HS2 and capacity on classic lines - Spectator Debate

[Bright Boy]

HS2 benefits a considerable number of people, not just the people who are going to travel on it regularly. All commuters and travellers on the current mainlines at intermediate stations will see improvements in their services which simply cannot be delivered without taking the non-stop trains and putting them on HS2. Reopened lines have to feed into classic lines and there won't be any space on the classic lines for any extra trains if there is no HS2, as the vast majority of reopened lines will connect to an HS2 city 'hub' at least once along their route. Spending £50bn on HS2 would do a lot more good for the country than spending £50bn on everything-public-transport-but-HS2 as any HS2 alternative would burn most of the money on expensive, complex and time-consuming upgrades of the lines relieved by HS2 while delivering effectively none of the benefits.

£50 billion, £50 billion, you keep repeating that large and flashy figure like its the answer to all our problems, it is not, by the time it will be built it will be £100 billion, or maybe £200 billion, maybe if we stretch to £300 billion we can reach Appleby or Redmire

Tell people in Leigh, Lancashire how many billions we are going to spend on HS2 and look at their faces when you tell them it is going right past them but not stopping !

A lot of what you say makes sense, and maybe there will be benefits from HS2 for the rest of the network, but with that kind of money you can make some real benefits to many parts of the rest of the country

 

[NotATrainspott]

""The Scottish Government are absolutely desperate for HS2 to be extended there and have been one of the most vocal supporters of every mention of HSR which has ever come out of Westminster. There is a report by Baroness Kramer being written right at this very moment which will explore getting the London-Scotland journey time under 3 hours which is being done in conjunction with the Scottish Government. It should be released soon, possibly even alongside the Higgins report due this Monday (17th March 2014).""



""They are building what they can at the moment, including a massive upgrade of the Edinburgh to Glasgow lines in EGIP. Once those upgrades are complete, there isn't a vast amount more than can really be done so that is why HSR planning has to start soon for it to be ready in time for passenger numbers requiring it. The same logic applies to the E&G lines as does the north-south mainlines in England.""


If they are so desperate for High Speed lines, why have they spent loads on opening old lines serving rail starved communities, and not saving their money for the big one? Scotland do not have a bottom-less pit of cash, where are they going to get their money from, Iceland, Isle of Man?

Maybe it is political posturing, playing a waiting game? My outlook on such matters is I will believe it when I see it

Until the route, funding and timescale for HS2 to the Scottish border is confirmed it is not the best use of resources for the Scottish Government to sit and do nothing, because HSR to London is still very much a very necessary long-term priority. In the shorter term, they are building a line to the Borders because that is something which delivers a great deal of good to the largest area in the UK without a single train station. Once it is complete, other priorities can be looked at in more detail (i.e. ones above and beyond the standard NR rolling improvements which now encompasses most of EGIP, in fact, and will then start electrifying Fife and the Forth Bridge) such as HSR.

The Borders Railway, along with most Scottish rail and public transport schemes, benefits mostly Scotland so it is not difficult to imagine why the UK government aren't required to fund them. However, HS2 is a national infrastructure scheme on such an enormous scale with enormous benefits which grow greater and greater as it is extended further. HS2 to Scotland benefits Scotland, yes, but it benefits the rest of the UK as well and not just because it would have a stop in Preston and Carlisle. There is no justifiable reason why the Scottish Government would have to pay for the entirety of an extension north, even after a Yes outcome which is unlikely.

 

[tbtc]

I can't understand why anyone would mention places like Cardiff or Norwich not benefitting from HS2. How does the WCML or ECML benefit them today?

They have their own lines to upgrade. The GWML is being electrified and upgraded and I'm sure the GEML will be improved too.

The point is HS2 isn't the only big rail project. Once built, we will be looking at HS3 and beyond. Maybe not in our lifetime, but they will be built for another 100-200 years or more.

This.

People don't complain that GWML electrification does nothing to help people in Hull, or that the Todmordon Chord doesn't help people in Ipswich or that passing loops in the Hope Valley won't help people in Dover.

But, for some reason, its okay to moan that HS2 doesn't help people hundreds of miles away from it?

It's not intended to solve everything. Nobody in the "pro" camp claims its a magic bullet, so I don't understand why the "anti" camp are complaining that this one scheme won't solve everything. HS2 spending is a fraction of what we are going to spend on upgrading "classic" lines over the next couple of decades. CP5 will see electrification and other upgrades all over the country.

Similarly, the "HS2 passes by some places without stopping there" argument... something we've been over a few times on here (frustrating that, now the "master" thread has been closed, we are having the same arguments on different threads) - several trains leave London and travel 50/100 miles without stopping - it's not a new phenomena to have trains running non-stop through the "Home Counties".

 

[NotATrainspott]

£50 billion, £50 billion, you keep repeating that large and flashy figure like its the answer to all our problems, it is not, by the time it will be built it will be £100 billion, or maybe £200 billion, maybe if we stretch to £300 billion we can reach Appleby or Redmire

Tell people in Leigh, Lancashire how many billions we are going to spend on HS2 and look at their faces when you tell them it is going right past them but not stopping !

