High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[PR1Berske]

How many times do people have to spell it out to you Liverpool will get two high speed trains per hour via Crewe and HS2

Okay, so there will be some form of link, fine, though "Via Crewe and HS2" does not sound very "high speed trains" to me, and inevitably there will be even more increased cost to go from the expressway to (eventually) into Liverpool itself.

For much cheaper, much quicker links, just spend a fraction of the cost on upgrading existing track, use South Parkway as an alternative hub rather than trying to get into the city centre.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Okay, so there will be some form of link, fine, though "Via Crewe and HS2" does not sound very "high speed trains" to me, and inevitably there will be even more increased cost to go from the expressway to (eventually) into Liverpool itself.

For much cheaper, much quicker links, just spend a fraction of the cost on upgrading existing track, use South Parkway as an alternative hub rather than trying to get into the city centre.

Well as you don't seem to know HS2 classic compatibles will run via HS2 to Crewe where they will come off and travel along the existing Crewe Liverpool line to Lime St station. By traveling via HS2 Liverpool services will be a 30 minuits quicker than via the WCML so will you now drop the Liverpool won't benefit line.

 

[HowardGWR]

Okay, so there will be some form of link, fine, though "Via Crewe and HS2" does not sound very "high speed trains" to me, and inevitably there will be even more increased cost to go from the expressway to (eventually) into Liverpool itself.

For much cheaper, much quicker links, just spend a fraction of the cost on upgrading existing track, use South Parkway as an alternative hub rather than trying to get into the city centre.

Your comments are full of vague assertions and ponderings. Have you studied the HS2 documentation and reports?

Anyone can just shoot off about the project in the way you have done. You started by quoting the £80 billions as though this is attested fact and coupled that with the ignorant 'saving of 15 minutes' mantra.
From then on, it has been impossible to take your postings seriously, although I commend colleagues who have attempted to do so.

You gather I can't be bothered. I do wish mods had separated the 'do we need HS2' into a second thread, so that those who wish to pursue that can do so there. May I plead again for that measure please?

 

[HSTEd]

Okay, so there will be some form of link, fine, though "Via Crewe and HS2" does not sound very "high speed trains" to me, and inevitably there will be even more increased cost to go from the expressway to (eventually) into Liverpool itself.

32 minutes off the existing journey time is not very "high speed"?
20km of extra track to get from Wigan into Liverpool (probably the exchange site) would not cost that much anyway.

For much cheaper, much quicker links, just spend a fraction of the cost on upgrading existing track, use South Parkway as an alternative hub rather than trying to get into the city centre.

Find me reasonable upgrades that will get 2tph to Liverpool at 96 minutes.

 

[Manchester77]

PR1 you say what's the point in building the line only going half way up the country and that its too expensive. So if HS2 was built to Scotland which would be very expensive to to all the hills and geographical features of the landscape you'd complain about it becoming more expensive so surely your two points cancell each other out? Do you not understand how it will remove traffic from the WCML or..?

Without repeating much of what others have said firstly do you even know how much it has cost to upgrade the WCML? And also do you not realise that it would probably cost just as much to upgrade the WCML with the amount of capacity needed as it would to build HS2.

Ive only scanned the last few pages but I think someone was saying about extra capacity with ERTMS it still wouldn't be enough

 

[PR1Berske]

Your comments are full of vague assertions and ponderings. Have you studied the HS2 documentation and reports?

Anyone can just shoot off about the project in the way you have done. You started by quoting the £80 billions as though this is attested fact and coupled that with the ignorant 'saving of 15 minutes' mantra.
From then on, it has been impossible to take your postings seriously, although I commend colleagues who have attempted to do so.

You gather I can't be bothered. I do wish mods had separated the 'do we need HS2' into a second thread, so that those who wish to pursue that can do so there. May I plead again for that measure please?

There are thousands upon thousands of people across the country who won't read every single line of every single report, they just now that a £80bn vanity project is not good for them, their village, their town, their life, and just want it stopped.

