There are no open access operators on the WCML.
Important question is how many free paths are there in peak time, ie when people want to travel ?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
HS2 Phase 2 or NPR
- Thread starter Legolash2o
- Start date
- Status
Important question is how many free paths are there in peak time, ie when people want to travel ?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Oh well. How sad. Never mind.
HS2 is a gross scandal beyond all measure, and its cancellation would make me exceptionally happy.
Trains are still running into Euston, yes? Then there is capacity.
Scrap HS2, and do it now. Do it yesterday.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,174
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,674
Still not answering it.
This is a strange comment. Do you believe that, once the line is at capacity, all trains will come to a halt? The crucial things are: Are the existing trains overcrowded? Is it possible to fit more, or longer, trains on the existing lines and would this result in more passengers travelling?
So which member of Stop HS2 are we dealing with here?
A "monstrous " waste of money would be to scrap it now after it is well under way and countless billions already spent.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
I live in and area of East Sussex, where neither HS1 or HS2 has any effect on making my local trains better.
But from plans I have seen of both HS2 and NPR, as Hwl has said they are reliant on each other. So it is not a case of choosing between NPR & HS2, it is whether you choose HS2 on it's own or whether you choose HS2 with NPR Personally, I would go for HS2 with NPR. This would give you journey time reductions across many routes and give capacity on many cramped railway lines for many years to come without having to make further capacity just 5 to 10 years after HS2 2B has been opened.
Your suggestion is like getting half way through building something and then saying "Hang on a minute we don't need this!".
Due to what the country has gone through over the last 16 months or more with Covid-19, this country and many other countries need to look at bringing down carbon dioxide(CO2) rates in the atmosphere. This means getting more people out of travelling in their cars, more freight on rails and less people using planes to get from London to Edingburgh or Glasgow. The quicker and more efficient you can make the railway system, the more likely people will change from travelling by car or by plane to travelling by rail. This to an extent has been shown by what has been done in the likes of France & Germany over the last 20 years or more.
To have those faster trains, a new line needs to be built as existing lines cannot be safely used above 125mph. You cancel HS2 and yes it maybe a bit of a leap, but be prepared for people to be dying of similar pandemics to Covid-19 over the next 50 - 60 years because CO2 rates have gone even higher. While yes, building HS2 is not the only answer to bringing CO2 rates down, it is one of many answers that needs to be done over the next 50 - 60 years.
It isn't just a case of HS2 or HS2 + NPR, the reality also includes a very strong third option of HS2 + some parts of NPR (e.g. Liverpool - Manchester) for which the business case is very good.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If that happened, do you think private industry would ever do work for government again, without demanding a massive payment up front? And what do you think that would do to your tax bill?
Frankly you sound like a spoilt three year old. I want my way and l want it now. Zero logic or rationale. "I'll scream and I'll scream and....".
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
However you want to phrase it, having HS2 with NPR I would have hoped would enabled better services for Liverpool - Manchester by default.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Yes, but just doing HS2 and the bits of NPR that are between Liverpool and Manchester would deliver some of the benefits of NPR but avoid much of the NPR cost.
LOL The Irony
Established Member
"Trains are still running through the Castlefield corridor, yes? Then there is capacity.
Scrap Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16 and the Oxford Road upgrade and do it now. Do it yesterday."
Elecman
Established Member
That’s what Grayling did sadly
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I think HS2 phase 2 should be part of HS3 really. Liverpool/Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield and back to Birmingham. There should be a triangular junction somewhere near Pennistone so Manchester trains can reach Sheffield/Nottingham. That would be a much better connected network.
HS4 could be a route into Scotland or an extension up to Newcastle.
HS4 could be a route into Scotland or an extension up to Newcastle.
Someone's definitely ready HSUK's plans, which are a complete misnomer for what will actually be happening.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
Funny you say that, I've been accused of being a Greenguage21 supporter on here in the past for supporting a London to East Midlands line through East Anglia!
Purple Orange
On Moderation
This is a false question. NPR is principally connecting the biggest northern cities with faster journey times, yet don’t we also need to see Birmingham connected with faster journey times too? I think connecting Birmingham to Manchester in 45 minutes is just as important as connecting Leeds to Manchester in 35 minutes.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,304
Ultimately if NPR achieves anything clsoe to what was originally proposed, the rationale for HS2 Phase 2 East north of Chesterfield pretty much vanishes.
I would much prefer the money required for that section be spent on improvements further North that will allow HS2 to reach its full potential, for example part of a Lakes bypass route
I would much prefer the money required for that section be spent on improvements further North that will allow HS2 to reach its full potential, for example part of a Lakes bypass route
LOL The Irony
Established Member
Indeed he pretty much did but my main point still stands. Also now would probably be a good time to tell @aoin that @The Planner works in the industry.
Unfortunately the CO2 argument for HS2 doesn't really stack up, the project's own modelling shows a very long period required before the high upfront emissions created from its construction are paid back by the annual CO2 savings, the forecasts are looking at over 100 years. That isn't going to help, indeed over the next few decades HS2 will likely be a net contributor to global warming.
Rail is only small fraction of UK transport miles, it doesn't matter what you do with rail it can't solve the problem or have anything more than a minor impact, the focus has to be on decarbonising road transport, you could achieve far more by taking just 10% of the HS2 budget, £5-10Bn and building a nationwide electric vehicle charging network.
In 2009, starting at a baseline of 100, it was expected that by 2019 that passenger numbers would reach 128.
In 2019 it reached 173.
Now whilst it's likely that passenger numbers would fall in the short to medium term, however to still be broadly on track for 2025 (148) passenger numbers could fall by about 15% from the 2019 "peak".
Now whilst passenger numbers could fall further than that, it could also be the case that numbers could rise further.
