Chapter 2 High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond A Report to Government by High Speed Two

8/8/2019 Chapter 2 High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond A Report to Government by High Speed Two

1/25

High Speed RailLondon to the West Midlands and Beyond

A Report to Government

by High Speed Two Limited

PART 2 of 11


2/25

While High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, HS2 Ltd does

not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this document and it cannot accept

liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains.

Copyright, High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009.

Copyright in the typographical arrangements rests with HS2 Limited.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non-commercial research,

private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in

a misleading context. The title must be acknowledged as copyright and the title of the publication specified.

For any other use of this material please contact HS2 Limited on 020 7944 4908, or by email at [email protected],

or by writing to HS2, 3rd Floor, 55 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0EU.

Further copies of this report can be obtained from www.hs2.org.uk.

ISBN: 978-1-84864-072-6

Unless specified, all maps, tables, diagrams and graphs in this report are a product of HS2 and its consultants.

Chapter 1:

ICE 3 high speed train on the Frankfurt-Cologne high-speed rail line, Sebastian Terfloth;

Eurostar, Dave Bushell www.canbush.com/ppbfrontpage.htm;

Gmmenen viaduct over the river Sarine with TGV 9288, Berne, Switzerland, Chriusha;

Tunnelling, HS1 Ltd

AVE Tarragona-Madrid, Fototrenes

St. Pancras Station, HS1 Ltd

Chapter 5:

Matisa www.matisa.com/matisa_ang/matisa_produits.html


3/25

Chapter 2 Our Approach


4/25

Chapter 2: Our Approach

27

2.1 A basic model or British High Speed Rail Introduction

2.1.1 As the brief survey of international high speed models in the rst section has made clear,

high speed rail is a catch all term which can be used to describe what are in fact quite different

approaches. In developing our proposals, we have aimed to tailor a high speed rail model that would

t with the particular circumstances in Britain, but importantly allow it to develop and evolve over

time. In this chapter we describe some of the fundamental principles of that model.

A basic model or high speed rail in Britain2.1.2 There are several fundamental cornerstones in the basic framework for HS2 which are described

below. Where these are not established a prioriby our remit, they are the product of our

considerations during the course of the year and we explain here briey the reasoning that has led

to them. Elsewhere in the report we expand in more detail on several of these arguments.

2.1.3 A model for HS2 cannot be designed in isolation from the potential wider network that may develop

around it. Although we have designed and appraised the railway as it would operate on Day One 8,

we are mindful of the likelihood that HS2 would form the rst stage of a widespread programme of

high speed line construction. As we explain in Chapter 6, there appears to be a positive case for the

extension of HS2 beyond the West Midlands and, as a result, we have sought to create a model forhigh speed rail and design of HS2 that is compatible with future stages on the presumption that

this becomes a stated aspiration.

2.1.4 HS2 itself could be operational in around 16 years. Our

modelling suggests that, by then, background growth in

demand for travel, coupled with the additional passenger

ows generated by high speed rail, would result in HS2s

initial capacity being fully employed serving the West Midlands

and other destinations further along the WCML. Furthermore, as we explain later in the report, a

longer term network serving cities east and west of the Pennines is likely to rely on HS2 as its

central trunk into London. Again, we expect a longer term network to make full use of HS2s

available train paths.

2.1.5 Given also the considerable capital costs of providing a high speed line, there is therefore a premium

on ensuring that the capacity of HS2 is exploited for maximum benet. Many of the principles which

follow are predicated on this fundamental proposition.

High speed capacityshould be exploitedor maximum beneft.

8 We use Day One throughout the report to refer to the rst day of operations on HS2, when the line will connect back onto the West Coast Main Line, as distinctfrom the longer term network of which HS2 would be a component part.


5/25

High Speed Rail or Britain Report by High Speed 2 Ltd

28

2.1.6 High speed lines should be principally for long distancetrips connecting major cities and in particular city centres,

rather than serving commuter towns or other smaller

intermediate population centres.

2.1.7 City centres offer the densely populated markets to which high capacity, high speed lines are well

suited, with ready access to business destinations. They also provide the hubs for local transport

networks. High speed rail works best when it focuses on serving those markets directly. This has

been the experience in France, where high speed rail has contributed to thriving growth in cities

such as Lille and Lyon, but failed to succeed at smaller regional stations such as Haute Picardie.

By running city to city, the maximum benet can be offered to the most people. The economics ofhigh speed rail are also dependent on an ability to offset the high costs of construction against the

revenues and associated benets from running full trains. This can be only be achieved by non-stop

connections between large markets.

2.1.8 There are other strong reasons for focussing on longer distance trips and avoiding intermediate

stations between cities where possible which we expand upon later in the report. Stopping trains can

cut across the paths of faster non-stop trains behind it, so reducing the lines capacity. Intermediate

stops also have an impact on the journey times of longer distance passengers. As Figure 2.1a below

illustrates, stopping even the most modern high speed trains can impose a time penalty of at least 5

minutes to through passengers. In this scenario, the train (modelled on a HS2 reference train) takes

91minutes to stop (for two minutes) and regain top speed. In this time, the train travels just over

25.3 km a distance that would have been covered in 41minutes at a constant 330kph.

HS2 should be usedprimarily or longdistance trips.

00:00:00

00:02:00

00:04:00

00:06:00

00:08:00

00:10:00

00:12:00

Speed(

kph)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Effects of stopping a high speed train at max speed

Figure 2.1a Effects of stopping a high speed train (Based on HS2 Reference Train)


6/25


29

2.1.9 The penalties for stopping become less severe on the approaches to cities, where train speedstend to have already reduced. Where a portion of the city market can also be effectively served

by parkway or interchange stations in the outskirts there may well be a case for such stations,

especially where other transport connections can also be made for example with airports or urban

transport systems.