A lot of what you say makes sense, and maybe there will be benefits from HS2 for the rest of the network, but with that kind of money you can make some real benefits to many parts of the rest of the country

But if you don't spend it on HS2, you have to spend almost all of it on upgrading the existing mainlines. The £50bn figure for HS2 is that high because instead of making it a 50% over-under figure, they made it a 95% figure (so there's only a 5% chance of it costing more and 95% of it costing less) because there is still quite a bit of risk involved in it until it is actually passed by Parliament and proper construction and planning can really commence. The figures for upgrading the existing mainlines do not take into account anywhere near the same amount of optimism bias even though the task they have to do is far, far more complicated and risky than a new line through open country. HS2 is completely mundane from an engineering perspective as everything has been done before and done bigger - the Chinese put their HSR lines on viaducts which are around as long as the whole of Phase 1! Upgrading the existing lines is fraught with problems and made worse by the fact that it would have to be all three at once. During the WCML upgrade fiasco, which ballooned in cost from ~£1.5bn to £8bn and delivered only a fraction of what it promised, the other mainlines were able to take up any displaced passengers through extra services (such as Midland Mainline's Project Rio trains from St Pancras to Manchester) which is not an option when all three lines have to be upgraded at the same time. After you finish upgrading them, you've only added around 20-30% extra capacity for 60-70% of the cost of HS2. Even if passenger growth slows down, by the time you finish you'll be in the same position as you started, and you'll have to build HS2 anyway! Only this time, the best land for HS2 will have been built on and you either have to buy it all and demolish it or design another route completely which won't be as good as the one that exists now. In the long term, you'll have spent more money on delivering the same or worse as is planned for HS2, so there will be even less money available for local schemes.

 

[Bright Boy]

I can't understand why anyone would mention places like Cardiff or Norwich not benefitting from HS2. How does the WCML or ECML benefit them today?

They have their own lines to upgrade. The GWML is being electrified and upgraded and I'm sure the GEML will be improved too.

The point is HS2 isn't the only big rail project. Once built, we will be looking at HS3 and beyond. Maybe not in our lifetime, but they will be built for another 100-200 years or more.

I just wanted to point out the cities that are not or unlikely to benefit from HS2, of course I know about the widespread electrification and other plans, to South Wales and other places, and they are railway projects that really will benefit the rail travelling public in a more widespread way.
I mentioned Plymouth, why not use a fraction of the HS2 money to re-open the former LSWR line through Okehampton & Tavistock to bypass the beautiful but troublesome coastal line, it would make a less problematic line to Plymouth, hopefully open all the time, and reconnect some places lost to the railway network.

For the money spent on HS2, how many projects like that can they open to the rest of the country ?

 

[jon0844]

Who says these other lines won't be reopened it built anyway? As in as well as.

HS2 won't be the only thing built in the future, and given the time to complete it, there will be many other projects running concurrently.

Divide the cost up on a yearly basis and it's not that much money. About the same as being spent on Crossrail isn't it? And Crossrail hasn't stopped loads of other projects, including Thameslink, London Overground and loads of new rolling stock - and that's just in and around London for starters. Plus billions on upgrading stations too.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Who says these other lines won't be reopened it built anyway? As in as well as.

HS2 won't be the only thing built in the future, and given the time to complete it, there will be many other projects running concurrently.

Divide the cost up on a yearly basis and it's not that much money. About the same as being spent on Crossrail isn't it? And Crossrail hasn't stopped loads of other projects, including Thameslink, London Overground and loads of new rolling stock - and that's just in and around London for starters. Plus billions on upgrading stations too.

Exactly the same as Crossrail, it is part of the same infrastructure fund, hence why building doesn't start till majority of Crossrail is complete.

 

[Bright Boy]

But if you don't spend it on HS2, you have to spend almost all of it on upgrading the existing mainlines. The £50bn figure for HS2 is that high because instead of making it a 50% over-under figure, they made it a 95% figure (so there's only a 5% chance of it costing more and 95% of it costing less) because there is still quite a bit of risk involved in it until it is actually passed by Parliament and proper construction and planning can really commence. The figures for upgrading the existing mainlines do not take into account anywhere near the same amount of optimism bias even though the task they have to do is far, far more complicated and risky than a new line through open country. HS2 is completely mundane from an engineering perspective as everything has been done before and done bigger - the Chinese put their HSR lines on viaducts which are around as long as the whole of Phase 1! Upgrading the existing lines is fraught with problems and made worse by the fact that it would have to be all three at once. During the WCML upgrade fiasco, which ballooned in cost from ~£1.5bn to £8bn and delivered only a fraction of what it promised, the other mainlines were able to take up any displaced passengers through extra services (such as Midland Mainline's Project Rio trains from St Pancras to Manchester) which is not an option when all three lines have to be upgraded at the same time. After you finish upgrading them, you've only added around 20-30% extra capacity for 60-70% of the cost of HS2. Even if passenger growth slows down, by the time you finish you'll be in the same position as you started, and you'll have to build HS2 anyway! Only this time, the best land for HS2 will have been built on and you either have to buy it all and demolish it or design another route completely which won't be as good as the one that exists now. In the long term, you'll have spent more money on delivering the same or worse as is planned for HS2, so there will be even less money available for local schemes.

I’m glad you mentioned China, I just spent Spring Festival in Nanning, Guang Xi province, they have just made a southern extension of their High Speed lines to Nanning, I don’t know how much it cost, but I do know that they did not build it on Viaducts on a completely new line.

