructure. We should also not ignore that everyone's land can be just swooped away in India which isn't the case in the UK.
@@StefanWithTrains "everyone's land can be just swooped away in India?" This is India, not China. If you knew anything about Indian infra projects in general and MAHSR in particular, you'd know that getting the land is the BIGGEST hurdle. Viaducts: HS2's largest viaduct is a 2 mile viaduct. Most of HS2 is at grade (on the ground). MAHSR will have (among others) a single 353 km long viaduct, which will be literally the largest viaduct in the world, more than TWICE as large as the current longest viaduct in the world and longer than the ENTIRE HS2. And this dude dares claim HS2 viaduct is more complex lol. Go watch the video of how MAHSR viaduct is being laid in a highly mechanized manner and compare it with the inferior manner of HS2 viaduct construction. Videos of both available on YT. Similarly your talk of HS2 tunnels being more difficult to build than MAHSR tunnels is false. MAHSR tunnels are being built using NATM, meanwhile you guys are making tunnels through TBM. Which proves that MAHSR tunnels are being dug in geologically challenging environment compared to HS2 tunnels. Stations: Station redevelopment is not a major challenge. India is doing those at a far larger scale than UK. MAHSR specifically has new multi-modal stations that are just as complex as HS2. I agree that I made a mistake on the rolling stock for HS2, but the rest of your comment was pure desperation with total fiction like "India means they can take away anyone's land."
This is a stupid question, but why don't they just stick with the original plans? I am pretty sure they all made a decision for changing stuff or questioning it like this. Years of planning aren't for nothing
That question is for Mr Sunak, who created waste by messing with the scope when chancellor then as PM decided that the new Manchester-London railway shouldn't reach either Manchester or London.
The cost of the project has gained huge negative publicity which transfers to votes. Cutting the cost was an attempt to re-gain votes & keeping the costs lower will be an attempt to not lose them.
Sadly the rail operators send perfectly acceptable and sometimes relatively new trains to the scrapyard or to sit and rot in a field off lease as it is cheaper to order and lease brand new ones. This is because the owner of the existing trains is charging more to lease them than the company which can provide brand new trains. Seems a bit strange as the owner of the existing trains would probably be better off getting something rather than nothing.
Not sure that has any bearing on this topic. We need new trains and Pendolinos would be retained even without Gibb's proposal. But spending many millions to make Pendolinos faster is not a viable plan.
We need to bring back the link with HS1 to create an international service. Its probably going to make a bit more profit. Also, WHY should they regear the pendelinos to run faster. Makes zero sense
Ironing curtailing HS2 means there would be space at Curzon St for border facilities, which was the main issue with a HS2 link. But it's not going to happen, it's just not possible with the current tunnel design which is ready to go and unlikely to change.
High speeds trains use a *lot* of electricity when running fast. They will run them at the most *economical* speed, which may see London to Birmingham at one hour. This then puts the Pendo tilters into the frame, as they run faster on the WCML maybe giving a superior service economically with still a decent end to end time.
Modelling showed that a HS2 train travelling at 186mph would use the same amount of energy per passenger as a Pendolino travelling at 125mph as Class 390s are heavy due to tilting equipment and being based on old technology. It's thereby reasonable to assume lightweight modern HS2 units would probably use around the same amount of energy travelling at 200mph as a cl390 travelling at 155mph. You can 'quote square of velocity' all you like, but HS2 units and Class 390s will be very different. 30 year old technology with heavy tilt equipment vs much lighter vehicles with far superior better aerodynamics and regenerative breaking.
@@Rail_Focus One thing is clear, any future HS2 stock will have tilt as having one non-tilter between just two cities, London and Birmingham, makes no sense. The original HS2 plan had Liverpool about 30-35 mins slower from London than Manchester - *big* time difference for two cities equidistant from London. Liverpool was clearly hard done by with even far fewer services. The Liverpool train would leave HS2 at Crewe running on the WCML. The HS2 train did not tilt, so sauntered on the WCML to Liverpool slower than existing pendos. _Over half_ the travel time from London was on the WCML. The Liverpool-Birmingham train never even ran on any HS2 track, being eliminated all together. Then when HS2 was amended, the Liverpool train went via Warrington reducing the time by one whole minute, and losing the Runcorn to London service. Liverpool was shafted big time by a *bad* HS2 design. Having only tilting HS2 trains will clearly quicken journey times to Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester and standardize on one train type. Renovating existing pendos will only be an interim solution until newer more efficient tilting HS2 stock is introduced, that maximizes HS2 and WCML running. If it is cheaper to renovate pendos and use them until new more efficient tilting HS2 stock comes along they will and should do it. HMG is is out to spend in other desperate areas like housing, so will do that.
This is why all of our electrified train network is nuclear powered. As in it all comes from nuclear generated power because it's reliable and has a large base load. This is why the French built so many nuclear plants by the way, to reliably power their high speed rail network. Incidentally the French also own all of our nuclear plants.
On a reproduction series only really the front wouldnt be fully 155 , since the right of way problem is solved with the alingment for HS2 aswell as incab signaling being required as is , however there wouldnt be much of a point as one might aswell develop a new unit altogether since coupling a legacy and a newer unit would only make sense when there wouldnt be extra shunting , wich curzon street gleefully blocks , aswell as that being atleast in capacity not really required on the empty WCML north , atleast at a north of the flügeling point such as crewe or liverpool(as deansgate will be full to death even with the extra 2 new) , however on retrofit , that would require a flat 13 or 14 car fleet along with a front redisign and the costly retrofitting of incab signaling Sincerely a train nerd
its all so sad . France have TGV's that run on high speed and " classic " lines... why cant we? I doubt Euston will be built ...all we will get is an old oak to Birmingham branch line.... poor planning ...
Most places will be significantly faster. But unfortunately with HS2 to Handsacre, Glasgow may only be marginally quicker. It will absolutely not be slower.
