High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[Geezertronic]

I ask again, who are the 20,000 people an hour that want to travel from London to Birmingham...train 3-4 mins headway carrying a potential 1000 punters. They have to be near full to pay for thgemselves!!!

I believe this has been answered many many times. The initial Labour plans for HS2 to Birmingham had a connection to the WCML around Lichfield where trains for destinations north of Birmingham could join meaning that destinations north (north/west) of Brum could be served using HS2

The current government plans indicate extensions to Manchester and Leeds and I would assume the same principle applies with assumed planned connections to the WCML and ECML.

HS2 has never been specifically about London-Birmingham trains, it's a common NIMBY comment to make.

 

[Metroland]

As to metroland's statements that this is too important and difficult a subject to be discussed here, he does admirably demonstrate that with his level of argument.



I thought that's what you did already.

Have you actually got anything sensible to say?

I spend a lot of time on here trying to make interesting, researched posts and share knowledge.

I am becoming increasingly irritated with axe grinders, rude, negative so and sos that don't really have anything sensible add other than make the point it's crystal clear they have anything little positive to input, little to share and just like to argue the toss over things they have demonstrated they know little about.

I've checked your post history and I seriously question why you are on this forum at all. You strike me as a troll, that certainly has no interest in this subject.

 

[Failed Unit]

I suspect they said that in 1825 as well, and in the 1950s and 1960s about motorways and more recently about airports.

Personally I think we shouldn't travel at all, sit on farms chewing the ends of straw and live in perfect ignorance

It is amusing seeing in Great Missenden all the house with say no to HS2 in thier windows, it just makes me wonder if people objected so strongly when the M40 was built. I guess the difference is that the M40 personally benefitted them the HS2 won't. You can't use Virgin countryside to build anything unless it is for a bypass for my village.

However RB311 does have a bit of a point. Will more people travel to Manchester & Leeds if we get the journey down to below 2 hours - I doubt it. Likewise Newcastle at 2h30 is unlikely to increase its market share if we speed it up. Would a purpose build north / south freight line have the same benefits in terms of releasing capacity, using a route such as the great central. Maybe a few local projects on MML to increase line speeds at key points?

London - Scotland is a different arguement, it will shift people off the airlines which is a good thing, but a lot of people flying to London are doing so to get out of the UK so air will always be needed. However I am sure the shift to rail will take place anyway as oil prices go up, yes engines will get more effiencent but the cost will be passed to the passengers.

 

[rb311]

Have you actually got anything sensible to say

I actually have a lot of sensible things to say, you don't think they are because you don't agree with them.

As to being rude, I have had a lot more mud slung at me than the other way round..

There is nothing insensible about suggesting there is no requirement, economic or otherwise for a new high speed line in the UK. But, the standard procedure on this site is to trash any post that doesn't think rail is wonderful, or call the poster rude, arrogant, etc etc.

I have every right to be here. Subjects like high speed rail, rail vs air travel, roads etc interest me, and debate requires both sides of the argument being put forward, that is, what a forum is.

Unfortunately, not enough of the anti-argument exists here, probably because people who do post counter arguments feel it's not worth posting because they are shouted down.

So accept that there are other opinions and argue sensibly against them rather than just call into question other people motives.

For example, no one has justified why areas of outstanding natural beauty should be devasted for this cause. Let's here some sensible counter argument on that....

 

[Metroland]

However RB311 does have a bit of a point. Will more people travel to Manchester & Leeds if we get the journey down to below 2 hours - I doubt it. Likewise Newcastle at 2h30 is unlikely to increase its market share if we speed it up.

That's not demonstrated from all the available evidence, indeed there is an elasticity of demand attached to journey time savings. The railways have known this form at least the 1930s, when advertising slogans like 'It's quicker by rail' were used and express trains had running times reduced to attract passengers. The same can be said for the sparks effect on the WCML, and the introduction of the HST.

 

[Failed Unit]

For example, no one has justified why areas of outstanding natural beauty should be devasted for this cause. Let's here some sensible counter argument on that....

I don't think you will either, but it does not stop them building roads though areas of outstanding natural beauty. It doesn't make it right but you can't say you can't build railways through areas of outstanding natural beauty but you can do roads.