They have upgraded their existing line into Nanning from the north, I know this because I have been there several times and used those lines, they run High Speed Trains, classic passenger trains and freight on the same lines, I know because I did a bit of line siding and have some photos to prove it, if the Chinese can do it, why can’t we ?, I’m sure it was a lot cheaper than building a completely new line.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I’m glad you mentioned China, I just spent Spring Festival in Nanning, Guang Xi province, they have just made a southern extension of their High Speed lines to Nanning, I don’t know how much it cost, but I do know that they did not build it on Viaducts on a completely new line.

They have upgraded their existing line into Nanning from the north, I know this because I have been there several times and used those lines, they run High Speed Trains, classic passenger trains and freight on the same lines, I know because I did a bit of line siding and have some photos to prove it, if the Chinese can do it, why can’t we ?, I’m sure it was a lot cheaper than building a completely new line.

The three longest bridges in the world are all HSR viaducts in China at 165km, 114km and 80km in length. That is the kind of record-breaking civil engineering which HS2 doesn't try to do because it really isn't worth the risk.

The Chinese also have the advantage their their main lines are not more than one and a half century old, as are the UK's. As a result further upgrades are not as completely unreasonable as they are in the UK. The best comparison for the UK is without doubt Japan and the Shinkansen due to the very hilly terrain, high population density and a legacy railway system which wasn't worth upgrading when a new line would be significantly better.

 

[Bright Boy]

Crossrail is an excellent project, it only serves the Greater London area directly (millions of rail users), but will also benefit many people coming into/going out of London, now that is a project that is really worth it.
I believe (I could be wrong) HS2 is already forecast as more expensive than that and set to rise, but despite the arguments I have seen on here, I still don’t believe it will benefit enough people to be worth what it will cost, I’d rather they used the money for much more worthwhile projects, for instance ones that will give rail access to people that don’t have it at present.

 

[jon0844]

A line going from London to Scotland (eventually) via the biggest cities in the UK - and it won't benefit enough people? A line that might also be connected to HS1 to allow people to travel to/from mainland Europe too?

Quite aside from the fact that the MML, ECML and WCML will be relieved of path-sapping Intercity services (well most of them) giving local services a better frequency, do you not think that many people want to travel from these cities to/from London (and of course between themselves)?

Do you really think a local line improvement in a rural area, which will obviously benefit those people, is comparable?

Seriously?

I'm sure you know this anyway - but have another reason to not want HS2 built?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Of course it costs more than Crossrail it is about 50 times longer.... ?

 

[Bright Boy]

How about this as a sketch for a new Blackadder comedy

The situation :- Blackadder is the current day Prime Minister, and Baldrick is the treasurer.

Scene :- Inside No. 10 Downing Street just after Blackadder and Baldrick have arrived back from a publicity trip from Manchester obviously the worse for wear having just rode on a packed train from Manchester to Euston.

Blackadder :- ‘Well balders that was an experience not too be forgotten’
Baldrick ; ‘I don’t think you were very popular m’lord’
Blackadder ; ‘Why Baldrick everyone was cheering us’
Baldrick ; ‘Those weren’t cheers m’lord’
Blackadder ; ‘Do you really think they don’t like me, why don’t they like me Baldrick’
Baldrick ; ‘You’re not very popular on account that the trains are overcrowded and people can’t get a seat’
Blackadder ; ‘But we had a seat’
Baldrick ; ‘Yus m’lord that’s because you’re the primeminister and have bodyguards who stop people taking your seat’
Blackadder ; ‘Is that why all those people were stood up? I thought they were saluting me, what about that rickety old woman with the sharpened newspaper eh, she was a one’
Bladrick ; ‘ nearly took your ‘ead off m’lord’
Blackadder ; ‘yes that was a close one, Baldrick were going to have to do something about it, we need a plan, a very good plan with a shiny coat and knobs on it’
Baldrick ; ‘ow about re-opening some of those old lines you closed ‘
Blackadder ; ‘what old lines Bladrick’
Baldrick ; ‘ you know thems that you closed cause you needed the money for the war’
Blackadder ; ‘oh those lines, no that’ll never work, its too simple and boring, what we need is something flashy and exciting, something that will need a vast amount of money to build, the public love that sort of thing’
Baldrick ; ‘how about a big new railway with really fast trains?’
Blackadder ; ‘excellent Baldrick, that’s a really good idea’
Baldrick ; ‘really sir, that’s the first time you’ve said that to me’
Blackadder ; ‘I know baldrick, usually you come up with stinkers but this time you’ve excelled yourself, but it needs a name?’
Baldrick ; ‘ow about High Speed 2, because we’ve already got one that comes from France, we could join onto it’
Blackadder ; ’Noooo, we need them to stop in London so they can spend lots of money, we’ll have to build a new station a little further away’
Baldrick ; ‘We could call it IS2, the public love a catchy name’
Blackadder ; ‘HS2 Baldrick!, High begins with an H’
Baldrick ; ‘no sir eye begins with an E’
Blackadder ; ‘well never mind that for now baldrick, how much should we say it will cost?’
Baldrick ; ‘5 million’
Blackadder; ‘oh for heavens sake Baldrick, use your imagination, we need a really big figure, a statement, something the people will really get excited about’
Baldrick; ’50 billion’
Blackadder; ‘that’s more like it, but tell you what Baldrick, why don’t we make it a round 100 billion’
Baldrick ; ‘but we haven’t got 100 billion, to be honest we haven’t even got 5 million’
Blackadder; ‘never mind about that Baldrick, we’ll get the public to pay for it’
Baldrick; ‘how m’lord’
Blackadder; ‘nick their pensions, or add more interest to their mortgages’
Bladrick; ‘we can’t do that, we did that last time for the war in Afghanistan’
Blackadder; ‘ oh yes, well just raise taxes on something, for heavens sake Baldrick, use your imagination, you are the treasurer after all’
Baldrick; ‘ I could put tax on the train fares’
Blackadder; ‘excellent Baldrick, make the railway travellers pay for it, perfect’
Baldrick; ‘how much do you think we should charge on the new trains’
Blackadder; ‘It will have to be expensive, double or even treble the ordinary fares so that it will be exclusive to rich people, people like us Baldrick, keep out all the riff-raff, that way we can have a peaceful journey in future, people will be desperate to travel on it, but can’t afford it, I like the sound of it already’
Baldrick; ‘so we build an expensive railway, with the people’s money, but we travel on it’
Balsckadder; ‘exactly Baldrick, you’ve got it in one’
Baldrick; ‘sir sir can I name the London station?’
Blackadder; ‘ oh alright Baldrick, what do you think, something like London International Terminal?’
Baldrick; ‘how about Elizabeth?’
Blackadder; ‘unususal, but OK, that will get the Queen on side too, perfect, alright Balders, off to work then, you announce it to the people, they’ll love you for that’
Badrick; ‘oh thank you sir’.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A line going from London to Scotland (eventually) via the biggest cities in the UK - and it won't benefit enough people? A line that might also be connected to HS1 to allow people to travel to/from mainland Europe too?