Pendalino on the WCML are limited in their top speed due to the track and esp the signalling - Even now they are designed for a top speed of 140mph or 225kmh... So for a stop-gap, it could work but it is far short of the design speed of 225mph or 360km speed of the line. Add to this the last government was being pushed to derate HS2 to 140mph/225km top speed to save money: This would mean not such expensive track and design/building, use of existing technology and use of existing trains A number of Conservative MPs were pushing for a downgrade to a top speed of only 75mph/120km to 100mph/160km (to save even more money if HS2 had to be built) and thus the track was just designed for the use of fright trains.
Lowering the speed wouldn't save a huge amount of money. It's a bit of a myth. The only figure I've seen is 10% saving. But the biggest cost is land and civils, which are broadly the same no matter the speed. The 100+ year lifespan was already baked into the design, with contractors building the line to the spec dictated by the DfT.
As mentioned a lower speed would not same a lot of money. The line is for capacity. The WCML is overcrowded & deals broadly with 4 different classes of traffic: freight, local, semi-fast & long distance. Locals & semi-fasts serve the areas they pass through, They cannot be diverted. Freight co-exists with these quite nicely. Diverting these would achieve very little. Long distance trains cannot go faster simply because the others get in the way. This is a huge headache for planners. Diverting these would create space for the others. Pendolinos could do 140mph now if the line was clear. But it isn't clear, it is crowded, so it is not worth the cost of upgrading the signalling just so they can catch up with a slower train which left 10 minutes earlier. A new line needs track tunnels & signalling no matter what its top speed is.
If I press pause to read the text and statistics you include, the youtube bottom-of-the-screen menu appears, and covers some of the text up, so I can't read it. Some of the tables you include have writing that is smaller than most people can read, And you read every sentence with the same phrasing. I'm really interested in this stuff, but I've got less than three minutes in, it's a real struggle and I'm giving up.
@@Rail_Focus Euston to Curzon St on Google maps is exactly 100 miles. That 100 miles was covered at 113mph under original HS2 plan. Then slower as time went on, as DfT was saying 56 mins. Service patterns and type of trains has not been firmly announced yet. So maybe slower again.
In my view on an island our size 140mph is adequate. Yes we need several new railways and many new trains, not refurbished but the damage is done. All that's left of HS2, is stupid. For the money the UK is now only likely to raise you could upgrade many routes to higher speeds and still open a few more at 140mph max, not a few miles at max but more miles to lower overall times and capacity. As we all should know the higher the speed the straighter the alignment adding extra costs. As to big Government and the Quango, NIMBY's, consultants, newt worshippers and red tape let's cut it! We must get the biggest bang for our (borrowed from now on) buck for what is now a country living well beyond it's means. As for those here who can work and those arriving that see UK benefits as a lifestyle choice, give them a shovel, well you know what I mean.
"an island of this size" is a meaningless argument. The distance from London to Glasgow is actually further than Osaka to Tokyo. Many of the main cities in Germany are similarly spaced as the UK's main cities. Why should we compromise, when Government lending is cheap and investment is very rarely wasted money.
In the hype the real need has been lost. The average traveller wants a regular service with seats ! Knocking5 mins off the time or having to change is a big turn off. Start by adding 2 more coaches on the existing pendos. Capacity on the track can be increased by fitting Mg track brakes for poor adhesion conditions. Pendos are already ok for 150 mph. So much ill informed twaddle about HS2and train technology. HS2 lost its use once the connection to HS1 was taken out of the equation.
![Transpennine Route Upgrade [Electrification]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5yB3HBXhD1k/mqdefault.jpg)
If you would like to consider supporting the channel click: www.patreon.com/Chris_Rail_Focus or become a Member here on TH-cam
Or you can support the channel by making a purchase on my Redbubble gallery
www.redbubble.com/people/engphotography/shop
Or alternatively by becoming a TH-cam
No point refitting existing trains when we don't have enough trains as it is today
Go pick up some old emr class 180s😂😂😂
I struggle with the logic of this. Some Pendos that currently operate on WCML will move to HS2 with the services that they currently operate. As they'll be faster each diagram can run more journeys with them. On top of the new HS2 trains. There'll be less need for Pendos on HS2 as most of the traffic has shifted across.
Pretty sure he is advocating for the pendos AND HS2 rolling stock to share the new track it is an AND rather than an OR!
New HS2 trains + Pendolinos = more trains. Use 11 car unis on HS2 services and keep the 9 cars for classic WCML. My prediction is that they will still be in service after 2040 anyway.
@@stuart48br fast trains + slower trains = all slower trains + bad politics
HS2 must be fully built
Both Eastern and Western legs must be built
100% this
Utter waste of money the whole thing
🙄
@@marksmith334 Sunak’s Rwanda policy was a waste of money
@@marksmith334you are thinking about short term benifit. This is a long term benifit
Chris thank you for covering these HS2 and Pendalino topics all in the mix.
A pleasure, hope you found it informative
For HS2 to be truly viable, and make any sort of financial sense, the trains need to be running at very high speeds (at least 180-200mph) and cut journey times between London and Birmingham down to 20-30 minutes. It is definitely feasible, as most of the current planned line is mostly straight.
The top speed recorded on the almost 20 year-old HS1 line is 186mph, so it has to be better than that.
It still feels like billions down the toilet at this point.
Birmingham to Euston will be 49 minutes, but includes stops at Interchange (Birmingham and Old Oak).
For HS2 to be of any long term benefit north of Birmingham it needs to go to Euston and Crewe as a bare minimum.
@@Rail_Focus Wow,,,,as long as 49 minutes? For the amount of money pumped into it, I was fully expecting 30-35 minutes tops!
@@AFCManUkwell 117 miles in 49 minutes ain’t to bad heck we get trains doing 40 odd miles in 50 minutes glasgow to Edinburgh so 49 is quite good and my guess is hs2 will start off at 150 odd mph using existing fleets or slightly modified but then they will increase it to somewhere in the ranges of 180-200 once they have the line fully operational and all meaning all sections of part 1 complete
@@Thatspuremental Let's hope so. Just seems like a massive waste of money if we aren't reducing the travel time enough. France and Germany have trains that can do upwards of 200mph. We used to pride ourselves on our railways, and now we have some of the slowest journey times in Europe.