2.1.10 To achieve the best journey times, clearly the ideal situation

for a high speed line is for the trains to be able to run at as

high-a-speed as possible for as long as possible, thereby

exploiting the full potential of the technology. A high speed

network in the Britain would supplement the comprehensivenetwork that already exists, on which slower trains including freight services could continue to

run. As a result, a high speed line can instead be used exclusively by high speed trains.

2.1.11 This is important not only because of the greater benets of faster journeys, but also because of

the impact of slower trains on the lines overall capacity. Figure 2.1b below gives an example from

the TGV Atlantique route in France, illustrating how mixing different train speeds prevents high

frequency services from following closely behind each other. The slower train (in red) cuts across

six paths of the faster train - in other words, running a single train at 200 kph consumes the same

capacity as running six successive TGVs at 300 kph.

HS2 should be usedexclusively by highspeed trains.

Paris - Montparnasse

Conventional Train at 200kph (80mins)

TGV High Speed Train at 300kph (53mins)

Tours - Montlouis 53 mins Source: UIC

Figure 2.1b Effects of a slower train on high speed line capacity

(Source: UIC)


7/25


30

2.1.12 In the example above the full capacity of the line can only be exploited when the high speed trainsare closely ighted together, each following the preceding train at the same speed with the

minimum headway. Where possible this is the model we have sought to employ on the HS2 route

between London and the West Midlands, since the effect of a non-high speed train (notionally one

capable of speeds up to 230kph) would be to consume at least four high speed paths. With an even

interval service this would effectively reduce HS2 capacity from 14 trains per hour to just three

high speed and three conventional trains per hour, eliminating many of the benets of the Day One

service.

2.1.13 Adopting this principle has other implications for the design and specication of HS2, particularly

where differences in service patterns occur and/or trains leave the high speed network. For examplewhere a train may need to slow down to call at an intermediate station, a deceleration lane would be

needed in order to limit the impact on following services. Even then there is likely to be some impact

on the capacity of the line.

2.1.14 If a future network was to include lightly used stretches of route, there might be value in adopting

the German model of mixed use in order to gain maximum benet from the line.

2.1.15 Although the stretch of high speed line between London

and the West Midlands would carry only high speed services, it

must be integrated with the wider nationalrail network on Day One if it is to achieve the widespread

benets that are possible. Running solely a segregated

shuttle service between London and the West Midlands would not generate sufcient benets to

justify the costs - there is not the scale of demand for journeys between these two places alone.

Instead trains should be able to continue off the high speed line and on to the classic network to

destinations beyond the West Midlands, following the French and German model. This would allow

the benets of high speed to be spread further aeld and the capacity of the line to be fully exploited.

2.1.16 Under this model, most long-distance

passenger services which have hitherto run

on the WCML to and from destinations

north of Birmingham would transfer onto

the high speed line, freeing up paths on the

existing network for additional shorter

distance passenger services and freight.

2.1.17 This is a model of high speed rail which may

continue even if, over time, HS2 is expanded

to become part of a much wider national

network. Even under those conditions the

ability to run on to the classic network may

be valuable in connecting some cities to the

HS2 should beconnected to the

classic rail network...

HS2

Birmingham

London

To other

destinations

North

WCML


8/25


31

high speed line, especially where the level of demand from those places does not justify the expenseof a wholly new high speed connection. This is similar to the French model, where for example a

TGV is able to run off the central high speed line to serve places such as Dijon and St Etienne.

2.1.18 However, integration with the classic network comes at a price.

Reliability is poorer on the classic lines and some of this

performance risk is imported onto the high speed line, with a

resultant loss of train paths in the planned timetable. The very high

frequency service and exceptional performance level which

characterise the Japanese Shinkansen network both depend on an ability to exclude risks from

elsewhere. A further cost is the classic-compatible train eet. The bespoke design makes thesetrains more expensive than the off-the-shelf, dedicated train which runs solely on a segregated

network and which is in generic use on high speed lines in Europe.

2.1.19 Therefore as a British high speed network grows, the aim should be to increase the level of

segregation as much as possible, commensurate with the requirement to serve locations which are

not part of the core network.

2.1.20 Inter city journeys do not, of course, exist in isolation

people are trying to get to their homes, businesses and

friends. These journeys invariably rely on the local transportnetworks to deliver them to a nal destination. Building a

brand new network presents an opportunity to tailor its

design to enable efcient links with these networks through effective interchanges, for example with

the use of modern people-mover systems, and to create station spaces which aid the free-ow of

large numbers of people.

Summary and key recommendations

2.1.21 We have identied the basic cornerstones which we recommend as a model for high speed

rail in Britain:

Exploiting maximum benet from high speed capacity.

Long distance, city-to-city journeys.

High speed trains only.

Integration with the classic network to spread the benets more widely.

Greater segregation over time.

Integration with other networks.

2.1.22This is a model for Day One operation between London and the West Midlands, which also has aneye to the future development of a national network of high speed lines.

... but over time,become moresegregated.

HSR must be wellintegrated with othertransport networks.


9/25


32

2.2 Establishing the case our approach2.2.1 The rst sections of the report have described the objectives for HS2; the remit of HS2 Ltd; the

context in which that remit has been set; and the basic model for high speed rail in Britain with

which we have been working during 2009. This section sets out in more detail how we have

approached the task before us: to establish and examine the case for a new line, and to develop

buildable proposals for its design and construction.

