1 / 30

Rail future High-Speed Rail Conference

Rail future High-Speed Rail Conference. Jonathan Tyler Passenger Transport Networks, YORK Bletchley Park 9 July 2011. Why I’ve been sitting on the fence [1]. as a long-time environmentalist I hold to a radical critique of

patsy
Download Presentation

Rail future High-Speed Rail Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RailfutureHigh-Speed Rail Conference Jonathan Tyler Passenger Transport Networks, YORK Bletchley Park 9 July 2011

  2. Why I’ve been sitting on the fence [1] • as a long-time environmentalist I hold to a radical critique of the concept of eternal growth / high capitalism / globalisation / hyper-mobility • transition to a less mobile society essential but will take time • and we need excellent public transport

  3. why I’ve been sitting on the fence [2] • demand for rail travel growing strongly and rail’s mode share rising • some difficult capacity issues • significant sections of the infrastructure are of poor quality • the pattern of services requires overhaul >> high-speed rail could be part of the solution [just as it was in the1970s]

  4. But I have been on a journey … • invited by Greengauge 21 to design an integrated WCML + HS2 timetable : accepted, given longstanding campaign on need for strategic timetabling • not previously involved in HSR debate • objective view based on HS2 assumptions • delivered a detailed and credible proposal

  5. Proposed integrated WCML + HS2 timetable at opening of HS2 phase 1 designed by PTN for Greengauge 21 prepared using the Viriato software developed by SMA of Zürich

  6. Pathing schemes : Crewe … London, up / southbound, HS2 + inter-city + regional services Viriato SMA of Zürich

  7. Pathing schemes : solutions for specific problems the Birmingham … Rugby corridor Viriato SMA of Zürich

  8. Capacity challenges : Colwich Junction Viriato SMA of Zürich

  9. The beginning of doubt [1] • simplistic assumptions about growth trends, sheer scale of expected demand, arguable economic evaluations • peculiar timescale, no carbon-reduction • no previous study of timetabling, only broad statements by HS2 – my conviction about its importance derived from Switzerland (Taktfahrplan stages) • problems passed elsewhere, eg. Stafford

  10. the beginning of doubt [2] • realisation that apparent anomalies reflect HS2 thinking (focussed on large conurbations, compare no Stoke stops) • dismissal of places not served by HS2, eg. one ‘residual’ train/hour for Coventry • confusion about links with regional and local services, eg. in Birmingham • uncertain role of Birmingham Interchange

  11. Then serious worries – and few answers [1] • field observations inconsistent with rhetoric and with data about capacity (WCML RUS, sources) • capacity – the problem of reconciling all the aspirations with the number of paths • no analysis of portion-working (nb. both operational and infrastructural implications)

  12. then serious worries – and few answers [2] • study of eastern arm of Y: # no clear strategy for connectivity with ‘classic’ railway # ex-urban railheads – unacceptable ? # maximum HS2 capacity limits benefits of relief for MML, ECML # confusion over cross-country services # politics of Wichnor Curve

  13. then serious worries – and few answers [3] • more superficial assumptions, eg. # OOC interchange, GWML capacity # workability of HS1 connection • no study of cost saving against disbenefits of British rather than European gauge • regulatory regime – in whose interests will HSR be operated ?

  14. So what has gone wrong ? • absence of a national strategy for public transport as context for planning • failure to consider alternative scenarios • predilection for grand projets • HS2 propensity toward ‘perfect railway’ • dispersal of responsibilities [DfT / HS2 Ltd / Network Rail / TOCs]

  15. 1) a national strategy for public transport • accessibility objectives, standards of provision, optimised connectivity • modal-split targets, eg. narrow huge disparity between high and low rail shares(compare environmental gain with promotion of new trips) • a national integrated timetable plan to frame investment priorities (Swiss model) • in its absence # limited assessment of alternative programmes # a technology in search of an application ?

  16. toward an excellent system of public transport timetabling, planning, marketing modal-split targets national standards of service-quality and connectivity modelling of route-specific demand data, scenarios infrastructure plan organisations, budgets

  17. 2) alternative scenarios • continuous growth • comprehensive socio-economic collapse • large reductions in mobility (esp. air ?) • moderate reductions in mobility • changes in composition of rail demand, eg. less long-distance commuting, many (non-London) trips transferred from car • much rail freight not environmentally sustainable ?

  18. 3) the grand projet • engineers propose, politicians are tempted • a problem (apparent capacity shortfalls), a political hot potato (Heathrow), a longstanding economic imbalance (n / s), a shiny technology (HSR) loved by campaigners, and envy of foreigners (Tokaido, TGV, …) >> long-term, ‘transformational’ ‘solution’ • excludes short-term, incremental measures

  19. 4) the perfect railway • separation from ‘classic’ railway : # understandable, visionary, BUT # relevance in multi-centric Britain ? # optimal specification not tested against lesser options (esp. speed) # connectivity disbenefits # two-tier quality of service

  20. 5) dispersal of responsibilities • fragmented planning: # WCML RUS passed buck to HS2 # no detail on WCML benefits until Greengauge study [TOCs indifferent] # limited study of interfaces [HS2 / NR] # unachievable aspirations [DfT] • timetabling culture discourages visions

  21. Capacity confusion • trains / hour - Tokaido : 14 - RFF / SNCF : 13, rising to 15 - study for Greengauge : 16.6 - under ERTMS 3, in theory : 18 • eddy-current brakes, calculated risk : 19.2 • HS2 Ltd : 10 / 14 / 18

  22. distribution of paths [peak hour]

  23. “Further work is being done to determine which of the above services might serve Heathrow and which might run on to mainland Europe”Department for Transport / HS2 Ltd, February 2011

  24. capacity confusion – the problems • planning must not assume a techno-fix • complicates capacity release on classic lines • somehow we have to decide priorities • no credible basis for HS1, Heathrow links • infrastructure design, eg. E.Mids, portions • also affects Lichfield Y Junction … Water Orton East Junction

  25. So what should now happen ? • devise a national strategic (timetable) plan • for routes with capacity constraints identify step-wise solutions, eg. timetable recasts, fares, train-reconfiguration, minor works, then larger works for specific problems • for routes with long-run capacity constraint or sub-standard speeds consider new (but classic-compatible) alignments

  26. so you might reasonably conclude that I’m falling off the fence onto the ‘no’ side

  27. can we put the pieces together again ?

  28. Jonathan Tyler Passenger Transport Networks 49 Stonegate, YORK YO1 8AW 01904 611187 ptn@btconnect.com

More Related