@@AFCManUkthe UK has the fastest average speed on the rail network anywhere in the world, that is a fact.
By the time this HS2 is open the Pendolinos will be life expired and nearly ready for replacement!
7:02 of course hs2 is about capacity, but I'd stress that speed IS capacity, with a higher speed you can fit more trains in or at least more reliability in the timetable
Very true. But most people are unable to appreciate this.
Not quite right. Higher speed means longer headways, so technically fewer services. And if you have to stop for some reason on the running lines, the consequences for reliability are worse for higher speed trains due to time it takes to stop, the bunching effect and so on
What speed does do is give you the opportunity to take traffic off the ECML and still be quicker than today (if the Eastern leg was built). It also attracts more passengers out of planes and cars.
There's a bit of gain in that you need slightly fewer trains but that's fairly insignificant compared to the whole project.
This is true for a mixed traffic railway, but with HS2 being segregated and using automatic train control then you can operate more trains. Faster = fewer trains needed.
@@Rail_Focus even with moving block you need to keep a stopping distance away from the train in front. The faster you go, the longer that is - and the kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity, so a 300kmh train has 2.25x the energy of one doing 200kmh.
Being able to get more trips per diagram is good, but not that significant.
But yes, you're right, mixing speeds on one track is even worse.
@@Rail_Focus also, don't forget that it takes 10km to accelerate to 300kmh, and about the same to stop.
That means that a 200kmh train will only be about 10-15 minutes slower between OOC and BHX. Over the course of a day a few diagrams would be able to have one extra trip if they were faster. A nice bonus, but not huge.
Very well explained, Chris - timetabling trains is a complicated process and I can imagine there are dozens of different opinions!
The fact that this is even a question should show that the 390s are Really Explitively Good Trains.
Presumably "train capable of HS2-level speeds" and "train capable of tilting in order to reach 125mph on the WCML" are mutually exclusive things.
Yeah, the tilting equipment is heavy, I'm also not sure if there would be room with the sound deadening fairings required for 200mph running.
Why would you not refit with tilt still enabled but run them fixed on the fast part and tilt on the slower parts further north, best if both worlds
@@gorgu08The weight of the tilting gear hammers the track more, so you can't go as fast even when not using the tilt.
@@owensmith7530 got it tha ks for clarifying
@@owensmith7530 Class 390 Pendolino axleload (tare) is 13 tonnes. ETR675 - non-tilting is 14.3 tonnes, HS2 new trains projected to be 14 tonnes axleload - so not a significant weight penalty for tilt
Above all else, this just shows that we don't need a high speed line.
What we need is a high speed network to almost entirely replace existing intercity services.
We also need to stop building terminus stations. Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham need through stations served by high speed rail which allows high quality and high capacity trains to travel further North from Manchester and Leeds. Under current plans, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds to the North and Scotland services will go from second class to third class service.
Would argue for the eastern arm to be constructed rather than running Leeds trains through Manchester. But a terminus does not preclude running running else and the HS2 + NPR Junction that was designed for Piccadilly was quite clever, allowing for maximum throughput while allowing trains to head east.
@@Rail_Focus Oh, absolutely, I wasn't suggesting that trains from London to Manchester should go on to Leeds.
Rather than both Leeds on the Eastern leg and Manchester on the western Leg need through platforms to allow trains to continue North from those locations so that they can benefit from better services northwards as the current TPE and XC provision is very poor.
@@EuroDC1990This what NPR in full wouldve done, There would still need to be terminuses to turn trains around. I think its best terminus at curzon street because there is a way around birmingham to connect to wales unlike Manchester or leeds. They have to be through running
I think your a big negative to terminus stations. A station being designed as a terminus rather than a through station does not prevent trains from going onwards. It just means the drivers need to switch ends meaning longer stops. In return you are able to build a shorter station which is very useful since the land you buy is often much more square than the long rectangles that stations are
Thanks for another very useful explanation. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. At 8:26 - remember there was to be a huge MPD built north of Crewe to stable and service half the HS2 fleet.
I did wonder about the Crewe depot. But I think that was only needed once the second bath of units were ordered once HS2 opened to Manchester and Leeds.
What a mess the railways have been left with with the cancelation of HS2 north of Brum!
I've been a big supporter of high speed for a long time to increase capacity.
Unfortunately I think the present government will cancel the route to Euston and all we will be left with is a shuttle service from Birmingham to Old Oak Common without any link to WCML!
But eventually - in the future - wiser heads will prevail; we cannot keep widening the M6 and the UK's population grew, in 2023, by around 0.8million people. Something has to give.
It's all kicking the can down the road.
A UK high speed network is an inevitable need, and all that beancounters, NIMBYs, Nostalgic Traditionalists and pencil pushers are doing is cheating the country out of years of benefitting from such a valuable piece of infrastructure and kicking the can down the road on its inevitable construction.
Good thinking, excellent summary and presentation.
Thank you
For years I've wonder why the new HS2 trainsets could not be equipped with the air spring-powered active tilting system used by some of newest and fastest Bullet Trains of the Japanese Shinkansen, the JR East's E5 and H5 Series Shinkansen running at 200 MPH. The degree of tilt is small, only 1-degree (I read that tilt of 2 degrees is possible) but it would still offer some compensation in passenger comfort for increasing speeds on the WCML for the currently non-tilt HS2 trainsets.
1 or 2 degrees still wouldn't allow 125mph on some of the curvier sections. Best to make use of the rapid acceleration and operate at 125mph on straighter sections.
@@Rail_Focus or do both and maximise average speed
@@Rail_FocusWhy is a high speed route even having so many curvier sections in the first place. One of the points of a high speed route is to eliminate as many curves as possible.