Programme o work

2.2.2 Figure 2.2a below sets out the way in which we have structured the year, charting the development

of the project from the initial brief and remit, agreed with DfT at the beginning of March, to the nal

report submission at the end of the December. Our approach throughout the year has been to run

option development and appraisal as almost concurrent workstreams, using the emerging appraisal

results to rene and sift our options, with a greater degree of detail applied at each stage of the

process.

2009

End of April

DEFINE

Prepare Project Plan

Review previousmaterial

Confirm requirements

Define approach

Resourcing

Initial view onimplications of longer

term options

Identify long list ofoptions and narrowdown

Develop, review,shortlist, refine

options

Test and assessoptions

Options for released capacity

Business case development

Finalise Options

EnvironmentalAssessment

Finalise businesscase

Finaliseimplementation

plans

Prepare final report

Reportapprovals and

production

Deliver by31/12/09

REFINE ASSESS FINALISE DELIVER

End of June

External Challenge (technical, analytical, strategic)

End of Sept End of Nov

Figure 2.2a Programme of work during 2009

2.2.3 In developing and testing options throughout the year, we have sought to arrive at a preferred

overall scheme and then to appraise the standalone business case for building a new high speed

line between London and the West Midlands. This has addressed the lines value for money, deliveryprospects and the appropriate environmental and sustainability considerations.


10/25


33

2.2.4 We have undertaken the work to a demanding timetable. Inevitably this has limited our abilityto conduct wholly new research or, for example, to design bespoke demand modelling tools

from scratch. However we have been able to adapt and build upon work that already exists and

nonetheless conduct a substantial amount of new analysis.

Establishing the case

2.2.5 HS2 Ltd was established to provide Government with advice on which it could base important

decisions about the future of the UKs national infrastructure. We have accordingly developed our

plans and the assessment of the lines business case to a sufcient level of detail to enable durable

and condent decision making.

2.2.6 Where it has been necessary to make assumptions and dene scenarios, we have adopted a

conservative approach so that options are not presented in an unduly favourable light.

2.2.7 The case for high speed rail rests in part on its relativemerits when compared against other options

for achieving similar goals. Therefore, as an alternative, we have examined the case for building a new

line to alleviate congestion, but at conventional speeds. This examination has been conducted on a

more hypothetical basis. There may be other options for increasing capacity and lowering journey times

on the London West Midlands corridor. The assessment of these alternatives for example further

upgrades to the existing railway or intervention on the road network has been taken forward by DfT,

with whom we have shared assumptions and analysis so as to create a consistent basis for comparison.It will be for DfT to consider the relative merits of the various options open to Government.

2.2.8 The balance of objectives for a wider, national network of high speed lines beyond the West Midlands

may vary from that for HS2. Over the longer term, the focus may come to fall less on the increase of

capacity and correspondingly more on shortening journey times, creating modal shift and boosting

productivity. For this reason allied to the fact that we have not been asked to produce specic

proposals for a wider network we have not sought to analyse the possible alternatives to a wider

network of high speed lines. Such consideration may be necessary as part of any more detailed work

on plans for going beyond the West Midlands.

External input and challenge

2.2.9 We have sought to ensure a proper process of quality assurance is in place to validate our approach

and results. This has been particularly important given the UKs relative inexperience in appraising

and delivering domestic high speed rail projects although we have been able to draw on the UKs

growing experience in the delivery of other major projects.

2.2.10 We set up three external challenge groups to provide independent expert scrutiny on different

elements of our work. There is no intention that any of the three groups should be seen as

accountable for the conclusions that, ultimately, we alone have reached. However, their advice has

been invaluable as we formulated our approach and ndings. The membership and remit of eachgroup is set out below.


11/25


34

Strategic Challenge Group

Focused on offering an overallview and sense check of theprogramme as a whole andon providing an independentperspective on our overallapproach.

Kate Barker CBEMonetary Policy CommitteeMember, Bank of England

Pro. David BeggChair of the Northern WayTransport Compact

Richard Brown CBEChief Executive,Eurostar UK Ltd

Tony CollinsChief Executive,Virgin Trains

Iain Coucher

Chief Executive,Network Rail

Stephen Joseph OBEExecutive Director,Campaign for Better Transport

David LeederVice Chair,Commission for IntegratedTransport

Sir Michael Lyons

Chairman of the BBC Trust

Sir Roy McNultyChairman,Advantage West Midlands(from Sept 09)

Anthony SmithChief Executive,Passenger Focus

Tony TraversDirector,

Greater London Group, LSE

Technical Challenge Group

Focused largely on peer reviewand challenge of the engineeringand environmental specicationsand assumptions, including costsand mitigation.

Ted AllettFormerly Planning Director ofUnion Railways

Keith BerrymanEngineering Advisor, Crossrail

Clive Burrows FREngDirector of Engineering,First Group

Pro Andy CollopHead of Civil Engineering,Nottingham University

Alan DykeFormer Chief Engineer and MD,

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Project(HS1), now an IndependentConsultant

Pro Robert MairCBE FREng FRSCambridge University

Hugh Norrie OBE FREngGovernments Agent for ChannelTunnel Rail Link

Pro Roderick Smith FREng

Chair, Future Rail Studiesat Imperial College and VicePresident of the IMechE

Analytical Challenge Group

Focused on the appraisal andmodelling of options, scrutinisingthe relevant evidence base, aswell as providing technical adviceon key methodologies.