Another way of looking at that point however is if we took that view point in years gone by we would not have lines such as Settle - Carlisle, Malliag - Fort William etc. Some of these lines are tourist attractions in thier own right and people think the railway adds value to the area. Look at some of the Viaducts on the route? It could be possible that the railway will enhance the area.

 

[Geezertronic]

For example, no one has justified why areas of outstanding natural beauty should be devasted for this cause. Let's here some sensible counter argument on that....

Since your posts indicate you are more plane orientated, would you advocate the destruction of Sipson to add a 3rd runway to Heathrow if it was to happen? Not trying to catch you out but just interested because from my point of view (and I have no evidence to back it up, just a POV), I would have suggested this would have more of an impact on a community than HS2 would.

 

[rb311]

I don't think you will either, but it does not stop them building roads though areas of outstanding natural beauty. It doesn't make it right but you can't say you can't build railways through areas of outstanding natural beauty but you can do roads.

Another way of looking at that point however is if we took that view point in years gone by we would not have lines such as Settle - Carlisle, Malliag - Fort William etc. Some of these lines are tourist attractions in thier own right and people think the railway adds value to the area. Look at some of the Viaducts on the route? It could be possible that the railway will enhance the area.

This is why I have said that it would be better to re-establish closed track beds like the Great Central Railway.

Granted building new roads has the same effect, but there are plenty of track beds there which if reinstated will not only make more rail journey options available but, in an oft quoted phrase here, "free up more capacity" on existing mainlines.

This is why I also mentioned that rail operating companies should be given more scope to do this. Longer franchises, easier planning regs to reinstate so that rail lines can be come true private enterprises which could a) make money and b) not burden the tax payer further.

I believe some announcement has been made about this this week..

 

[Zoe]

but it does not stop them building roads though areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Actually roads tend not to be built through AONBs these days. One reason the A303/A30 has not been upgraded to dual carriageway between Ilminster and Honiton is that it passes through the Blackdown Hills AONB.

 

[Metroland]

I actually have a lot of sensible things to say, ..

Really? I don't see everyone here agreeing HSR is a good thing and this forum is overwhelmingly negative towards the railways. Some people make child like arguments 'oh it's not a good thing', and leave it at that, some have a self important way for debating what they say, despite all the evidence is false and they know best, others are more up for adult debate where they can draw on references or make evidence based logical arguments.

I don't mind if people disagree, what I object to is when they start calling me stupid and clearly have nothing sensible to add. They can neither back up what they say, or make logical counter arguments.

53 posts of pure negativity and crap

http://www.railforums.co.uk/search.php?searchid=2079014

 

[rb311]

Since your posts indicate you are more plane orientated, would you advocate the destruction of Sipson to add a 3rd runway to Heathrow if it was to happen? Not trying to catch you out but just interested because from my point of view (and I have no evidence to back it up, just a POV), I would have suggested this would have more of an impact on a community than HS2 would.

I defend the position of aviation. Mainly because it has become the bete noir of the transport world which is totally unjustified. Air travel in this country exists entirely between existing airports. Domestic air routes can therefore be set up and discontinued without any impact on the natural environment, other than the burning of the fuel to match demand between cities.

Very little new airport building has taken place in recent years, probably the largest project was Manchester's 2nd runway, which is not a very good example of a required project, as the predicted demand simply has not materialised. So Manchester is left with an extra runway which obviously had a very detrimental effect on the local environment. Bad for local people, sure.. but what if a high speed line between London and Glasgow become redundant?

One of the main reasons Heathrow wants a 3rd runway is the extremely strict rules that apply to the existing 2 runway use. Simultaneous take offs and landings off each runway are not permitted and thus extra capacity that is potentially there is not allowed to be used. This limits LHR's ability to compete on an international scale, restricting the UK's aviation industry, tourist industry and world trade.

 

[Metroland]

Other than airports take up massive areas of land, directly and for supporting infrastructure, have huge noise footprints. They don't tend to serve city centres, and have a tiny share on domestic travel and are not especially convenient for the vast majority of journeys.

Would it surprise you to learn that in the UK, land set aside for directly for aviation is comparable to railways, indeed in many European countries it actually exceeds it?

I am not anti aviation. Yes, I am worried about the carbon footprint, but it has a part to play but I do not believe its the best way to go under 300 miles (an area where the vast majority of journeys take place) and railways should compete under 500 or so.