Now whilst commuting and business travel could well fall, the other factor to consider is that such a fall could mean that for some ownership of as many cars may not be justified. Which in turn could increase infrequent rail travel.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Whilst rail provides limited amount of the travel milage in the UK, it is still 10% of the total miles traveled.
However, EV's are not enough on their own. To give you an idea of how they compare, the current amount of diesel use on the railways is quite significant, however even so the average emissions per person per km is similar to that of an EV.
However that's only part of the story, as it is quite likely that rail uses are more likely to use non car modes for their local travel than car users. As such their per km emissions would likely be lower overall.
Also, on average going from 2 ICE cars to 2 EV's would reduce your carbon emissions by 1/3 whilst going from 2 ICE cars to just one you'd 1/2 your carbon emissions.
If we want many fewer cars to be used (and there's currently more private vehicles than tax payers) then we need a much better public transport system. That includes more rail capacity.
If we really want to reduce carbon emissions the thing to do is build much more rail capacity and as we do close down the motorway network. As the emissions from just maintaining the trunk road network is higher than maintaining the rail network (even though the rail network is a little over double the length).
Whilst HS2 quote possible figures for carbon emissions over 120 years for the building, maintaing and operation of it, these are generally small compared to just the operation of a motorway of a fraction of the length for 60 years.
Take the lower Thames Crossing, it is expected to produce 6 million tonnes of carbon over a 60 year period, even though it's about 15 miles long. Compare that to HS2, which is 1.5 million tonnes over a 120 year period and is several times the number of miles (even if you just consider Phase 1).
As such (assuming 50% of those revisions are in the build process) we could close 30 miles of motorway (cuts 0.1 million tonnes/year) for every 100 miles of new railway (adds 1.5 million tonnes) and reduce emissions by enough to offset the new railway within 15 years (probably 20, as some of the emission reductions for HS2 are from things like tree planting).
Obviously Rail can't make every trip that is done by car, however it could cater for many of the long distance travel which is done on the strategic road network. Pair that with more e-bike usage for local trips and we could reduce significantly the need to own as many cars as we as a country currently do.
Last edited:
Actually the HS2 figures are grossly conservative.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
I haven't voted as I do not think it acceptable that we should even have to contemplate having to chose one over the other. The synergies available from doing both have convinced me that both should be built.
Indeed, however I'd argue that not only should we do both but we should also continue investing in the rest of the rail network as well.
In the last decade there's been about £30 billion invested in enhancements to the Network Rail infrastructure (i.e. doesn't count TfL or TfW spending, nor things like new trains).
With more electrification (which would only need modest amounts to ensure rail has lower carbon emissions per person per km than EV's) being likely to improve the country's carbon emissions (and potentially the cost of the subsidy to operate the railway), then hopefully more investment will be coming forwards.
However what's needed for the railways is only ever going to be what's needed to achieve lower carbon emissions (let alone getting to meet zero). More of us will need to travel less (which home working a few days a week will help with) and walk and cycle more of our journeys (note, more not all, something that both sides of the debate over things like LTN sometimes forget) as well as using public transport more often.
Ideally that would be at the expense of some car ownership (some who own cars only really "need" then infrequently but once they own them use them a lot as otherwise it's hard to justify the significant upfront costs).
For instance car clubs and the use of taxis can be useful to cover some of that need, however can only ever be part of a wider improvement in public transport.
daodao
Established Member
I haven't voted either because there are insufficient options: there should be additional options of both and neither.
I support HS2 parts 1 and 2a as a means of improving capacity on the congested southern part of the WCML as far as Crewe. However, London trains currently diverge in 4 different directions north of there, so building further phases of HS2 north of Crewe is not justified IMO in terms of capacity improvements, or additional time savings. The proposed route into central Manchester beyond Hale Barns will be very expensive to construct.
As for the eastern leg, the proposed station at Toton serves neither Derby or Nottingham properly. HS2 phase 1 can serve Derby and Sheffield by routeing 2 tph onto the ex-Midland Birmingham-Derby line near Tamworth, with the remaining express service from St Pancras running to Nottingham via Leicester. That would improve average journey times from London to Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield. The lesser improvement in journey times and enhanced capacity to Leeds, York and beyond provided by HS2 over the ECML is not worth the cost.
It is not worth building NPR as a new high speed line, as the time savings are very limited, but I do support improvements to the existing trans-Pennine routes from Manchester to Leeds (via Huddersfield) and Sheffield. Longer trains (8 carriages on the main services) would provide capacity improvements. A new line from Manchester to Sheffield would be ideal, given the problems with the Hope Valley line and difficulties in electrifying it (multiple tunnels and a route through a national park), but would be unaffordable and not justified by the potential traffic. It was unfortunate that it was impracticable to build a curve to divert Woodhead line passenger trains into Sheffield Midland station 50+ years ago.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
If you don’t support anything north of Crewe, then I take it that you don’t support building Curzon Street? Building a 7 platform station to only serve 3 tph to London is profligate.
And you must not support enabling greater capacity services in to Manchester with services running on both the existing line and on HS2?
Plus you must not support enabling greater capacity in to Birmingham on the line from Wolverhampton?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,304
Wouldn't going to Crewe enable this regardless?
You can operate Curzon street in much the same way as it is proposed with a line only to Crewe!
Purple Orange
On Moderation
No, because that would require all five Manchester services to run through Wilmslow, with the addition of the Wales service and commuter trains. It’s essentially asking for an additional 4 fast services to be funnelled down that line, which would crowd out everything else.
You could run the Scotland service from Birmingham this way though, so there would be 4 tph running in to a 7 platform station.
To cut to the nub of it, phase 2b unlocks a lot of capacity.
- Status