Pro. Robert CochraneTransport planner and visitingProfessor,

Imperial College LondonPro. Stephen Glaister CBEDirector,Royal Automobile ClubFoundation and Professor ofTransport and Infrastructure,Imperial College London

Pro. Peter MackieResearch Professor,Institute for Transport Studies,Leeds University

Pro. Henry OvermanDirector, Spatial EconomicsResearch Centre, LSE

Dr. David SimmondsDirector, David SimmondsConsultancy Ltd

Pro. Roger VickermanDirector,Centre for European, Regionaland Transport Economics,

University of Kent


12/25


35

2.2.11 We also established an Appraisal of Sustainability Reference Group, comprising relevantGovernment Departments and other (eventual) statutory consultees, and throughout the year

convened several ad hoc groups to seek views and validate our approach to specic issues, namely:

Project Funding and Delivery, Climate Change and Noise. We intend also to subject the consultation

strategy to peer review.

2.2.12 On a more regular basis our work particularly on the consideration of geographic options has

been informed and guided by location-specic working groups, comprising representatives of

relevant organisations whose regional knowledge and experience has been an important input

to the option sifting and, ultimately, selection process. The specic terms of reference for each

group have varied according to membership and subject, but broadly speaking the working groupspurpose has been to: collate and review existing data and analysis; identify gaps in that information

and make recommendations as to how they should be lled; identify key issues relating to the

existing proximate transport networks, in particular capability/congestion and the investment

required; identify and oversee resolution of local development issues, where appropriate; consider

environmental implications of proposals; and assist with the initial sifting of options and nal

shortlisting. In addition to representatives of HS2 the group membership was as follows:

London Terminals HeathrowInterchange

West Midlands Line o Route

CrossrailNetwork Rail

TfL

BAACrossrail

Network Rail

TfL

Advantage West MidlandsBirmingham City Council

Centro

Highways Agency

Network Rail

Internal to HS2

2.2.13 The working group to consider line of route options was limited to HS2 and our advisers, in view of

the particularly sensitive nature of the discussions. However, we held condential discussions with

individual or small groups of county and local planning authorities about relevant specic options

and these informed the working groups deliberations.

2.2.14 In addition to the groups above, we held a series of discussions with rolling stock manufacturers andoperators, as well as relevant local authorities, on the proposed maintenance and stabling strategy,

including depot locations.

2.2.15 We have also held regular discussions with Arup in their capacity as promoters of a scheme to

create a multi modal interchange station, including high speed rail, in the Heathrow area. This

scheme pre-dates HS2 Ltd. In recognition of the potential conict of interest arising from Arups

separate roles as consultant to HS2 Ltd and promoter of their interchange scheme, a number of

assurances were secured from Arup, as a condition of their appointment, on the separation of

their own proposal for Heathrow and HS2 work. These assurances included the establishment of

a completely independent team for the HS2 work.


13/25


36

Wider stakeholders2.2.16 Our approach to consultation with stakeholders has been guided by the need to be as open and

inclusive as possible, in order to maximise the value of others input and ensure that our ideas and

ndings are well tested. As well as external challenge and location-specic working groups, we had

meetings with a very wide range of stakeholders. These included (on a more formal basis) specic

London, West Midlands, North of England, Scotland and Industry stakeholder groups. In addition

to the established groups, we have also held a number of ad hoc meetings with other interested

parties, for example London (Heathrow) Airlines Consultative Committee (LACC), the Ofce of Rail

Regulation, the Association of Train Operating Companies, Manchester City Council, the Chilterns

Conservation Board and the National Trust.

2.2.17 Notwithstanding our open approach, throughout the year we have needed to protect certain

information on the development of specic geographic options, so as to avoid causing unnecessary

blight. In some cases it has been prudent to share this information on a condential basis, but

generally we have avoided disclosing details of specic options to our wider stakeholders. A fuller

report on our interaction with stakeholders throughout the year has been submitted alongside this

report as part of the suite of supporting documents.


2.2.18 Our work during the course of 2009 has been guided by the need to produce robust and durableproposals and advice in which Government can have condence. To this end we have tended towards

conservative assumptions and also investigated the case for HS2 against a classic rail alternative.

We have also adopted an open and inclusive approach to stakeholder involvement and subjected our

approach to rigorous and independent expert challenge.

2.2.19 If HS2 were to progress through further stages of development, we strongly recommend that

this external challenge process be retained, and that consultation and collaboration with key

organisations continue, building on the structures we have established and which are described

above.


14/25


37

2.3 Design and appraisal: specifcation and assumptionsIntroduction

2.3.1 This section explains our more detailed assumptions and specication that we used in the design,

development and appraisal of the options. It covers three key aspects of our approach: the Project

Specication, comprising the main technical, operational and environmental requirements; our

demand-led approach to ensuring that HS2 serves areas where people travel to and from; and our

approach to achieving value for money.

Project specifcation2.3.2 We developed a Project Specication that sets out in more detail the main technical, operational and

environmental requirements that governed our approach to the denition and subsequent initial

design of our options.

2.3.3 The fundamental building blocks in section 2.1 inuence the way in which we approached our

design. Beyond these, the main driving factors in the design of HS2 were:

Providing a safe and secure network for passengers, those who operate and maintain it and third

parties who may otherwise come into contact with it.

Ensuring compliance with the EU Directive and Specications for Interoperability to benet fromstandard, proven, competitively sourced high speed rail equipment, systems and trains.

Providing internationally recognised levels of availability, reliability and speed

with capacity maximised to allow as many as possible to benet.

Ensuring that high speed trains can run onto the classic network.

Harnessing the principles of sustainable development, where possible avoiding or otherwise

minimising, and then mitigating, environmental impacts. We focus in particular on the effects of

effects of tunnelling.

A safe and secure network2.3.4 Firstly, and most importantly, we have sought to design a secure high speed rail system to protect

passengers, those who operate and maintain it and those who may otherwise come into contact with it.

Measures to protect high speed trains from risk or disruption through interference and trespass have

been based on the experience gained in operation of HS1. By designing generally to internationally

accepted practice and established European specications, albeit modied where necessary to control

UK-specic risks, HS2 is expected to match the exemplary safety record of other high speed lines.