You are however, clearly for your posts anti rail. I would get no better reception if I went on airliners.net and started saying how crap they were and we should close them down. especially if I offered no good reason other than it's my personal opinion X is better than Y. What's even more bizarre is you fundamentally do not understand the average rail journey is about 40 miles, an area where aviation doesn't compete and will probably never compete in a meaningful way. The railways also serve and maintain access to airports, many of which would have serious problems without them. What you seem hung up about is the tiny number of flows such as London-Edinburgh (read London-Edinburgh, not the ECML) where railways compete. For someone that is clearly right wing (going by your posts) you should enjoy competition, which actually makes airport access better, but you don't seem to like it.

 

[caliwag]

That's an impressive list there Metroland...I thank you for posting it.

 

[LE Greys]

This is why I have said that it would be better to re-establish closed track beds like the Great Central Railway.

I used to advocate that myself (and still do to a limited extent) but apparently it's not possible for anything other than a conventional railway because the embankments would not support the forces associated with a train passing at 200 mph. Besides, the most crucial parts of the route (Leicester and Nottingham) have been blocked by new development. While it would be a good idea, it won't necessarily work unless you're prepared to tear down people's houses. Whether that's a good idea or not remains to be seen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Other than airports take up massive areas of land, directly and for supporting infrastructure, have huge noise footprints. They don't tend to serve city centres, and have a tiny share on domestic travel and are not especially convenient for the vast majority of journeys.

Would it surprise you to learn that in the UK, land set aside for directly for aviation is comparable to railways, indeed in many European countries it actually exceeds it?

I am not anti aviation. Yes, I am worried about the carbon footprint, but it has a part to play but I do not believe its the best way to go under 300 miles (an area where the vast majority of journeys take place) and railways should compete under 500 or so.

You are however, clearly for your posts anti rail. I would get no better reception if I went on airliners.net and started saying how crap they were and we should close them down. especially if I offered no good reason other than it's my personal opinion X is better than Y. What's even more bizarre is you fundamentally do not understand the average rail journey is about 40 miles, an area where aviation doesn't compete and will probably never compete in a meaningful way. The railways also serve and maintain access to airports, many of which would have serious problems without them. What you seem hung up about is the tiny number of flows such as London-Edinburgh (read London-Edinburgh, not the ECML) where railways compete. For someone that is clearly right wing (going by your posts) you should enjoy competition, which actually makes airport access better, but you don't seem to like it.

None of the information above really surprises me. Aircraft need large areas of open space on the ground, simply because they are aircraft and have to take off and land. Railways by their nature are long and thin, so tend to take up less space. The biggest marshalling yard we ever had, Whitemoor, covered a smaller area then Heathrow, and yet handled 40,000 tons of freight a day (I think).

I'm another person who's definitely not anti-air. Not just because I like flying, my grandfather was a test pilot and I very nearly went into aeronautical engineering. The experience on the ground and some of the attitudes of parts of the airline industry are a bit off-putting, but I see aircraft as having a major role in long-range passenger transport (not exclusively, ships still have a niche market) and a partial role in short-haul transport. They're not the ideal solution for moving people city-centre to city-centre at distances of under 500 miles, purely because of the rigmarole on the ground. Private flying would be a very good solution to that, but it's colossally expensive. I use railways because they work, not just because I enjoy travelling by train.

 

[Grumpy]

Please cant people put the air industry to one side. It keeps being raised but it's a red herring. Adonis used to justify the HS plan claiming it would eliminate all domestic flights. He used to quote 22m flights pa. But this included flights to Belfast, Isle of Man, Norwich to Aberdeen etc which just wouldn't be significantly affected by any new route. I dont know if he was deliberately trying to mislead or just not master of his brief.

Then the Tories prattled on about routing via Heathrow, making the whole project costlier and adding to London journey times. I put this down to their general ignorance.

The fact is that if all the current airline passengers to the South East from Edinburgh and Newcastle transferred en masse to rail they wouldn't fill one 11 car Pendolino per hour between them. But of course they wouldn't transfer if all the domestic flights were withrawn,because a lot of journeys are international, hubbing via London. They would simply transfer to international flights and hub via such as Dublin, Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt.

 

[Chris125]

Will more people travel to Manchester & Leeds if we get the journey down to below 2 hours - I doubt it. Likewise Newcastle at 2h30 is unlikely to increase its market share if we speed it up.