@@B-A-L we're talking about the West Coast Mainline. HS2 will allow 225mph (360kp/h) running without tilt. But tilt is required on the WCML.for comfortable operation at 125mph (200km/h)
@@gorgu08 as I said 2° tilt will not for 125mph running on the WCML. But tilting beyond that requires heavy tilting equipment which isn't ideal if you want to build lightweight high-speed trains.
But as I keep pointing out, the non-tilt penalty has been over stated. It's certainly nowhere near 17 minutes.
The key aspect is tilt trains allow higher speeds on the non high speed rails north of Birmingham. HS2 transits are non tilting and would be slower than the current tilt trains without high speed tracks north of Birmingham. HS2 transits are also at a much larger loading gauge than standard UK loading gauge.
The HS2 trains currently on order are being built to a "UK" loading gauge so can fit on the WCML. That shouldn't be confused with current story in the press regarding the step down to the platform.
Yes non-tilting trains will be slower, but the time penalty has been over stated and things are already being put in place to allow non tilting trains to travel faster on straighter sections of the WCML.
Sunak left HS2 in a complete mess. I am hoping sense will prevail and we'll at least get something back like Phase 2A to Crewe, maybe under a different name.
Not coming.
And the only reason he did it was to make a few whiny motorists happy because the Tories only JUST kept one seat at the local elections because of the whole ULEZ thing. Which has since become a nothing burger and actually been proven to be a positive thing people are largely happy about. Also I'm still baffled how a PM has the power to over-turn a decision by Parliament given HS2 was voted into law by Parliament.
That would be cool though I like class 390s and use them all the time since I live in Warrington.
Cool maybe, but far from optimal
@ephphatha230 and they are already halfway through their design lives. The Alstom refurb of the past two years is effectively a rebuild after two decades.
*What a f×××ing mess.*
Just build the bloody thing.
It's not just a seating capacity reduction for Glasgow, either. It's a reduction for all of West Scotland, Cumbria, Lancashire etc too!
True.
Looking unlikey now the section to Euston will be built. It's being reviewed at the moment but the signs are not good. I hope I'm wrong.
We'll see. As far as HS2 Ltd is concerned Euston Tunnels are being built. I think the question will be how big the station will be and if Labour will sell off any land around Euston.
@@Rail_Focus Didn't the Tories already sell off most of it to developers for flats?
Why is there such limited capacity between Crewe and Warrington? Is it due to local trains or is it only 2 tracks there? Would speed increases help this situation?
Warrington to Golborne junction is a constraint, as is Crewe to Warrington, which is 2 track. The junction of Bank Quay is a bit of a mess.
A speed increase would likely make the situation worse. The greater the speed differential between services, non-stop, local and freight the less capacity there is.
"The Winsford Gap - a long twin-track blockage which would have been bypassed by Golborne Link. Once again, proving that once you start fiddling with an integrated plan, you simply beggar it up so quickly that you put the Grate back into Britain!
@@mikehindson-evans159 Is this the one that Boris had cancelled so one of his MP's wouldn't vote against him with his no confidence "situation"? After which he buggered off anyway.
@@TalesOfWar No, I think it was the Altrincham MP at the time (who lost last month anyway! What a legacy...
Thanks for the vid. Was unsure about this proposal when I heard about it. It just doesn't seem worth the effort to reengineer an entire fleet in such a way. At that point, you may as well just order new rolling stock surely. Either way, we need HS2 or some other new line to Crewe to connect with the line near Handsacre to relieve capacity on the WCML between Handsacre and Crewe
Wonder how much faster Liverpool like street to Euston at pendolino full 140mph would be?
At current times think it’s 2hrs 12minutes.
Not sure, but with HS2 to Handsacre the HS2 service will be around 1 hour 45 minutes
Probably a silly question but why can't trains run in tilting mode between Glasgow and Handsacre, then join HS2? Do trains have to be either tilting or non-tilting?
HS2 trains won't be able to tilt. Tilting equipment is heavy and not suited to lightweight high-speed trains.
Another rolling stock option would be to use the new US (Alstom, really) 'Avelia Liberty: a tilting train; aiming for 165mph on Amtrak's legacy NorthEast Corridor; designed for up to 186mph with tilting system engaged; designed for up to 220mph with tilt switched off. How about using a train like this at 200+mph London-Birmingham, then upgrading West Coast Main Line signalling for 140mph from Midlands to the North?
Too late for that, the HS2 trains have been ordered and are probably already designed. Although it shouldn't be too late to reconfigure some units to be 260m long
@@Rail_Focus ,its coming down to money as its a last minute design change
True, but what's more expensive, re engineering 30 year old trains, or modifying the order. Doing nothing is not an option
Nice idea, but even if HS2's new trains hadn't already been ordered that option wouldn't be feasible technically...unless the design platform Alstom is using for Avelia is capable of being shrunk to suit British infrastructure clearances.😊
"30-year-old trains" - the 1989 Class 91 Electra locomotives were scrapped at 30 years, as were many of the original Class 373 Eurostars (admittedly after operating in a damp tunnel... oh, hang on, HS2 is in tunnels for half the Brum to EUS route.....)
Yes in tunnels forced by NIMBY's supported by poor Government and greedy developers.
There is zero point to an extensive refurbishment of 30 year old stock, it would only have around 5 years service life left at that point, the bodyshells nowadays with the crash readiness means that they don't last as long as they used to.
To be fair the 390s were really well made and I believe they could last into their 40s. But hammering them at 155mph won't do much for their longevity.
The Government just need to finish the damm thing and Level up for real.
Are Edinburgh services included in the HS2?
@@someone_someone722 they would have been if HS2 were built to Golborne. But as it stands no.
Absolutely but make them able to tilt as they are but if the correct investment was to be provided. Well you’ve got hs2 plus hs2 plus?
Weird. London to Glasgow trains used to be up to 17 mark one coaches, plus a Duchess or pair of diesels. What happened?
Not sure, but very few WCML stations could accommodate 400m long trains nowadays.