This is a high standard - the Shinkansen in Japan have not seen a single fatal incident since operation

rst commenced in 1964.


15/25


38

2.3.5 The valuable lessons learnt from these experiences have been incorporated in recent Europeanregulations for the safety of high speed services (the Technical Specications for Interoperability

- TSIs). These have taken precedence in our design criteria. The primary aim is to prevent risks

materialising in the rst place where reasonably practical and then ensuring that any residual

effects are as limited as possible. Those services that run on to the classic line will also benet

from new classic-compatible trains. Listed below is a selection of the key safety aspects of both new

infrastructure and new rolling stock:

No level crossings so as to avoid derailments and improve safety for pedestrians and vehicle

trafc.

Use of European standard train control systems which incorporate full automatic train protection(European Rail Trafc Management System - ERTMS).

Specic structure specications such as the use of grade separated junctions to eliminate the

risk of collision through conicting train movements.

Appropriate fencing alongside the railway to prevent people and vehicles gaining access to the

infrastructure, including active monitoring systems.

Separation of maintenance activity from train operations, and the automation of inspection and

mechanisation of maintenance activities as far as possible.

2.3.6 We have also considered the potential impact of a changing climate. We expect that HS2 would beengineered to withstand extreme weather events and this will be achieved by detailed work in the

subsequent design stages.

Ensuring Interoperability

2.3.7 Our specication complies fully with the EU Technical Specications for Interoperability. There are a

number of reasons why we have followed this approach:

The specications are based on, and in turn have promoted, standard and proven technology,

providing condence that the components and systems will achieve the levels of security and

reliability required.

The international high speed rail supply industry provides for competitive sourcing of these

standard components and systems, minimising the need to develop one-off British solutions

wherever possible.

Through benetting from such standard components and systems the cost, time and uncertainty

of undertaking UK specic testing evaluation and safety approval will be avoided.

The TSIs maximise the potential for cross European services by establishing common technical

standards for new railway infrastructure and trains. If an HS1 to HS2 link was constructed it

would allow trains from other countries to run through the Channel Tunnel and onto our network

and vice versa.


16/25


39

The specications are built on the expectation of the future growth in rail demand. Adopting themallows us to future-proof HS2 by providing an affordable means of further upgrading to benet

from continuing international advances. This will be particularly important in maximising the

future capacity of HS2 if it becomes the basis of a longer term network.

The TSIs, brought into legal force through the Interoperability Directive, have been adopted by UK

Government.

2.3.8 Following consultation with industry, the DfT has adopted an approach of progressively upgrading

the classic network over time and building new lines (of which HS2 is one) in accordance with the

TSIs. Full adoption is subject to the cost not being disproportionate to the benet achieved; the TSIs

allow for use of certain parameters, known as British Specic Cases, where full application ofthe European norms cannot be achieved without incurring costs disproportionate to the benets

realised. Such parameters include platform height, platform length, stabling track length, structure

gauge and the distance between track centres. These are all particularly relevant to the migration of

the existing classic rail network. In developing the new HS2 options we have not found that adopting

the TSIs fully would introduce costs disproportionate to the benets achievable by this project.

2.3.9 The design of HS1 preceded the introduction of many of the EU high speed TSI requirements. It was,

however, designed to established French high speed practice and standards which were a major

source of evidence in drafting the TSIs. So, in respect of principal parameters such as train size and

platforms and route horizontal and vertical geometry, HS1 permits the access of trains from otherEuropean high speed networks.

Available, reliable and fast journeys

2.3.10 High speed trains require certain infrastructure criteria to be met in order to achieve and maintain

their maximum speeds:

High speeds can only be achieved on relatively straight routes. We have designed to vertical and

horizontal geometry values derived from the requirements in the TSIs appropriate to the ultimate

maximum speed required at any location on the HS2 route.

We designed the infrastructure to accommodate an ultimate maximum speed of 400kph onroute sections where train performance (through acceleration and braking) or other factors

such as environmental impact could permit. We have been assisted by members of the

train manufacturing industry in modelling the attainable speeds, acceleration and braking

performance and energy consumption of a Reference Train for our Day One service. This

Reference Train is based on the performance in tests of trains currently being manufactured for

introduction on the European high speed network with a maximum speed of 360kph. In order to

calculate journey times we have adopted standard European high speed practice of assuming a

service speed of 90% of the maximum for any route section in order to secure on-time reliability

whilst making allowance for minor day to day perturbation.


17/25


40

Achieving an appropriate speed is about striking the right balance between maximising the useof the line and the environmental effects. For example, where the line approaches city centres we

recognised the need to follow existing transport corridors to minimise disruption and the need to

travel at speeds appropriate to the area. Also there are practical limits for speeds through long

tunnels due to aerodynamic resistance and the additional energy required to overcome it.

We have designed to a maximum gradient of 2.5% (1 in 40) at which the Reference Train could

still maintain maximum speed. This was also the value adopted during the design of HS1. We

have however used up to the maximum gure of 3.5% (1 in 28.5) allowed by the TSIs in some of

the options for access to Heathrow, and approaching Birmingham, where speeds would be lower

than those on the HS2 main line.

Infrastructure maintenance would only be carried out on tracks closed to rail trafc. The route

would be congured to permit closure of one track whilst the adjacent track remains open

for trafc at sufcient (reduced) speed to maintain published journey times. Normal planned

inspection maintenance and renewal would be carried out in the closed periods overnight

between midnight and 5am Monday to Saturday (and until 8am on Sunday).