Quite aside from the fact that the MML, ECML and WCML will be relieved of path-sapping Intercity services (well most of them) giving local services a better frequency, do you not think that many people want to travel from these cities to/from London (and of course between themselves)?

Do you really think a local line improvement in a rural area, which will obviously benefit those people, is comparable?

Seriously?

I'm sure you know this anyway - but have another reason to not want HS2 built?

I thought I’d add a bit of humour to these proceedings !

You want another reason, I’ll give you three.

1, We will pay for it!
2, The recession we are in now will be nothing compared to the next one, because where are we going to get the money for it up front ?
3, After its opened we will have to pay to subsidise it!

p.s. Glasgow is our third biggest city, more people than Manchester & Leeds together

 

[NotATrainspott]

How about this as a sketch for a new Blackadder comedy

The situation :- Blackadder is the current day Prime Minister, and Baldrick is the treasurer.

Scene :- Inside No. 10 Downing Street just after Blackadder and Baldrick have arrived back from a publicity trip from Manchester obviously the worse for wear having just rode on a packed train from Manchester to Euston.

Blackadder :- ‘Well balders that was an experience not too be forgotten’
Baldrick ; ‘I don’t think you were very popular m’lord’
Blackadder ; ‘Why Baldrick everyone was cheering us’
Baldrick ; ‘Those weren’t cheers m’lord’
Blackadder ; ‘Do you really think they don’t like me, why don’t they like me Baldrick’
Baldrick ; ‘You’re not very popular on account that the trains are overcrowded and people can’t get a seat’
Blackadder ; ‘But we had a seat’
Baldrick ; ‘Yus m’lord that’s because you’re the primeminister and have bodyguards who stop people taking your seat’
Blackadder ; ‘Is that why all those people were stood up? I thought they were saluting me, what about that rickety old woman with the sharpened newspaper eh, she was a one’
Bladrick ; ‘ nearly took your ‘ead off m’lord’
Blackadder ; ‘yes that was a close one, Baldrick were going to have to do something about it, we need a plan, a very good plan with a shiny coat and knobs on it’
Baldrick ; ‘ow about re-opening some of those old lines you closed ‘
Blackadder ; ‘what old lines Bladrick’
Baldrick ; ‘ you know thems that you closed cause you needed the money for the war’
Blackadder ; ‘oh those lines, no that’ll never work, its too simple and boring, what we need is something flashy and exciting, something that will need a vast amount of money to build, the public love that sort of thing’
Baldrick ; ‘how about a big new railway with really fast trains?’
Blackadder ; ‘excellent Baldrick, that’s a really good idea’
Baldrick ; ‘really sir, that’s the first time you’ve said that to me’
Blackadder ; ‘I know baldrick, usually you come up with stinkers but this time you’ve excelled yourself, but it needs a name?’
Baldrick ; ‘ow about High Speed 2, because we’ve already got one that comes from France, we could join onto it’
Blackadder ; ’Noooo, we need them to stop in London so they can spend lots of money, we’ll have to build a new station a little further away’
Baldrick ; ‘We could call it IS2, the public love a catchy name’
Blackadder ; ‘HS2 Baldrick!, High begins with an H’
Baldrick ; ‘no sir eye begins with an E’
Blackadder ; ‘well never mind that for now baldrick, how much should we say it will cost?’
Baldrick ; ‘5 million’
Blackadder; ‘oh for heavens sake Baldrick, use your imagination, we need a really big figure, a statement, something the people will really get excited about’
Baldrick; ’50 billion’
Blackadder; ‘that’s more like it, but tell you what Baldrick, why don’t we make it a round 100 billion’
Baldrick ; ‘but we haven’t got 100 billion, to be honest we haven’t even got 5 million’
Blackadder; ‘never mind about that Baldrick, we’ll get the public to pay for it’
Baldrick; ‘how m’lord’
Blackadder; ‘nick their pensions, or add more interest to their mortgages’
Bladrick; ‘we can’t do that, we did that last time for the war in Afghanistan’
Blackadder; ‘ oh yes, well just raise taxes on something, for heavens sake Baldrick, use your imagination, you are the treasurer after all’
Baldrick; ‘ I could put tax on the train fares’
Blackadder; ‘excellent Baldrick, make the railway travellers pay for it, perfect’
Baldrick; ‘how much do you think we should charge on the new trains’
Blackadder; ‘It will have to be expensive, double or even treble the ordinary fares so that it will be exclusive to rich people, people like us Baldrick, keep out all the riff-raff, that way we can have a peaceful journey in future, people will be desperate to travel on it, but can’t afford it, I like the sound of it already’
Baldrick; ‘so we build an expensive railway, with the people’s money, but we travel on it’
Balsckadder; ‘exactly Baldrick, you’ve got it in one’
Baldrick; ‘sir sir can I name the London station?’
Blackadder; ‘ oh alright Baldrick, what do you think, something like London International Terminal?’
Baldrick; ‘how about Elizabeth?’
Blackadder; ‘unususal, but OK, that will get the Queen on side too, perfect, alright Balders, off to work then, you announce it to the people, they’ll love you for that’
Badrick; ‘oh thank you sir’.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I thought I’d add a bit of humour to these proceedings !