I agree with them

So, no apologies for not being a rail anorak full of every class, sprocket and measurement, no apologies for not knowing every last penny, no apologies for not knowing every last junction. I just know what is right and wrong; right to spend small and well in specific areas, wrong to spend billions on an unproven, unwanted, unjustified, unnecessary commuter expressway. And I tell you what - when it comes down to it, politicians have to sell this in short, sharp, simple ways, and "It's £72bn to help you get into London" won't help your lot a damn inch my friend.

 

[Deerfold]

Then why bother? Why bother putting in a HS system which will only "get going" half way up the country?!

I just don't get it. I genuinely and completely don't get it. You're celebrating the fact that, say, Stoke on Trent will have to pay for a service it won't ever see? You're happy that Liverpool won't get access to a service whilst Manchester has millions spent on a new station extension?

You agree you don't understand why HS2 is good - but you're quite happy to quote complete garbage such as:

I am anti-HS2. £80bn for a London-Birmingham shuttle bus is obscene

and you're surprised people get wound up? I conclude troll and I'll leave you to it.

 

[Dave1987]

There are thousands upon thousands of people across the country who won't read every single line of every single report, they just now that a £80bn vanity project is not good for them, their village, their town, their life, and just want it stopped.

I agree with them

So, no apologies for not being a rail anorak full of every class, sprocket and measurement, no apologies for not knowing every last penny, no apologies for not knowing every last junction. I just know what is right and wrong; right to spend small and well in specific areas, wrong to spend billions on an unproven, unwanted, unjustified, unnecessary commuter expressway. And I tell you what - when it comes down to it, politicians have to sell this in short, sharp, simple ways, and "It's £72bn to help you get into London" won't help your lot a damn inch my friend.

I am not an "anorak" thanks.

You are entitled to your opinion, and so are all the other antis.

I've given up trying to explain o you as you are clearly not interested. I have great confidence that it will be built no matter how much antis scream and shout that its not needed etc. The govt is finally bing proactive about a problem before its too late. I just hope in 20 years time when/if you travel on it you will finally admit it was worth it (a long shot I know but I hope you do).

HS2 will greatly help the country and rail network.

 

[tbtc]

There are thousands upon thousands of people across the country who won't read every single line of every single report, they just now that a £80bn vanity project is not good for them, their village, their town, their life, and just want it stopped.

I agree with them

So, no apologies for not being a rail anorak full of every class, sprocket and measurement, no apologies for not knowing every last penny, no apologies for not knowing every last junction. I just know what is right and wrong

So, essentially, you've made your mind up and you are happy to be ignorant about the evidence?

Some people come on here to learn things (I was against HS2 a couple of years ago).

"It's £72bn to help you get into London"

Every post its a different figure

 

[PR1Berske]

You agree you don't understand why HS2 is good - but you're quite happy to quote complete garbage such as:



and you're surprised people get wound up? I conclude troll and I'll leave you to it.

Pathetic. "Troll" is the Godwin's Law of the modern era, and it stinks.

Would you go up to a person in the street with a pro-HS2 leaflet, and when they oppose you, claim them to be just taking the p----?

You're either deliberately misinterpreting or misuderstanding my position, or you're just going along with the pro-HS2 lobby without any checks or balances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, essentially, you've made your mind up and you are happy to be ignorant about the evidence?

Some people come on here to learn things (I was against HS2 a couple of years ago).



Every post its a different figure

The part in quotation marks was referencing what a politician would have to say. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not an "anorak" thanks.

You are entitled to your opinion, and so are all the other antis.

I've given up trying to explain o you as you are clearly not interested. I have great confidence that it will be built no matter how much antis scream and shout that its not needed etc. The govt is finally bing proactive about a problem before its too late. I just hope in 20 years time when/if you travel on it you will finally admit it was worth it (a long shot I know but I hope you do).

HS2 will greatly help the country and rail network.

I won't be patronised or bullied, ta.

And for that matter, I won't ride on HS2. It won't be built, God willing, but if it does get built, I won't use it, ever.

