Further written evidence from Neil Mathers
(HSR 1A)
HIGH SPEED
2 - IS DELUSION
NECESSARY TO
GET PROJECTS
STARTED?
In my earlier letter of 23 July (HSR 1) I raised
my concerns about the often quoted high speeds of 225-250 miles
per hour. I had said the overall specification is still missing,
and on the technical side:
— HS2
train intensity (train paths per hour) is unbelievably high.
— Compared
with Europe and Japan HS2 trip speeds are too high.
— HS2
load factors and ridership may be too low.
— "Once
the basic data is validated, train-path diagrams and levels of
rolling stock established, only then can system capacity be calculated,
load-factors applied and possible cost-benefits established".
I also attached the report "World Speed Survey
2009" by Dr Colin Taylor[1]
who stated:
"Frequency wins over speed in the commercial
stakes. Despite the launch of the world's first regular 350 km/h
services, our biennial review of the world's fastest timetabled
trains finds no faster average than 272 km/h. Jostling between
recent entrants and traditional contenders has seen many countries
change position in the tables."
As a result I am even more concerned regarding the
quality of technical data and other figures drawn from a hat,
and had said:
"For instance HS2 documents indicate an ultimate
frequency of 18 trains an hour. How is that figure arrived at?
In an emergency will all 18 trains decelerate at the same time?
And how far would the trains travel before they all come to a
stop? Who has the appropriate experience? What physical separation
is essential between following trains so they each have room to
decelerate? Also how much of the track to Birmingham would be
occupied by travelling trains and by those that have come to a
halt?"
Have you yet had the opportunity to address my
serious concerns?
FATAL TRAIN
CRASH
Since writing that letter I learned there had been
a fatal high-speed train crash near Wenzshou, China. Of a total
1630 passengers on the two trains, 40 were fatally injured, and
210 needed hospital treatment. Details are given in the attached
report[2]
"China's high speed rail crash—What really happened".
Other reports indicate a fault with the Train Control System.
Following the crash, China reduced its "Maximum
Design Speed" from 350km/hr to 300km/hr,
also operating its trains at lower speeds and frequency, presumably
to increase margins of safety.
OPERATING CONDITIONS
AND HEADWAY
In engineering terms I would expect "operating
conditions" to range 65% -70% of "maximum conditions".
A recent analysis by epochepogue confirms this
view, see attachment.
Regarding HS2 what can we learn from recent data?
Details speed, headway and trains/hour are given, see: www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Final-Report-Appendices-B-J.pdf.
In the attached chart some figures are highlighted[3]:
| At max speed 300km/hr and headway 11,600m, then trains/hr
| = 16.2 at 75% design capacity (peak) |
| or 12.9 at 60% design capacity
|
| At 360km/hr (for HS2), and headway 18,400m, trains/hr
| = 13.1 at 75% design capacity (peak) |
| or 10.5 at 60% design capacity
|
Not one figure supports HS2 claim of 18 trains per hour on
HS2 line from Euston to Birmingham.
NO SUBSTANTIATION
OR CORROBORATION
Previously I found no substantiation or corroboration for several
technical aspects of the HS2 project; quite the contrary. I hope
you will check and investigate government statements for operating
speeds, frequency and required headways for the HS2 service to
Birmingham and beyond.
If the HS2 scheme doesn't work properly, there will be no real
return. It will simply go bust.
30 August 2011
1
Not printed with this submission. Back
2
Not printed with this submission. Back
3
Only available in the PDF version of this document. Back
| 