You want another reason, I’ll give you three.

1, We will pay for it!
2, The recession we are in now will be nothing compared to the next one, because where are we going to get the money for it up front ?
3, After its opened we will have to pay to subsidise it!

p.s. Glasgow is our third biggest city, more people than Manchester & Leeds together

1. But we will pay for not building HS2 as well. Not only the physical cost of constructing more grade-separated junctions and whatnot on the current main lines but also in the economic cost involved in causing 14 years of chaos on all three lines at once. Then there is the missed economic benefit that can only come when journey times are reduced as dramatically as they are on HS2. HS2 isn't happening in a bubble where everything will remain the same if we don't build it. Any criticisms levied against it on the basis that it will just suck more wealth southward ignore the fact that not building it would make the problem even worse as journey times and investment would get worse for the north.
2. Total HS2 expenditure is something on the order of 0.15% of national GDP per year, which is statistically irrelevant. The Bank of England did £375bn worth of quantitative easing over only a couple of years during the financial crisis, which makes the cost of HS2 pale in insignificance. People see £42bn and assume it is all the money in the world when in reality is is small change for a £1tn economy like ours, and is not vastly more than the cost of expanding Heathrow and probably less than the cost of building Boris Island.
3. No, Greater Glasgow is about 1.2 million which puts it fifth after Greater London, Manchester, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire. HS2 will come to Scotland but only once the sections further south are either under construction or finished.

 

[Bright Boy]

1. But we will pay for not building HS2 as well. Not only the physical cost of constructing more grade-separated junctions and whatnot on the current main lines but also in the economic cost involved in causing 14 years of chaos on all three lines at once. Then there is the missed economic benefit that can only come when journey times are reduced as dramatically as they are on HS2. HS2 isn't happening in a bubble where everything will remain the same if we don't build it. Any criticisms levied against it on the basis that it will just suck more wealth southward ignore the fact that not building it would make the problem even worse as journey times and investment would get worse for the north.
2. Total HS2 expenditure is something on the order of 0.15% of national GDP per year, which is statistically irrelevant. The Bank of England did £375bn worth of quantitative easing over only a couple of years during the financial crisis, which makes the cost of HS2 pale in insignificance. People see £42bn and assume it is all the money in the world when in reality is is small change for a £1tn economy like ours, and is not vastly more than the cost of expanding Heathrow and probably less than the cost of building Boris Island.
3. No, Greater Glasgow is about 1.2 million which puts it fifth after Greater London, Manchester, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire. HS2 will come to Scotland but only once the sections further south are either under construction or finished.

I stand corrected, when I was at school Glasgow’s population was 3 million, Manchester 1.5 million, Leeds 700,000, it seems to have gone down, I just checked, Greater Glasgow is now 1.85 million, not 1.2, that is just Glasgow and the Clyde, Greater Manchester (including Wigan & Bolton) is 1.2 million and Leeds is now 750,000, so both together they are slightly more than greater Glasgow.

So I am mistaken, in fact Greater Glasgow is almost the same as Manchester & Leeds together, so that still makes Glasgow no. 3 in size !!!

So you have to ask yourselves, why don’t they build HS2 to Glasgow if they want to serve the largest centres of population?

Answer, not many Tory MP’s in Glasgow !!

 

[jon0844]

Scotland will build any lines in Scotland, but they won't build a line that doesn't join up with anything.

Once the details are finalised and approved, and starts to begin, Scotland can then start on its end.