Maximising capacity

2.3.11 In order to assess the initial and potential ultimate capacity of HS2 we have used the modelled

performance of the Reference Train in conjunction with the current reported functionality of

ERTMS. With the assistance of British and European train control experts in the railway and railsupply sectors, we have also assessed the likely development trajectory of ERTMS over the period

to the possible opening of HS2 and beyond. This work has informed our decision to base the

modelled initial capacity, conservatively, upon existing ERTMS Level 2 capability and make prudent

assumptions about the ultimate capacity at a time a longer term network could be brought into use.

From this activity we have developed an operational availability and capacity specication, the main

elements of which include:

A seven day availability for full service operation on all sections of HS2 from 5am to midnight

(except on Sundays where an 8am start is assumed).

Maximum initial utilisation of the line on Day One of up to 14 trains per hour during peak periods,

with a typical utilisation of 10 trains per hour at quieter times. In the longer term, if more cities

were to be served by dedicated new lines and a high degree of segregation from the classic rail

network was achieved, then the capacity of the line could be increased to 18 trains per hour. This

would also depend upon improvements in rolling stock and signalling technology.

Platforms would be capable of accepting up to two 200m-long trains, either separately or joined

together to run in multiple. For demand modelling purposes, the assumed seating capacity was

550 per 200m set, giving a maximum 400m-long (two-train) capacity of 1,100 seats.


18/25


41

Standard European TSI compliant GC structure gauge as illustrated in Figure 2.3a.This species the minimum clearance outline for structures such as tunnels, bridge heights

and the interaction with the platform height. The GC structure gauge would allow European

interoperable double deck trains to run on this network if future demand required them.

The actual structure gauge is greater in tunnels where the cross-sectional area is dictated

by aerodynamic effects on air pressure and resistance.

GC(HS2 and HS1)

UK1: (Existinginfrastructure in

the UK)

Typical BRplatform

3965mm

4650mm

Figure 2.3a Structure gauge comparison

Ensuring high speed trains can run onto the classic network

2.3.12 To make effective use of capacity from Day One, in advance of any wider network, it would be

necessary to run some services beyond the new high speed line on to the existing WCML. Standard

European gauge high speed trains cannot simply run onto existing classic lines, because they

are taller and wider, and are designed for a lower platform height, as illustrated in Figure 2.3a.

Moreover, stations on the classic network cannot accommodate two 200m trains connected together

and running in multiple.

2.3.13 Through running onto the classic network could be achieved in two ways. First there could be a

mixed eet of trains. One set would be standard off-the-shelf trains dedicated to the new high

speed line and a second set would be specially designed, smaller, classic-compatible trains

capable of running at high speed on the new line and then travelling at conventional speeds on the

classic network. This was the approach adopted for the design of Eurostar trains to allow operation

partially on the classic network prior to the opening of HS1.


19/25


42

2.3.14 A second approach would be to gauge clear classic lines to particular destinations. Thiswould require alterations to stations, bridges, tunnels and track spacing for sufcient tracks to

accommodate standard high speed trains as well as classic ones. Where station platforms are

altered to accommodate the HS2 trains, they could not also be used by existing UK trains because

of the changed platform height and stepping distances. The degree of work required in the vicinity

of stations would be considerable, with bypass lines being required at some locations. Ideally the

capability to accommodate 400m long trains would also be created to operate such services to

destinations where demand justied them.

2.3.15 Of the two options, we consider that adopting a specially designed classic-compatible train

(although, in itself, relatively expensive) would be the more cost effective. However, further work isneeded to identify whether there are classic routes or route sections where gauge clearance might

be more economic, especially if a longer term network is created.

2.3.16 Curves on the WCML in a number of route sections are sufciently severe to restrict speeds of

classic trains, so Pendolino tilting trains have been introduced to improve journey times. The latest

Japanese Shinkansen train has a system whereby the suspension provides 1 degree of inclination

to improve passenger comfort, allowing the trains to take 250kph curves at 270kph on dedicated

high speed line. There are currently no high speed trains in service which tilt by rotating the actual

vehicle body in the way conventional speed trains such as Pendolinos do to allow higher speeds

around sharp curves on existing railway lines. After discussion with train manufacturers and rolling

stock experts, we have assumed that such trains would not be designed especially for our high

speed classic-compatible eet. We have compared the effect of operating classic-compatible high

speed trains over the WCML in place of Pendolinos. The assessment concluded that, given the

installed power and performance of a high speed classic-compatible train and the extent of WCML

route which would not be limited on speed due to curvature, the time lost north of HS2 on Day One

in comparison to conventional tilting trains would be small. Classic-compatible trains would, of

course, save signicant journey time on HS2 itself.

2.3.17 A further approach that has been suggested, pending the construction of a wider network, was to

create an interchange station at the northern end of HS2 and avoid through running by requiring

all passengers to change (cross platform) from high speed trains to classic ones for their onward

journeys and vice versa. This has not been examined in any detail as the time and inconvenience

would negate the benets of the high speed portion of the journey.


20/25


43

Designing a sustainable service2.3.18 The four sustainability priorities listed below have underpinned our approach to both designing and

assessing the options and then ultimately deciding which should be recommended as our preferred

choices. We also used these to frame our assessment of the preferred package to demonstrate the

overall sustainability impact of the new line. The four priorities as set out in the 2005 UK sustainable

development strategy Securing the Future are:

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change.

Natural resource protection and environmental enhancement (adapted by us to include the

cultural as well as natural environment).

Creating sustainable communities.

Sustainable consumption and production.

2.3.19 In following the four priorities in the design of the infrastructure, we have sought where possible to

Avoid or, where this is not practicable, to mitigate direct or indirect harm to landscape, water and

ecological resources and to maximise opportunities to enhance such features where possible.