Can you justify this, perhaps?

HS2 could have a bigger impact on Leamington and Warwick than was first expected due to planned routes for construction traffic.

Maps published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England show routes for HGVs that would go right through both towns on the way to construction sites near Cubbington, Offchurch, Stoneleigh and Burton Green.

Parts of the high-speed rail route could take up to seven years to build.

Ralph Smyth, senior transport campaigner for the CPRE, said: “Leamington thought it was going to be unaffected by HS2 but our maps show for the first time that actually there will be construction traffic going through the heart of this beautiful town.

“That could mean many lorries a day for a couple of years running through the town with the noise, the pollution and the congestion.”

HS2’s chief executive Alison Munro has said that new data on the number of people that will be affected by the rail project are based on a “worst case” scenario.

Source: http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/news/local-news/construction-traffic-for-hs2-could-drive-right-through-the-heart-of-two-towns-1-5410772

Are you happy with HS2 not just missing towns and cities, but cutting through them? Is that a good use of public money?

 

[Dave1987]

I won't be patronised or bullied, ta.

And for that matter, I won't ride on HS2. It won't be built, God willing, but if it does get built, I won't use it, ever.

Can you justify this, perhaps?



Source: http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/news/local-news/construction-traffic-for-hs2-could-drive-right-through-the-heart-of-two-towns-1-5410772

Are you happy with HS2 not just missing towns and cities, but cutting through them? Is that a good use of public money?

Why did you say that all pro HS2 ppl are "anoraks", that is extremely patronising!

My family live in Stratford-on-Avon, I grew up there. I am disgusted that Warwicjshire county council are claiming they have no money to fund street lighting yet they have £100,000 to donate to the 51m group for court costs in fighting HS2.

You talk about construction vehicles going through towns but how do you think your proposed for upgrading the WCML would happen? Construction traffic would be needed for that causing congestion and polution. Come on buddy if you are really opposed to HS2 and you have done the research you claim to have done you would come up with better stuff than this. What about every new housing estate that gets built with the extra construction traffic that brings?

 

[jon0844]

The BBC talked again about HS2 and the fact that Darling is now against it. What I noticed was the village against it had posters saying No HS2 through the Chilterns.

Now doesn't that strike people as odd? That means they don't want HS2 built there, not that they don't want HS2 at all.

So, perhaps these antis should be asked if they'd support it with a different route or if it was tunneled beneath them. Then if they'd accept it with maybe some financial compensation.

 

[PR1Berske]

Why did you say that all pro HS2 ppl are "anoraks", that is extremely patronising!

My family live in Stratford-on-Avon, I grew up there. I am disgusted that Warwicjshire county council are claiming they have no money to fund street lighting yet they have £100,000 to donate to the 51m group for court costs in fighting HS2.

You talk about construction vehicles going through towns but how do you think your proposed for upgrading the WCML would happen? Construction traffic would be needed for that causing congestion and polution. Come on buddy if you are really opposed to HS2 and you have done the research you claim to have done you would come up with better stuff than this. What about every new housing estate that gets built with the extra construction traffic that brings?

So you justify (support?) splitting Leamington, Warwick and perhaps other towns in two, then, yes?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Because you have to send the services somewhere. Anywhere north of Birmingham will benefit from HS2 speed increases, since you can change at the end of the HS line.

But in all fairness we've already established / agreed that members of the travelling public don't like changing trains. I honestly feel that if we are to win over public opinion we need to widen the net of HS2.

 

[trainplan1]

The BBC talked again about HS2 and the fact that Darling is now against it. What I noticed was the village against it had posters saying No HS2 through the Chilterns.

Now doesn't that strike people as odd? That means they don't want HS2 built there, not that they don't want HS2 at all.

So, perhaps these antis should be asked if they'd support it with a different route or if it was tunneled beneath them. Then if they'd accept it with maybe some financial compensation.

This is exactly what I want most local antis to answer. Is it the whole concept or just because it goes through there patch? As I seem to get very inconsistent answers to the question I must wonder how informed some people are.