The only long (er than 12 coaches) platforms are at Euston, Crewe, Preston and Glasgow, and not on every platform; Manchester, Stockport, Macclesfield and WIlmslow are limited to 12 coaches.
@@Rail_Focus
It ought to be possible to restore Euston platforms to their previous length by extending backwards under the concourse. Crewe, Preston and Carlisle have long platforms and as far as I know, so does Glasgow Central.
The modern 26 metre stock makes inefficient use of the space due to the tapered ends and wide gaps between vehicles. Close coupled 20 metre vehicles are probably still optimal for the British system. The Mark 1 dimensions were established after a thorough research programme. Those responsible knew what they were doing. Using modern methods of construction the mass should not be more than 32 tons with AC, and a basic 28 tons should be achievable.
A 12 coach Pendolino would be around 280m long, so is still some way off 400m required to operate HS2 trains in multiple. There's a graphic with the video which shows just how much longer the HS2 platforms will be compared to the existing Piccadilly platforms.
Still need extra platforms at Euston, so may as well continue to build HS2 to Euston. The longest Glasgow Central platform is 350m. Carlisle and Preston were both due to be lengthened to allow 400m trains, but this work has now been cancelled after the cancellation of HS2 to Golborne
Could not some longer platforms be built at the side of Piccadilly where the HS2 station was to be built??
Not sure how practical it would be to be honest. Without HS2 to Manchester the business case for the demolition required for even a couple of platforms may not stack up.
HS2 in Manchester was supposed to be underground, which would require a lot of building work. The old, disused Mayfield station has been mentioned by many but this is far too short to be of any use.
The original plan was to be underground and with the (relatively) essay ability to continue the tunnels on so it could link up to what was supposed to be HS3/Northern Powerhouse Rail, to go on to Leeds. They then decided to just tack it along side the existing station and destroy a huge tract of existing things on the approach close to where the current viaduct is rather than have it in tunnels allowing things to still be built on top.
Update on the camp hill line please?
Will see what I can do, but will likely be winter
I don't know why but i'm just imagining Handsacre Junction could be a GREAT place for trainspotting
There is a decent over bridge just by Handsacre to do some spotting.
What about having some services terminating at Old Oak (sold at a cheaper price) and operating some premium services from Euston to the North without stopping at Old Oak? That should benefit the journey time, too.
Not sure I'd be keen on that. But there should be a single ticket from the North to Central London via Old Oak, instead of having to pay to get to.Old Oak, then Zone 2 prices on the Elizabeth Line
All service will terminate at OOC
Is hs2 the british loading gauge or european
HS2 structures built to the continental EU loading gauge, but trains built to a UK loading gauge.
I calculated that a 250m long HS2 train could have 710 seats. I made 2 assumptions but to simplify the calculation I won't worry about those. The 2 assumptions I made were:
1. Every coach has the same seating layout (ie both driving coaches will have the same capacity and all intermediate coaches the same capacity). Of course in real life provision needs to be made for disabled access, luggage and bike storage, maybe buffet car etc.
2. All seating is in one class (in real life trains will probably have first class but again for simplifying the calculation I'm ignoring first/second class differences).
I assumed that given a 23m HST mk3 could take 80 seats, a 25m long intermediate coach on an HS2 train could easily take 80 seats with more legroom than on a mk3 with the same capacity. 6 intermediate coaches per 200m set gives 480 seats with 35 seats in each driving coach (70 in total) making 550 seats. If we're adding 2 intermediate coaches, 2x80 = 160 so 550 + 160 = 710 seats. That's more than even a refurbished 11-car Pendolino with 607 seats.
From what I've heard 200m long sets will have just over 500 seats. But they will have a shop and 1st class. Plus reportedly industry leading leg room.
I would like to see Class 390 Pendolinos reaching up to 155mph. But I don’t think they would be suitable to operate on HS2. Would be ideal to have trains to be used on HS2 that can reach speeds up to 200mph max.
The main problem I see is that the WCML Is limited to 110 mph for non tilting and 125 for tilting meaning and last time they tried to put a train that went higher than 125mph it went really badly 😂.
what happened?
@@AnoujRajput Basically the APT was meant to be a future for British high speed trains but they completely rushed everything and it suffered from suspension and tilting failures and other problems as the sets where not properly tested before entering services and they were withdrawn fairly quickly afterwards because of all of the problems that they had and that’s the main reason why the HST became a huge success as after the APT sets were pulled focus was turned on the HST instead.
I forgot to ask you they going to extension HS2 to Manchester crew?
As it stands HS2 will end at Handsacre and Labour has no plans currently to reverse Sunak's decision to cancel the northern part.
The decision to scrap the further legs of HS2 is a completely short sighted decision. Personally as it is already well ongoing it ahould be built to Birmingham, and trains just run London to Birmingham as putting trains from HS2 on current routes to Manchester will seriously effect available paths on current Birmingham to Manchester routes, and also most likely effect local services on Manchester to Crewe section and the routes that run from Manchester to South Wales for example.
Birmingham to Manchester/Crewe to Manchester are already a heck of a bottleneck and something will have to give.
I think everyone is realising this, however everyones solutions are focused on how many people can get to London as soon as possible, because there are of course no reasons why anyone would want to go anywhere else.
Capacity into London is important. But the whole point of HS2 was to move those passengers onto dedicated lines, releasing capacity between cities for improvement connectivity. This will still be the case between Birmingham and London. But as it stands Sunak has left us with a mess to try and u tangle. HS2 simply must go to Crewe as a bare minimum.
@@Rail_Focus your correct about the mess to untangle. You are correct on that. Problem is that we will now be trying to fit the HS2 trains onto the existing tracks. So if they wish HS2 to go to Manchester Crewe to Manchester will be a huge bottleneck.
Either the current London to Manchester service via WCML will have to be reduced to accommodate, or more likely I see local trains reduced and the regional services such to South Wales reduced, or more likely to truncated at Crewe.
If they could add an extra coach to Pedalinos why not the HS2 fleet? Also I thought the pendalos on HS2 were an Open Access idea.