Avoid or, where this is not practicable, to mitigate direct or indirect harm to historic cultural

resources and to maximise opportunities to enhance such features where possible.

Avoid or ensure appropriate mitigation of any new noise, vibrations or localised air pollutioncaused by HS2.

Use, where practicable, land with planning designations appropriate to the development for high

speed rail and its infrastructure.

Minimise land take and avoid demolitions of

properties where possible, particularly residential

properties.

Maintain the health and amenity of residential

communities potentially affected by the scheme,

including where practicable the maintenance of

access to services and shops.

Ensure no net loss of ood storage capacity.

Minimise waste production.

2.3.20 The Appraisal of Sustainability examines in depth the

impact of the preferred scheme on the four sustainability

priorities and how well our design meets the criteria

above. As more detailed design is progressed we

would expect, and have made provision in our costestimates for, the development of visual solutions for

Measures used to helpmitigate the impacts o HS2

To limit noise in surface sections we

used the following measures:

Lowering vertical alignments to put

track in cutting.

Noise barriers to limit noise in

surface route sections.

Bunding (low embankments)

running parallel to the track.

To limit ground borne noise in both

surface and tunnel sections we used

the following measures:

Resilient track support systems.

Embedded track systems.


21/25


44

HS2 infrastructure elements such as bridges, tunnel portals and overhead power line supportingstructures to blend them into existing built and natural landscapes. Tunnels are often presented as

the best way to minimise the impact of new routes. We therefore focus on their effects in particular

below. Chapter 4 explains in more detail the schemes impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the

implications for design.

2.3.21 We have sought where possible to follow best practice guidance when carrying out our sustainability

assessments. We consulted the relevant statutory bodies, including the Environment Agency,

Natural England and English Heritage on our approach and emerging conclusions. We have sought

to apply the principles of Strategic Environmental Assessment, so that the work we have undertaken

will be transferable to any subsequent stages of appraisal required for scheme approval.

The effects of tunnelling

2.3.22 When approaching the design of the route, we considered the use of tunnels to avoid environmental

impacts, primarily impacts on landscape and major property demolitions. Where necessary, we also

considered tunnels for topographical reasons. There are two types of tunnel that we considered:

Twin bore, single track tunnels with

cross passages at regular intervals to

allow evacuation from one tunnel to

the other in the event of an incident

(as per Figure 2.3b).

Single bore, twin track tunnels for

shorter tunnels.

2.3.23 Both types of tunnel would accommodate

the GC gauge trains. The aim for the

new line would be to allow speeds of

400kph where practicable. However,

we acknowledge that the design for

such speeds in tunnels would be very

expensive as much larger tunnels would

be required. Therefore we designed the

tunnels for HS2 to allow up to 320kph

and in some cases 400kph. Tunnels

cost about 5-6 times more per km than

building through open countryside.

2.3.24 Safety regulations, aerodynamics and ventilation are the key drivers in deciding the size and

space requirements within the tunnels. Long tunnels, greater than 2km, require cross-passages

and intervention shafts, providing emergency exits, ventilation or access for emergency services.

From an aerodynamic point of view natural ventilation is required to relieve pressure in thetunnel and avoid passenger discomfort or excessive noise when a train emerges from the tunnel.

xx xxxx xxxx

xxx xxxx x

xx xxxx xx

xxxx x

xx

xxx

x xxxx

xxxx x

xxx xx

xxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

xxxx

x

xxxx

xxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Door to outsideat Surface Level

Interventionshaft

Cross-passagelinking tunnels

Non-Incidenttunnel

Direction ofPassengerEvacuation Incident tunnel

Figure 2.3b Section view of a twin bore tunnel


22/25


45

The intervention shafts could be required every 2km in long tunnels and could be up to 20m indiameter at the surface. Two different tunnelling techniques would be used on HS2 -

Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). A standard tunnel construction method, a TBM can be used

through most types of ground conditions. Once launched from a shaft or cutting, they remain

below ground and so avoid many of the environmental issues that affect surface works. Ground

settlement on the surface can also be limited to small amounts. For longer tunnel lengths

intermediate construction shafts may be necessary.

Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL). The prevalent ground conditions on the HS2 route would mean

that excavations could be used for this technique. Instead of drills, progress is made through

excavating short sections before putting in support for the roof.

2.3.25 Using the TBM method, precast concrete segments are manufactured outside the tunnel and

installed behind the machine whereas in the SCL method the lining is created in-situ. Both

construction methods require a signicant amount of building materials and there is a huge amount

of spoil produced with a sizeable logistics effort required to remove it.

2.3.26 The construction of the tunnels may cause some ground movement and therefore the potential

degree and impact of any settlement must be understood when designing the route and choosing

the tunnelling methodology. Mitigation measures to minimise the impact of tunnelling on surface

buildings and utilities include: reinforcing the ground by injecting grout; moving and then reinstating

the structures post construction of the tunnel; and providing additional support for building

foundations.

2.3.27 During operation of the railway, property on the surface may experience ground-borne noise, a

rumbling sound created by trains passing through the tunnels underneath. The noise levels heard

in a property would depend on their proximity to the tunnel and the geology of the area. Mitigation

measures can be used but add extra cost to the construction and maintenance of the tunnels.

A demand led approach

2.3.28 Our station designs and locations are inuenced by where people will start their journey and where

they want to nish. Getting this right determines whether enough people will want to use the service

to make it viable. We built on existing transport models, known as PLANET, to create a forecasting

model to test the impact of what we proposed. The HS2 Demand and Appraisal Report explains in

more detail our modelling approach. It combined three elements:

An updated Long Distance Model with rail, car and air demand for journey purposes (leisure,

business and commuting).

Two regional models Midland and South mainly for detailed short distance local rail

movements and high level impacts on car trafc.