 

[Manchester77]

I stand corrected, when I was at school Glasgow’s population was 3 million, Manchester 1.5 million, Leeds 700,000, it seems to have gone down, I just checked, Greater Glasgow is now 1.85 million, not 1.2, that is just Glasgow and the Clyde, Greater Manchester (including Wigan & Bolton) is 1.2 million and Leeds is now 750,000, so both together they are slightly more than greater Glasgow.

So I am mistaken, in fact Greater Glasgow is almost the same as Manchester & Leeds together, so that still makes Glasgow no. 3 in size !!!

So you have to ask yourselves, why don’t they build HS2 to Glasgow if they want to serve the largest centres of population?

Answer, not many Tory MP’s in Glasgow !!

That can't be correct since the 2001 census shows the manchester urban area with a population of 2.2 million and the West Midlands as 2.2 million (both figures rounded however WM slightly larger in the 2001 census). Manchester is the second fastest growing area so it can't have shrunk to 1.2 million. According to Wikipedia (I know it's not the best place!) in 2011 manchester was 2.5 and Glasgow 1.68

So the 2011 census invalidates that point unfortunately.

HS2 is about capacity but the government is also very conscious that if it's priced too high even more support would be lost. Building HS2 north of Wigan to Scotland would increase this cost. Furthermore it's not like Scotland won't benefit at all, the current ICWC/ICEC trains will use HS2 until their northern junctions where they will run on the existing main lines.

I don't really get your point here because HS2 will serve Glasgow and reading your arguments in precious pages about it not benefiting Liverpool/Bristol, the former will have CC trains replacing existing ICWC services and the latter is seeing the GWML upgraded. The fact people say well HS2 won't benefit me because I live in Weymouth is stupid, Crossrail doesn't benefit me in the slightest I won't see any improvements in my local train services but it doesn't mean I think we should scrap it because it's clear it will benefit the economy, as will HS2 but on a much larger scale.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I stand corrected, when I was at school Glasgow’s population was 3 million, Manchester 1.5 million, Leeds 700,000, it seems to have gone down, I just checked, Greater Glasgow is now 1.85 million, not 1.2, that is just Glasgow and the Clyde, Greater Manchester (including Wigan & Bolton) is 1.2 million and Leeds is now 750,000, so both together they are slightly more than greater Glasgow.

So I am mistaken, in fact Greater Glasgow is almost the same as Manchester & Leeds together, so that still makes Glasgow no. 3 in size !!!

So you have to ask yourselves, why don’t they build HS2 to Glasgow if they want to serve the largest centres of population?

Answer, not many Tory MP’s in Glasgow !!

My figures are from the Office of National Statistics. There may be some discrepancy between different sources due to the different interpretations of where the city ends but the ONS isn't exactly going to be inaccurate. These figures show that you are indeed wrong and Glasgow is not the second largest city any more, at least at the time of the 2011 census. That was likely very different a long time ago, but that doesn't matter.

There are going to be HS2 trains to Edinburgh and Glasgow, it is just that they don't spend all their time on HSR track. Trying to build the entire scheme: Merseyside, TransPennine, Newcastle, Scotland and all atop the current Y network would be an admirable goal but would almost certainly either delay the coming of any routes or would use the entirety of the UK's civil engineering economic output at once. In an ideal world we would have started building this network ten years ago instead of trying to upgrade the WCML, but we have to do the best we can do now and trying to run before we can walk is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Bright Boy]

I got Glasgow’s 2013 population from the Scottish office statistics, and Manchester from the 2013 population figures, earlier this evening, I can’t get any more nearer than that, I don’t know where you get your figures from ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But apart from the facts and figures, this is getting away from the fact that the time and Money spent on HS2, could be better spent elsewhere.

I’m not against new railways, I just don’t want to waste public money on something that is aimed by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful, I think I have made my case.

 

[Manchester77]

But apart from the facts and figures, this is getting away from the fact that the time and Money spent on HS2, could be better spent elsewhere.

I’m not against new railways, I just don’t want to waste public money on something that is aimed by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful, I think I have made my case.

But we can't just go upgrading lines when you will get very little extra capacity out of them. If you want to take freight off the roads or increase frequencies then you need to get rid of the path eating trains which are your 125mph fast intercity services. If you can replace 3 mainlines worth of intercity traffic with new HDHS paths then that will allow the existing network the breathe. Take the at capacity Piccadilly - Stockport part of the railway network, following virgin's VHF timetable there had to be major changes with northern removing local stoppers to accommodate the new timetable. If you get rid of even 2 ICTPH from the Piccadilly throat you can run extra local stoppers.

Your argument that it will only be for the rich is like the argument northen should lose their franchise because their livery is dull; it doesn't have any basis. HS2 directly replaces intercity traffic and you have the advantage of all HS2 services being operated out of a single termini (and so a single operator)

 

[Altnabreac]

I got Glasgow’s 2013 population from the Scottish office statistics, and Manchester from the 2013 population figures, earlier this evening, I can’t get any more nearer than that, I don’t know where you get your figures from ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But apart from the facts and figures, this is getting away from the fact that the time and Money spent on HS2, could be better spent elsewhere.

I’m not against new railways, I just don’t want to waste public money on something that is aimed by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful, I think I have made my case.

Try having a look at this page here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
It's Wikipedia but the numbers are from ONS so you can't dispute their broad correctness.