Hadn't heard about any open access ideas. Open Access wouldn't be possible within the current plan.
@@Rail_Focus I'm sure I first read about the idea in Rail magazine and that it was Branson idea to get Virgin back as an open access operator.
Open Access on WCML, don't believe it involved HS2.
labour will make his decision next year on extension HS2 to Manchester crew.?
Hopefully
With some luck. Some government will eventually come to the conclusion we need this... like the previous Labour government did, then the Tories agreed to but then took their sweet ass time actually starting. Then... cancelling it to the point of it being effectively useless for its intended original purpose.
Then the economy is in a better state maybe, given the massive hole in the budget right now. They have 14 years of things to try and fix, hopefully this will be one of them.
A crazy, interesting idea, but nothing more than just that.
When I first thought about this, I thought _“How would that work?”_
A 9 car before entry into service only made 140 mph on limit when testing in controlled conditions, If they are left as they are I doubt very much if they would achieve the speeds.
My job at the time I was a NR ops manager on board the train.
The test unit did 155 mph, which is the 10% overspeed test for their 140 mph service speed
If Pendolino has already run with tilt at 155mph (in test), why would the trains need new bogies and traction motors? Technically, the test at 155mph was to prove the 10% overspeed requirement over the 140mph design speed, but if the trains can be prevented from exceeding 155mph on HS2 by ETCS, is there actually a requirement for the trains to be proven at 170mph? If upgrade of the trains is not required, that rather changes the cost equation away from splitting the HS2 order into 200mt and 250mt sub-fleets.
Class 390s would be 25-30 years old by the time HS2 opens and I don't think were ever intended to be thrashed at 155mph for long periods. Overspeed is quite different from operational speed.
But class 390s would be outdated by then even if it wasn’t for hs2 they would probably still be replaced by around the time hs2 was due to open
@@Rail_Focus Age should not be issued given that they have been maintained and overhauled by the OEM since build, and worth remembering that HSTs entered service in 1976 so 40 years of frontline service. I'm not sure that you can thrash an electric train in the way you thrash a steam or diesel train and Pendolinos in Italy run at 250kph non tilt. Aluminium bodyshells so no corrosion. On journey times, they would also benefit if speed limit north of Carlisle increased to 140mph.
Operating relatively heavy electric vehicles (due to tilting equipment) at speeds they were never designed to operate at in regular service would be thrashing them.
@@Thatspurementalnot really, HSTs were in operating service for nearly 50 years, in fact they still run to this day with ScotRail!
And the pendolinos are going to be around 30 years old by the time HS2 is completed, but I don’t believe there’s any plans to withdraw them atleast until 2037-2040
We should hand the entire project over to the Japanese and buy N-700S shinkansen that have a minimum tilting capacity and battery power for emergencies. Mind you, buy the time HS2 is finished they'll be on the N-900 and their mag-lev from Tokyo to Osaka will be finished!
@@B-A-L Hitachi is working with Alstom to deliver the HS2 trains, Hitachi is a Japanese manufacturer.
HS2 should have been London to Glasgow and Edinburgh, via Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds & Newcastle. It would have been in any other country. High Speed rail to Birmingham only, is, if anything, a very marginal improvement on what we currently have. HS2 has been an absolute disaster during pre-construction & physical construction. Too expensive & too long to build, not because of the engineering involved but from the sheer incompetence & middling from the Government & it's partners.
First time I heard the idea it seemed a good one to me, but you raise some persuasive objections
Of course, meanwhile, the North East and Eastern Scotland get Nothing
I hear this a lot from people I know in eastern Scotland "It's lovely here, so quiet with so much space" & then they complain "Everything happens in the south, nothing happens here". The 2 are a result of each other: You can't have city amenities without accepting city drawbacks like congestion.
Try driving from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, then try driving from London to Birmingham. You'll see why the latter is in more need of assistance.
@TheRip72 Much the same in North East England. The Eastern side of the country North of the Humber has been totally left out of any improved transport.
@@TootlinGeoff Then you get Cornwall. I think the last thing built there was the Eden Project for the Millennium.
Ah, HS2, another British Railway success story like GWEP.
Honestly, either the government needs to build the damn thing in full, or scrap the whole thing altogether. No point pansyfooting it here. Either all in or all out.
Bit too late to stop now. But yes, built it in full
The WCML is full.
Have you tried driving along the M1 & M6 in the last few years? During the day, heavy traffic causes delays. During the night, there are diversions to allow maintenance.
We need more transport. New Motorways have been so unpopular that no major stretches have been built since the M6(Toll) over 20 years ago. We have had bypasses & re-alignments but nothing more.
The best remaining solution is HS2.
The UK should have given the HS2 contract to China. It would have been built on schedule and on budget
Unlikely, not unless Chinese companies were allowed to break UK laws.
@@Rail_Focus Maybe so but from every objective metric regardless of reason or fault HS2 is a massive clown show
As someone from Glasgow, I fail to understand making HS2 not do the full thing and I will see as a failed projected until it it runs on it owns tracks for the full length
Even HS2 to Golborne (south of Wigan) would have provided transformational benefits for Glasgow and Edinburgh. Much faster journeys and much more capacity.
The whole thing is hugely expensive & I am sure it will be done eventually, but needs to be built in smaller sections with smaller budgets. The railways were originally built in shorter sections then joined together.
It is always the same "we need this here" 'ok, we'll start with the area which needs it more & work our way there' Then the project stalls & gets restarted several times.
Seems to me the realistic version of his plan is that the existing trains run on HS2 at 140mph and the HS2 trains are reduced in speed to match. Crap, but nobody is going to invest the money in the old trains to get a small speed improvement.
Re: train length. Surely if the HS2 trains can't be longer than 200m they can easily be reduced to 130m and run as 2x130 . In fact, the internet tells me platforms 5 and 8 at Manchester Picadilly are 340m long - i.e. 2x170, which would be a big improvement. I'm sure somebody will now tell me why that isn't possible...