Heathrow spreadsheet model including both surface and air access to Heathrow.


23/25


46

And two stand alone models: International spreadsheet model identifying the scope of international travel from key British

cities.

Station Location modelling station accessibility in London and the West Midlands.

2.3.29 Together these models provide long-range forecasts using data, behavioural assumptions and

trafc and rail modelling parameters. We used the data to determine our preferred options and

understand the impact of our proposals not only on travellers choices but also on train crowding,

road congestion and emissions.

2.3.30 In understanding the choices that people would be likely to make there are a variety of reasons whypeople would travel by high speed rail rather than road, air or classic rail:

A faster journey time.

A more reliable journey.

Higher quality trains.

Convenience of overall door-to-door journeys.

2.3.31 The rst two are easier to measure and are included in the modelling results, with reliability or

punctuality modelled as an adjusted journey time (one minute improvement in average minutes

lateness is equivalent to an improvement of three minutes journey time). The third assumes some

further inherent attractiveness of high speed services over classic rail. Given the limited evidence to

support an exact measurement of this, we have taken a conservative approach and not treated high

speed rail as a different mode. It is possible therefore that there would be additional demand and

further benets associated with high speed rail that we have not captured.

2.3.32 In considering the demand for high speed rail services, we recognised that it would be but one

part of a complete journey. The overall journey will have other sections involving private or public

transport or possibly both. If high speed rail is to deliver the full benets predicted we recognised

that the specic location and detailed design of our stations would be critical to making the

interchange with complementary transport modes effective, convenient and attractive. We also

recognised the likely future capabilities of local transport networks, particularly the Underground in

central London. We reviewed regional and local strategies that map future plans, and we discussed

our potential proposals with bodies best placed to understand future travel patterns the Highways

Agency, Local Authorities, TfL and others - in our working groups.


24/25


47

Approach to value or money2.3.33 Achieving value for money is about getting the right balance between costs and the design aims.

Two areas where decisions have a signicant bearing on costs are station locations and the parts

of the route to tunnel.

2.3.34 City centre stations and their allied approach routes are invariably more expensive to build. High

land costs, intensive land use and the potential impact on existing property and services all

contribute. Building at city edges substantially avoids many of these problems. However most people

want to travel to the centre of cities to access other modes of transport, businesses and facilities.

2.3.35 Tunnels are much more expensive than open surface routes and their construction can be

disruptive. Nevertheless, we included them in the design where it was necessary to meet our

sustainability aims for example where we propose to cross built up areas or particularly sensitive

natural features and where there was a need to reduce major property demolitions or noise.

Appraising value for money for the business case

2.3.36 DfT has a standard approach to appraisal (WebTAG) which ensures consistency and comparability

across transport schemes. We have appraised our proposals as far as possible, using this approach.

Our assumptions

We had to make some assumptions about what would happen between now and possible opening

of the high speed line. We called this our reference case. We assumed that by the time HS2

opens, the following would also be in place:

Any highways, rail and local transport schemes that the Government has committed to build

before 2015.

Continued investment in the roads programme and London transport beyond 2015, consistent

with the National Transport Model, which is unlikely to be affected by the building of a new high

speed line.

Investment in specic rail schemes beyond 2015 Thameslink, Crossrail and the IntercityExpress Programmes (now known as Superexpress), which are unlikely to be in competition

with a new high speed line. This is consistent with DfTs Network Modelling Framework. There

are some specic rail schemes which may directly impact on the degree of detail which we

have not included in our reference case. These include Evergreen III, a proposed new fast

service between London and Oxford, and Airtrack, a proposed new rail line between Heathrow

Airport Terminal 5 and the existing rail network to the south and west, including Reading,

Guildford and Waterloo.

A third runway at Heathrow Airport. We also reviewed the difference which the absence of a

third runway would make to the business case.


25/25


2.3.37 We have assumed a central case which uses assumptions about the methods used in future togenerate electricity and the likely growth in GDP. These forecasts are in line with the National

Transport Model and other Government forecasts. A key assumption is the demand growth forecast.

Growth in road and air trafc was based on the DfTs most recently published forecasts. For air, this

involves a 178% increase in domestic aviation from 2008 to 2033, and for road this is a 43% increase

in trips from 2008 to 2033.

2.3.38 Growth in rail demand was calculated using the standard industry and Government recommended

approach. This assumes that growth is driven by changes in rail fares, population and employment

and in particular peoples propensity to make more rail trips as they become more afuent. Unlike

for road and air forecasts, the approach for rail produces a demand forecast that grows indenitely.Therefore as a proxy for market maturity and given the long term uncertainty in the forecasting

methodology, DfT recommends forecasting no further growth beyond 2026. Because of the longer

term nature of HS2, we have extended this cap to 2033. This therefore amounts to a 150% increase

in long distance rail to and from London between 2008 and 2033.

2.3.39 Our assumption on GDP growth follows the latest Treasury forecasts. Given the uncertainties in

forecasting rail growth, we tested different levels of growth to understand the robustness of the

business case to different scenarios.


2.3.40 In our approach to the design and specication of HS2 we have sought to achieve a balance

between a number of factors. We have aimed to realise the potential of high speed technology

and maximising its benets with a demand-led approach. The design has carefully considered

and, where possible, sought to address the impacts on landscape and on those who may live near

the proposed route. At the same time we have striven to achieve value for money and apply the

standards and technology proven in use around the world.

2.3.41 We believe the proposals for HS2 that follow in the next chapter achieve an appropriate balance

between these factors. If HS2 proceeds to further design stages we would expect that its

performance could be further enhanced.

Documents

Chapter 2 High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond A Report to Government by High Speed Two