If the locals are just upset because of the route then fine, I can understand. There's going to be hardship no matter which route it takes. (Although any major civil engineering project will upset someone). If however they pile all sorts of tosh on top of it to try and justify its cancellation, that's what winds me up.

If there was a complete re-write of the concept and say HS2 ran via the M40 etc with a potential HS3 via the M1 and East Midlands I wonder how many of the previously affected villages would go quiet? :roll:
They would probably claim it was there fight that saw off the big bad government project...

 

[HSTEd]

So anyone who supports HS2 is an 'anorak'?
As is anyone who actually tries to get all the information about these things before coming to a decision?

Construction traffic will be a significant load for a few years and then it will be done.
This is the same nonsense about the Thames Tideway.

 

[Dave1987]

So you justify (support?) splitting Leamington, Warwick and perhaps other towns in two, then, yes?

By what do you mean splitting them in two?

Warwick and Leamington are basically the same town, you sort of just go from one to the other without realising it.

 

[NSEFAN]

Are you happy with HS2 not just missing towns and cities, but cutting through them? Is that a good use of public money?

The route isn't running through the heart of either of those towns, but some of the construction traffic might be. Did you even read the article you linked to?

Here, take a look at the official route map. You will see quite clearly that the planned route is not cutting through the heart of Leamington Spa or Warwick: http://www.hs2.org.uk/interactive-map

 

[RichmondCommu]

Because Buckinghamshire are having their lines upgraded. The chiltern line is by no means at full capacity so upgrades can be made to it and show a decent performance increase. Stoke has good links into Birmingham and wolves. Why do people at Kelvedon on GEML have to watch the London - Norwich intercity trains go barreling through with no prospect of catching them? Why doesn't the Virgin service to Glasgow stop at every single station it goes through?

Dave you seem to have forgotten that Stoke currently also has very good links to London. Unless Stoke has a regular CC service to London via the HS2 the city will fall further into decline. Having to take a 110 mph EMU to Birmingham will only result in a reduced level of service and people choosing to use the M6 unstead.

 

[Dave1987]

The route isn't running through the heart of either of those towns, but some of the construction traffic might be. Did you even read the article you linked to?

Here, take a look at the official route map. You will see quite clearly that the planned route is not cutting through the heart of Leamington Spa or Warwick: http://www.hs2.org.uk/interactive-map

Yeah it goes nowhere near either Warwick or Leamington town centres.

 

[Cletus]

Wow!
From post 3750 by PR1Berske this morning , we're now up to post number 3920

 

[HSTEd]

Dave you seem to have forgotten that Stoke currently also has very good links to London. Unless Stoke has a regular CC service to London via the HS2 the city will fall further into decline. Having to take a 110 mph EMU to Birmingham will only result in a reduced level of service and people choosing to use the M6 unstead.

Surely it would be a 110mph EMU to London via Birmingham Int?
You wouldn't loose so much time compared to now as to cause serious damage.
Although there would probably be a reduction from 2tph Manc-London to 1tph (although that may be avoidable with clever portion working of services).

Liverpool would likely have no classic ICWC trains at all, with Stafford calls being picked up b y other services.
Runcorn and Crewe would be served very well with CC trains.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Construction traffic will be a significant load for a few years and then it will be done.
This is the same nonsense about the Thames Tideway.

In all fairness though having heavy trucks passing by your home for months at a time will not be much fun. I guess you have to experience it to understand what it's like.

 

[Dave1987]

Dave you seem to have forgotten that Stoke currently also has very good links to London. Unless Stoke has a regular CC service to London via the HS2 the city will fall further into decline. Having to take a 110 mph EMU to Birmingham will only result in a reduced level of service and people choosing to use the M6 unstead.

Indeed, that is something that would need to be looked at, I haven't seen whether Curzon street would be a terminus or whether it will have a link through to new st so Stoke could be served from London via HS2 then onto the current lines from new st.