You have to look at HS2 in the context of wider transport provision. Its not all about 'new' journeys specifically using HS2, but people using the train instead of the car or plane throughout the rail network. By removing Manc/Leeds passengers from the WCML you can cater for people who want quicker journey times to intermediate stations like Milton Keynes and Coventry. Its not just growth in inter-city journeys that HS2 will, and needs to address, but regional and local services too.

The same goes with Newcastle - even if the journey time to London is the same as via the ECML, by pushing the fastest services onto HS2 you not only improve journey times and service quality to Leeds & Birmingham, but free up paths for other services including perhaps new direct services to London, both of which can improve rail's market share for those journeys.

Chris

 

[Zoe]

At the end of the day it's all very well having fast journey times from London to Manchester but there will need to be affordable fares. If we end of with a "premium service" then people will still use road, air and conventional rail.

 

[tbtc]

The same goes with Newcastle - even if the journey time to London is the same as via the ECML, by pushing the fastest services onto HS2 you not only improve journey times and service quality to Leeds & Birmingham, but free up paths for other services including perhaps new direct services to London, both of which can improve rail's market share for those journeys

Exactly!

Taking (most ) of the Leeds/ Newcastle trains off the southern end of the ECML means scope for routes like London - Grantham - Nottingham, London - Newark - Lincoln, London - Doncaster - Grimsby, Stansted - Cambridge - The North...

...think of HS2 as a new main line which will free up lots of space for existing lines to be used for new links

 

[Failed Unit]

Exactly!

Taking (most ) of the Leeds/ Newcastle trains off the southern end of the ECML means scope for routes like London - Grantham - Nottingham, London - Newark - Lincoln, London - Doncaster - Grimsby, Stansted - Cambridge - The North...

...think of HS2 as a new main line which will free up lots of space for existing lines to be used for new links

From the devils advocet point of view however get the frieght of the ECML and you get more passenger paths. However I totally accept that will only be one or two paths if you are lucky as the stopping pattern gobbles up more capacity then the frieght ever does!

It is such a shame that March - Spalding is no longer with us. Stansted - Ely - Spalding - Lincoln - Doncaster - Leeds anyone (Ok maybe not)

 

[Drsatan]

Exactly!


...think of HS2 as a new main line which will free up lots of space for existing lines to be used for new links

That was the rationale behind constructing the first LGV between Paris and Lyon. The existing railway was operating at near 100% capacity, and quadruple-tracking was ruled out as being too expensive, so it seemed common-sense to build a new line on which trains could operate at 186mph.

 

[jopsuk]

And even that line is now becoming over-crowded! High frequency, double unit, Duplex services.

 

[tbtc]

From the devils advocet point of view however get the frieght of the ECML and you get more passenger paths. However I totally accept that will only be one or two paths if you are lucky as the stopping pattern gobbles up more capacity then the frieght ever does!

I agree with you.

If you want to improve capacity you need to smooth speeds. This means either slowing the fastest trains or speeding up the slowest ones (or getting rid of either). The alternative is to have segregated routes for either.

I've argued on here about getting rid of freight on main lines in daylight,but got shot down for it on here, so keep quiet.

 

[Failed Unit]

I agree with you.

If you want to improve capacity you need to smooth speeds. This means either slowing the fastest trains or speeding up the slowest ones (or getting rid of either). The alternative is to have segregated routes for either.

I've argued on here about getting rid of freight on main lines in daylight,but got shot down for it on here, so keep quiet.

I know network rail are already working on it, but Peterborough - Doncaster via Lincoln 93 miles. Peterborough - Doncaster via Newark 80 miles. Surely if they did a good job of the joint line the time taken between the two places will be about the same on either route when you consider that the ECML will probably involve the frieght getting looped somewhere. I know the joint line will never be quick through Lincoln City or Gainsborough but I can't see why it can't be at least 60mph on all other sections.

Edinburgh - Newcastle is always going to be difficult to resolve, build a Morpeth bypass and either send the frieght via Morpeth or make the bypass 4 track.

That is really the thing that I am not sure of, should we build a high speed line or should we build a frieght line capable of taking large trains and free up other lines for passenger trains. I am sure that debate will never be solved as no correct answer exists!

 

[imagination]

Oil may become more expensive over the next 20 years but what fuel is going to be used to generate the electricity to power this wunder trains?