Om not sure 130m would be ideal, but I don't see why 260m units can't be ordered. It just goes to show there are solutions beyond operating old stock on HS2
If people think this is crazy, the government 'solution' is to drive people away from trains, when we should be trying to increase modal shift towards public transport. This country is a joke. If this was Japan, it would have been fully built by now at half the price.
Half the price? Japanese are a lot more efficient than you say bruh.
Tale of two HSR projects:
*Countries:* UK vs India
*Projects:* HS2 vs MAHSR
*Cost:* $125 Billion vs $21 Billion (after cost overruns)
*Length:* 230 km vs 508 km
*Operating Speed:* 155 mph vs 200 mph
*Rolling Stock:* Class 390 (Italy/France) vs Shinkansen E5 (Japan)
*Construction:* On level ground vs Elevated on viaduct all throughout the length
*Build time:* 2017-2033 vs 2020-2028
@death_parade Ummm, the speed on HS2 will be 225mph (360 km/h) and will use Hitachi-Alstom HS trainsets. There will also be massive tunnels, viaducts, and giant station rebuilds which are a lot more complex to build than the MAHSR infrastructure. We should also not ignore that everyone's land can be just swooped away in India which isn't the case in the UK.
@@StefanWithTrains "everyone's land can be just swooped away in India?"
This is India, not China. If you knew anything about Indian infra projects in general and MAHSR in particular, you'd know that getting the land is the BIGGEST hurdle.
Viaducts: HS2's largest viaduct is a 2 mile viaduct. Most of HS2 is at grade (on the ground). MAHSR will have (among others) a single 353 km long viaduct, which will be literally the largest viaduct in the world, more than TWICE as large as the current longest viaduct in the world and longer than the ENTIRE HS2. And this dude dares claim HS2 viaduct is more complex lol. Go watch the video of how MAHSR viaduct is being laid in a highly mechanized manner and compare it with the inferior manner of HS2 viaduct construction. Videos of both available on YT.
Similarly your talk of HS2 tunnels being more difficult to build than MAHSR tunnels is false. MAHSR tunnels are being built using NATM, meanwhile you guys are making tunnels through TBM. Which proves that MAHSR tunnels are being dug in geologically challenging environment compared to HS2 tunnels.
Stations: Station redevelopment is not a major challenge. India is doing those at a far larger scale than UK. MAHSR specifically has new multi-modal stations that are just as complex as HS2.
I agree that I made a mistake on the rolling stock for HS2, but the rest of your comment was pure desperation with total fiction like "India means they can take away anyone's land."
This is a stupid question, but why don't they just stick with the original plans? I am pretty sure they all made a decision for changing stuff or questioning it like this. Years of planning aren't for nothing
Ok
That question is for Mr Sunak, who created waste by messing with the scope when chancellor then as PM decided that the new Manchester-London railway shouldn't reach either Manchester or London.
The cost of the project has gained huge negative publicity which transfers to votes. Cutting the cost was an attempt to re-gain votes & keeping the costs lower will be an attempt to not lose them.
Sadly the rail operators send perfectly acceptable and sometimes relatively new trains to the scrapyard or to sit and rot in a field off lease as it is cheaper to order and lease brand new ones.
This is because the owner of the existing trains is charging more to lease them than the company which can provide brand new trains. Seems a bit strange as the owner of the existing trains would probably be better off getting something rather than nothing.
Not sure that has any bearing on this topic. We need new trains and Pendolinos would be retained even without Gibb's proposal. But spending many millions to make Pendolinos faster is not a viable plan.
We need to bring back the link with HS1 to create an international service. Its probably going to make a bit more profit. Also, WHY should they regear the pendelinos to run faster. Makes zero sense
Ironing curtailing HS2 means there would be space at Curzon St for border facilities, which was the main issue with a HS2 link. But it's not going to happen, it's just not possible with the current tunnel design which is ready to go and unlikely to change.
@@Rail_Focus HS2 should’ve made a stub tunnel or something so that hs2 could link up to hs1 and make better use of Stratford international
my imideate thought is that you may aswell buy new trains at that point
Does not seem very futureproof to build new short plattforms
Indeed. I can't see any benefit.
High speeds trains use a *lot* of electricity when running fast. They will run them at the most *economical* speed, which may see London to Birmingham at one hour.
This then puts the Pendo tilters into the frame, as they run faster on the WCML maybe giving a superior service economically with still a decent end to end time.
Modelling showed that a HS2 train travelling at 186mph would use the same amount of energy per passenger as a Pendolino travelling at 125mph as Class 390s are heavy due to tilting equipment and being based on old technology. It's thereby reasonable to assume lightweight modern HS2 units would probably use around the same amount of energy travelling at 200mph as a cl390 travelling at 155mph. You can 'quote square of velocity' all you like, but HS2 units and Class 390s will be very different. 30 year old technology with heavy tilt equipment vs much lighter vehicles with far superior better aerodynamics and regenerative breaking.
@@Rail_Focus
One thing is clear, any future HS2 stock will have tilt as having one non-tilter between just two cities, London and Birmingham, makes no sense.
The original HS2 plan had Liverpool about 30-35 mins slower from London than Manchester - *big* time difference for two cities equidistant from London. Liverpool was clearly hard done by with even far fewer services. The Liverpool train would leave HS2 at Crewe running on the WCML. The HS2 train did not tilt, so sauntered on the WCML to Liverpool slower than existing pendos. _Over half_ the travel time from London was on the WCML. The Liverpool-Birmingham train never even ran on any HS2 track, being eliminated all together. Then when HS2 was amended, the Liverpool train went via Warrington reducing the time by one whole minute, and losing the Runcorn to London service. Liverpool was shafted big time by a *bad* HS2 design.
Having only tilting HS2 trains will clearly quicken journey times to Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester and standardize on one train type. Renovating existing pendos will only be an interim solution until newer more efficient tilting HS2 stock is introduced, that maximizes HS2 and WCML running.