The ten largest conurbations in the UK in order are:
1: London
2: Greater Manchester
3: West Midlands
4: West Yorkshire
5: Greater Glasgow
6: Liverpool Urban Area
7: South Hampshire
8: Tyneside
9: Nottingham
10: Sheffield

What do you notice that 9 of these 10 have in common?

HS2 funnily enough. It will directly link 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10. Classic compatibles will run on the existing network to 5, 6 and 8.

South Hampshire is the odd one out of course but you can't deny that serving 9 of the 10 largest cities is a pretty convincing argument that HS2 is serving the right places.

 

[Bright Boy]

Try having a look at this page here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
It's Wikipedia but the numbers are from ONS so you can't dispute their broad correctness.

The ten largest conurbations in the UK in order are:
1: London
2: Greater Manchester
3: West Midlands
4: West Yorkshire
5: Greater Glasgow
6: Liverpool Urban Area
7: South Hampshire
8: Tyneside
9: Nottingham
10: Sheffield

What do you notice that 9 of these 10 have in common?

HS2 funnily enough. It will directly link 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10. Classic compatibles will run on the existing network to 5, 6 and 8.

South Hampshire is the odd one out of course but you can't deny that serving 9 of the 10 largest cities is a pretty convincing argument that HS2 is serving the right places.

Wikipedia is about as accurate as a sundial at night

 

[Manchester77]

Wikipedia is about as accurate as a sundial at night

Yes but:

It's Wikipedia but the numbers are from ONS so you can't dispute their broad correctness.

 

[transmanche]

Wikipedia is about as accurate as a sundial at night

Wikipedia is as accurate as the sources cited - which are included for you to verify yourself. The information on that page is cited as having been sourced from ONS.

 

[Altnabreac]

Wikipedia is about as accurate as a sundial at night

An excellent and well argued point.

To be fair there are valid criticisms you can make of this list. Firstly ONS (in England & Wales) and GRO (in Scotland) use slightly different methodologies so the numbers are not strictly comparable. However I think they are close enough for this particular exercise.

Secondly the Scottish numbers are from 2001 as no one has updated the wikipedia page yet with 2011 numbers. However I've checked the Scottish Census 2011 website (http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ods-web/data-warehouse.html Release 2a, table KS101SC) and the updated Glasgow number (1,209,643) doesn't change the relative positions.

Thirdly the definitions separate conurbations that have any empty fields (or water) between them, no matter how interlinked the economies and transport systems are. You can argue that various different conurbations should actually be linked together for transport planning purposes. The most obvious one is Liverpool where the Wirral (defined by ONS as the Birkenhead Urban Area) is really part of the same Conurbation for transport purposes, albeit separated by the River Mersey.

You can make similar arguments to include Wearside with Tyneside; Barnsley & Dearne Valley with Sheffield; to combine Derby and Nottingham together and to add East Kilbride, Cumbernauld and Hamilton to Greater Glasgow.

Wigan and Warrington are a bit trickier as you can make arguments for including them in both Merseyside or Greater Manchester but it wouldn't change the ranking and I'll leave them separate as they will be served by separate HS2 services.

This leaves you a list of:
1: London 9,787,426
2: Greater Manchester 2,553,379
3: West Midlands 2,440,986
4: West Yorkshire 1,777,934
5: Greater Glasgow & Clyde 1,406,236
6: Liverpool & Wirral 1,189,386
7: Tyne & Wear 1,110,136
8: Nottingham / Derby 1,000,445
9: Sheffield / South Yorkshire 908,649
10: South Hampshire 855,569

If anything that list would support the argument for HS2 serving the right places even more as South Hampshire drops further down the list.

You could even make an argument that for Transport purposes Preston is the railhead for a Central Lancashire Conurbation combining Blackpool/Preston/Blackburn/Burnley/Accrington that would have a larger population (973,733) than South Hampshire and South Yorkshire and appear at number 9 on the list, thus showing HS2 serves the UK's 10 largest conurbations!

Perhaps you disagree and have some different numbers showing that there are lots of large urban areas not served by HS2? Feel free to show us the evidence...

 

[tbtc]

If they were given that choice, they would always choose HS2 or something similar, primarily because they are not interested in serving the majority of peoples needs, in the regions, they are more interested in serving themselves an their business friends, now that MP's expenses come under more scrutiny they are having a difficult time of fiddling the figures with second homes, and they don't like "mixing" it with normal working class people on busy trains for a long journey, so now they want a faster, more exclusive train where they don't have to share first class when the train is packed, why do you think this extremely expensive project got through parliament?, why they all support it and why they have turned down all the objections.

They will not be concerned with how much a ticket costs, because they can claim it all back in their expenses, and use the taxpayers money to build it !, most of the tax of course being paid by working class people

I'm probably Working Class by most definitions, I live in a terraced house in Sheffield for example, but the inverted snobbery about HS2 really grinds my gears - if I had a pound for every time I saw the "...so that a businessman can get to London five minutes earlier..." argument, I could have paid for the whole scheme by now!

I live near Manchester, if I want to travel to London, and I do once or twice a year, either I get a Virgin advance or rent a car (I don't have a car at present) I have considered getting the coach, but I would be very bored. I would not spend the amount it costs for a regular ticket on the train just to save about 1 hour in travel time. So why would I pay maybe around £70-100 more than that (estimate) to save another 40-50 minutes !