In the UK electricity comes from
nat gas 40-45%
coal 30%
nuclear 20%
direct imports c. 2%
renewables c. 3%
oil c. 3%

 

[rb311]

Originally Posted by rb311
Oil may become more expensive over the next 20 years but what fuel is going to be used to generate the electricity to power this wunder trains?

In the UK electricity comes from
nat gas 40-45%
coal 30%
nuclear 20%
direct imports c. 2%
renewables c. 3%
oil c. 3%

Err...
Maybe if you read what i said further on you might not post what you did. Let me remind you....

All the nuclear power stations currently in use will be closed by 2023, with no replacements in build. For every windmill you need proper power generation back up. As to oil. It may make up a small proportion of the current generation fuel, but gas, which makes up the majority has it's price very closely linked to oil. As to coal, most is imported, which requires ships that when I last checked ran on oil to power them.

So oil prices will affect trains just as much as any other mode of transport

The point being that the oil price will affect electricity generation more in the future than it does now....

 

[Metroland]

So oil prices will affect trains just as much as any other mode of transport

Fuel costs for rail are less than 10% of the overall cost, 25% for trucks and buses, and over that for Airlines. Windmills don't need back up if they are geographically distributed, more nuclear power stations are being built. Whereas a lot of coal is imported, the fuel cost makes up a small proportion of costs.

When we had rising oil prices last time, pump prices were going up regularly, and airlines were throwing on new surcharges every week, wheras as rail was hardly affected.

 

[Chris125]

That is really the thing that I am not sure of, should we build a high speed line or should we build a frieght line capable of taking large trains and free up other lines for passenger trains. I am sure that debate will never be solved as no correct answer exists!

The problem is that there isnt enough long distance freight on any of the mainline's to justify a seperate north-south corridor. A lot of traffic only uses sections, so to remove all this without simply shifting the capacity issues onto other lines wouldnt just require one double track but a whole network of connecting lines, some of which would see very little if any guaranteed traffic.

The business case for a 'Dedicated Freight Corridor' only really makes sense if you have a very high volume of guaranteed long-term traffic wanting to travel between two distinct points, such as a harbour and quarry, or to bypass a particular bottleneck, and even then its not a guaranteed success - just have a look at the problems the Betuweroute has had.

Chris

 

[Respite]

We don't need it at all. Just another diversion of cash away from anything non London based.
I do London to Preston in 2 hrs on the train I can't do that in a car legally. However If I want to travel from deepest darkest Wales/scotland/Yorkshire then I need a lot longer. Spend the money on improving secondary lines not replacing the WCML that is pretty well sorted already (Apart from the 140mph they promised us).

 

[j0hn0]

We don't need it at all. Just another diversion of cash away from anything non London based.
I do London to Preston in 2 hrs on the train I can't do that in a car legally. However If I want to travel from deepest darkest Wales/scotland/Yorkshire then I need a lot longer. Spend the money on improving secondary lines not replacing the WCML that is pretty well sorted already (Apart from the 140mph they promised us).

You just answered your own question there.

WCML is NOT well sorted. There were merely a few junction improvements. 140mph was descoped because it was too expensive, and we all know how much it cost anyway.

So in your view, we should upgrade lines from Castleford, Wrexham, Holyhead etc to 140mph?

So how does the business case stack up for these towns? answer, it doesn't.

I honestly wonder if there are any brains on here at all sometimes :roll:

 

[rb311]

Fuel costs for rail are less than 10% of the overall cost, 25% for trucks and buses, and over that for Airlines. Windmills don't need back up if they are geographically distributed, more nuclear power stations are being built. Whereas a lot of coal is imported, the fuel cost makes up a small proportion of costs.

Actually, no new plants are being built. Plans have been drawn up that is all. As to windmills, Im afraid you are simply wrong. When a high pressure system sits over the UK next time, then you can count the amount of them turning on one hand. And, as I said, oil prices will affect power generation much more in the future.

WCML is NOT well sorted. There were merely a few junction improvements. 140mph was descoped because it was too expensive, and we all know how much it cost anyway.

How much was it for a few junction improvements?? Great Value there then.

So in your view, we should upgrade lines from Castleford, Wrexham, Holyhead etc to 140mph?

I honestly wonder if there are any brains on here at all sometimes

I don't think he was saying 140 mph everywhere. Perhaps you should engage your brain to read what is put.