If it is cheaper to renovate pendos and use them until new more efficient tilting HS2 stock comes along they will and should do it. HMG is is out to spend in other desperate areas like housing, so will do that.
This is why all of our electrified train network is nuclear powered. As in it all comes from nuclear generated power because it's reliable and has a large base load. This is why the French built so many nuclear plants by the way, to reliably power their high speed rail network. Incidentally the French also own all of our nuclear plants.
On a reproduction series only really the front wouldnt be fully 155 , since the right of way problem is solved with the alingment for HS2 aswell as incab signaling being required as is , however there wouldnt be much of a point as one might aswell develop a new unit altogether since coupling a legacy and a newer unit would only make sense when there wouldnt be extra shunting , wich curzon street gleefully blocks , aswell as that being atleast in capacity not really required on the empty WCML north , atleast at a north of the flügeling point such as crewe or liverpool(as deansgate will be full to death even with the extra 2 new) , however on retrofit , that would require a flat 13 or 14 car fleet along with a front redisign and the costly retrofitting of incab signaling
Sincerely
a train nerd
its all so sad . France have TGV's that run on high speed and " classic " lines... why cant we? I doubt Euston will be built ...all we will get is an old oak to Birmingham branch line.... poor planning ...
HS2 trains can and will operate on classic lines, they just won't be able to tilt.
Wait a minute so it’s 25 miles wan hour faster hundreds of billions more expensive yet it’s still 17 minutes slower I find that hard to believe
Most places will be significantly faster. But unfortunately with HS2 to Handsacre, Glasgow may only be marginally quicker. It will absolutely not be slower.
@@Rail_Focus I still say they should have built a full line from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh and improve the line further north
Or more should build
Absolutely.
Pendalino on the WCML are limited in their top speed due to the track and esp the signalling - Even now they are designed for a top speed of 140mph or 225kmh...
So for a stop-gap, it could work but it is far short of the design speed of 225mph or 360km speed of the line.
Add to this the last government was being pushed to derate HS2 to 140mph/225km top speed to save money:
This would mean not such expensive track and design/building, use of existing technology and use of existing trains
A number of Conservative MPs were pushing for a downgrade to a top speed of only 75mph/120km to 100mph/160km (to save even more money if HS2 had to be built) and thus the track was just designed for the use of fright trains.
Lowering the speed wouldn't save a huge amount of money. It's a bit of a myth. The only figure I've seen is 10% saving. But the biggest cost is land and civils, which are broadly the same no matter the speed.
The 100+ year lifespan was already baked into the design, with contractors building the line to the spec dictated by the DfT.
As mentioned a lower speed would not same a lot of money.
The line is for capacity. The WCML is overcrowded & deals broadly with 4 different classes of traffic: freight, local, semi-fast & long distance.
Locals & semi-fasts serve the areas they pass through, They cannot be diverted. Freight co-exists with these quite nicely. Diverting these would achieve very little.
Long distance trains cannot go faster simply because the others get in the way. This is a huge headache for planners. Diverting these would create space for the others.
Pendolinos could do 140mph now if the line was clear. But it isn't clear, it is crowded, so it is not worth the cost of upgrading the signalling just so they can catch up with a slower train which left 10 minutes earlier.
A new line needs track tunnels & signalling no matter what its top speed is.
If I press pause to read the text and statistics you include, the youtube bottom-of-the-screen menu appears, and covers some of the text up, so I can't read it. Some of the tables you include have writing that is smaller than most people can read, And you read every sentence with the same phrasing. I'm really interested in this stuff, but I've got less than three minutes in, it's a real struggle and I'm giving up.
Okay
Have converted the script to a blog engineeringfocusblog.blogspot.com/2024/08/you-may-have-to-forgive-grammar-this.html
@@Rail_Focus I've read that, well, most of it -- it's very specialised, even for a rail enthusiast.
so it wont be maglev speed or bullet speed ?hmmmmm?????bit expensive for a bit of the same as wat we already have dnt ya think
@@markeilo5065 not really.
For a so called 250mph high-speed line London to B'ham is _slow_ because of the many tunnels.
Nope, it really isn't.
@@Rail_Focus
One third is tunnel.
@@johnburns4017 yes, but that does not mean it's slow by any means.
@@Rail_Focus
Euston to Curzon St on Google maps is exactly 100 miles. That 100 miles was covered at 113mph under original HS2 plan. Then slower as time went on, as DfT was saying 56 mins.
Service patterns and type of trains has not been firmly announced yet. So maybe slower again.
HS2 was out of date before they even started building it
🙄
In my view on an island our size 140mph is adequate. Yes we need several new railways and many new trains, not refurbished but the damage is done. All that's left of HS2, is stupid. For the money the UK is now only likely to raise you could upgrade many routes to higher speeds and still open a few more at 140mph max, not a few miles at max but more miles to lower overall times and capacity. As we all should know the higher the speed the straighter the alignment adding extra costs. As to big Government and the Quango, NIMBY's, consultants, newt worshippers and red tape let's cut it! We must get the biggest bang for our (borrowed from now on) buck for what is now a country living well beyond it's means. As for those here who can work and those arriving that see UK benefits as a lifestyle choice, give them a shovel, well you know what I mean.
"an island of this size" is a meaningless argument. The distance from London to Glasgow is actually further than Osaka to Tokyo. Many of the main cities in Germany are similarly spaced as the UK's main cities. Why should we compromise, when Government lending is cheap and investment is very rarely wasted money.
In the hype the real need has been lost. The average traveller wants a regular service with seats ! Knocking5 mins off the time or having to change is a big turn off. Start by adding 2 more coaches on the existing pendos. Capacity on the track can be increased by fitting Mg track brakes for poor adhesion conditions. Pendos are already ok for 150 mph. So much ill informed twaddle about HS2and train technology. HS2 lost its use once the connection to HS1 was taken out of the equation.
You speak of twaddle then just say add 2 more carriages to existing trains, if it were that simple they would've done it already 🤦.
HS2 is a colosssal waste and insane money pit.
Nope 🙄