But that is something that would be of concern should Stoke suffer from HS2 being built.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In all fairness though having heavy trucks passing by your home for months at a time will not be much fun. I guess you have to experience it to understand what it's like.

My mum is just about to have 800 homes built at the back of her house in Stratford-on-Avon so yes I know what it's like to have that prospect.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Surely it would be a 110mph EMU to London via Birmingham Int?
You wouldn't loose so much time compared to now as to cause serious damage.
Although there would probably be a reduction from 2tph Manc-London to 1tph (although that may be avoidable with clever portion working of services).

How do you quantify serious damage? No 125 mph running, no tilt and stopping everywhere between Stoke and Birmingham International. That sounds pretty serious to me if there is only one train per hour between Manchester and London. And even then we don't know the distance between the classic and HS2 platforms at Birmingham International..

Liverpool would likely have no classic ICWC trains at all, with Stafford calls being picked up b y other services.
Runcorn and Crewe would be served very well with CC trains.

With all due respect I didn't mention these towns / city's. However it doesn't look too good if you want to travel from Liverpool to Milton Keynes et al.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, that is something that would need to be looked at, I haven't seen whether Curzon street would be a terminus or whether it will have a link through to new st so Stoke could be served from London via HS2 then onto the current lines from new st.

But that is something that would be of concern should Stoke suffer from HS2 being built.

I think you'll find that Curzon Street will be a terminus. Essentially we need to widen the net of HS2.

My mum is just about to have 800 homes built at the back of her house in Stratford-on-Avon so yes I know what it's like to have that prospect.

So how about showing a little more sympathy to those so called NIMBYS who will suffer from the passage of HGV's delivering materials to HS2? It's not hard to understand why they are holding out for more compensation.

 

[Dave1987]

So how about showing a little more sympathy to those so called NIMBYS who will suffer from the passage of HGV's delivering materials to HS2? It's not hard to understand why they are holding out for more compensation.

Actually buddy my mum is quite happy for it to be built as she will have a doctors surgery closer and appreciates the need for the extra housing. Ow I appreciate why people want compensation but my point is the NIMBYs who don't want it built because it will spoil their view. Also the dreaded 51M group who are wasting vast amounts of public money on this court action in a deliberate attempt to drive up the costs higher and higher. Some of the things that they have claimed the govt should have done is ridiculous. If it was just about compensation for the inconvenience in their lives then that would be fair enough but that's not what they are claiming in the courts.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Ow I appreciate why people want compensation but my point is the NIMBYs who don't want it built because it will spoil their view. Also the dreaded 51M group who are wasting vast amounts of public money on this court action in a deliberate attempt to drive up the costs higher and higher. Some of the things that they have claimed the govt should have done is ridiculous. If it was just about compensation for the inconvenience in their lives then that would be fair enough but that's not what they are claiming in the courts.

But surely if you owned a house in Bucks with a nice view (i.e. something that you had paid a lot of money for) I dare say you would be pretty annoyed with the prospect of having it ruined. This is why I have sympathy with those living close to the route.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But surely if you owned a house in Bucks with a nice view (i.e. something that you had paid a lot of money for) I dare say you would be pretty annoyed with the prospect of having it ruined. This is why I have sympathy with those living close to the route.

And if that argument was a game-changer we'd still be living in the bloody 1700s. Unfortunately some things have to give.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And if that argument was a game-changer we'd still be living in the bloody 1700s. Unfortunately some things have to give.

Not easy to accept if you've spent a lot of money and energy on a house with fantastic views. I don't think an attitude of 'I'm all right Jack' is particularly helpful.

 

[CalderRail]

Not easy to accept if you've spent a lot of money and energy on a house with fantastic views. I don't think an attitude of 'I'm all right Jack' is particularly helpful.

You do not own the view from your house. This comes up time and again in planning applications, and will never, ever, ever be grounds for planning permission to be blocked.

When you buy a property, you buy that property. If a motorway or rail line is developed (or a factory or housing development built) that changes your view, then your are just SOL.