You're making the mistake of thinking that you are a typical passenger. Whilst you may only want to go to London once a year, the WCML is getting busier and busier with passengers who do make the journey from Manchester/ Liverpool/ Chester etc on a regular basis - even though frequencies have gone up since privatisation.

There's a market for leisure travellers, there's a market for commuters, there's a market for lots of journeys, which is why we need more capacity.

I mentioned Plymouth, why not use a fraction of the HS2 money to re-open the former LSWR line through Okehampton & Tavistock

How about this as a sketch for a new Blackadder comedy

<snip>

So instead of building a line that links nine or ten or the largest ten urban areas in the UK, you'd rather build a line to Dunny-on-the-Wold (to use a Blackadder reference)?

As I've said before on here, if HS2 were on the path of some bankrupt Victorian railway, enthusiasts would be eager for it to re-open.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As I've said before on here, if HS2 were on the path of some bankrupt Victorian railway, enthusiasts would be eager for it to re-open.

I like that

You only have to look at the night time satellite images to see why HS2 is taking the route it is.

 

[Bright Boy]

There are a few of sayings from where I am from , maybe you have heard of them ;-

"A fool and his money soon go their separate ways"

"More money than sense"

"Like a blinkered horse"

also when you talk up this lunatic scheme, think about all the people in towns that do not have a Railway Service (Dunny-on-the-wold included) like Leigh and Lutterworth, I could draw up a list if you like, there's probably about fifty, I just counted 6 in Cornwall alone

 

[Altnabreac]

There are a few of sayings from where I am from , maybe you have heard of them ;-

"A fool and his money soon go their separate ways"

"More money than sense"

"Like a blinkered horse"

also when you talk up this lunatic scheme, think about all the people in towns that do not have a train (Dunny-on-the-wold included)

Or in other words you can't/won't address the substantive points made by other posters so you'll put a folksy quote up instead.

I'm all in favour of sensible reopenings to non rail served towns (we've managed a few in Scotland in recent years, 21 since privatisation http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Station+Openings) but see no reason why that means that HS2 would not be a sensible option to progress as well.

Certainly in Scotland HS2 has a high level of political support (and funding for the first stage of work) but so do re-openings like Borders Rail.

We are likely to see more re-openings in next 10 years to places like Grangemouth and Levenmouth as well.

This thread lists more than 16 stations currently progressing through the STAG process for reopening:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95229

And there is £32m of funding to help these schemes on their way.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...rail2014/Scottish_Stations_Fund_Process_0.pdf

So supporting and funding High Speed Rail doesn't need to mean not building new routes or stations. If we can manage both in Scotland I see no reason why the same can't happen down south.

 

[Bright Boy]

A lot of the points you and others make are irrelevant to my argument, which is why pay all that money for a completely new railway, built on new land (or under/over it), which is upsetting many landowners and people who have homes on the route, the so called "NIMBYs" many who have a genuine complaint.

When you have many towns, large and small, without railway access, and many current stations that you need to take a long way round to journey to/from, clogging up the main lines, which I also mentioned in previous posts.

With no local stations, just stations where we already have stations, routes that are already established (London - Birmingham, London - Manchester, London - Leeds).

I know it is for a faster line with shortened journey times, but all destinations with airline competition (less so Birmingham - London, but the time saved is less and it has three rail companys already in competition), so the benefit of time saved is negligible compared to them.

And for me it is pointless to keep going around in circles arguing about trivial matters such as the population of Glasgow, also some of the "facts & figures" are debateable, for instance the Benefits:Cost ratio, who invented that one?, Benefits - to whom, how can you possibly calculate that, it may well Benefit someone, who and how many?, not enough in my opinion. Cost - we don't know how much it is going to cost by the time it is completed, we just have estimates, which keep rising. So how can you calculate the Benefits:Cost ratio ?

And the arguments over Glasgow's population are ridiculous, is Glasgow and its catchment area one of the largest in the UK?, 3rd or 4th !!! who cares, they have a large population, if the arguments about the line serving the largest population centres are to be believed then that's where the line should go after Manchester, not Leeds, they should have a branch, along with almost all the other big cities I have named in a previous Post, or a completely different line. Is it because there are less tory Mp's in Glasgow and no voters for them?

Also my Belief is that this HS2 line is promoted by the politicians for other reasons other than to help the public or relive other lines.

I'm glad you are in favour of "sensible" re-openings, and I know that both the English and Scottish governments have started and continue to do that which is very good, but for me this line is not sensible. And I note that you use the word "sensible", does that me that you agree with me that HS2 is not sensible ?

£32 million for other projects is good, but how many billions which they are planning to spend on HS2 could they use for these other projects, or other things such as education and hospitals? and that is why I call this a "lunatic scheme".

The Blackadder sketch was just a lighthearted/satrical side to this debate, but it does have a serious message, just as it did in Blackadder 4 about WW1, as do the "folksy quotes"

This is a forum where everyone can view their opinion, What I have wrote is my opinion and I am writing about this matter here in order to hopefully change some people's opinions about this scheme, and at least I may have opened some peoples minds to a different view on this project, some people I will not change, but that is the way things go.

another "folksy quote" we have is :-

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"