High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[ainsworth74]

It's still about 50 years off but we will get there one day.

As I recall Fusion was 50 years away 50 years ago

Don't get me wrong however I am a supporter of developing fusion!

 

[Geezertronic]

We'll all be using Surrogates by then

 

[vtiman]

I havent posted on here for a while and have just read through this thread and have some observations. I general I am an HSR supporter but would like to see the Chilterns protected as much as possible.

Firstly I notice that some people get really rude and abusive. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I also notice that particularly with those against hsr but also those for it make sweeping statements without factual backup ! As an example from the press, a recent article in a local buckinghamshire paper claimed that an anti-hsr rally had attracted thousands yet even the anti hsr action alliance's wendover group said it was hundreds, which appeared to be the case from a supporting photo. What the true figure was I wonder.

Secondly, people are quite negative in general which isnt really helpful when we are trying to build the country's future. The problem of energy and electricity generation wont go away and needs to be resolved with or without hsr. to say we shouldn't have hsr because we wont have any electricity is not very logical it assumes nothing will be done. And I don't think that the idea that we should all just stay at home to work and i guess never travel anywhere is very realistic or appealing ! It is however undoubtedly true that in the future we will have more home working.

Thirdly so many countries have already got or are planning to have high speed lines - can they all be wrong ? Also there are some very disparaging remarks about the country north of watford with some commentators here asking why anyone wants to go there ! And if no-one wants to go to or from the north why is the existing road, railway and airport infrastructure creaking at the seams ?? Even today there were reports of further growth in rail passengers despite the recession.

Fourthly why do people assume that hsr is only for uk connections. You know it is possible that some people from englands second and third largest cities might want to go on direct trains to europe rather than having to change in london !!

Finally (phew I hear you say!) we should not make the assumption that the money being earmarked for high speed rail will be made available for other projects within the rail industry. In the USA states are actually returning federal money which California and Florida are trying to grab but it is yet to be determined if the money will be reallocated into hsr or even rail or transport projects. It will probably go in tea party tax cuts.
So be very careful what you ask for ! At the moment we have a general political consensus that hsr is needed.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Finally (phew I hear you say!) we should not make the assumption that the money being earmarked for high speed rail will be made available for other projects within the rail industry. In the USA states are actually returning federal money which California and Florida are trying to grab but it is yet to be determined if the money will be reallocated into hsr or even rail or transport projects. It will probably go in tea party tax cuts.
So be very careful what you ask for ! At the moment we have a general political consensus that hsr is needed.

We all know if HS2 wasnt built there would not be 30billion of rail improvements so as ive discussed with friends before this is better than nothing which is what the alternative appears tobe

 

[Greenback]

Firstly I notice that some people get really rude and abusive. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I also notice that particularly with those against hsr but also those for it make sweeping statements without factual backup ! As an example from the press, a recent article in a local buckinghamshire paper claimed that an anti-hsr rally had attracted thousands yet even the anti hsr action alliance's wendover group said it was hundreds, which appeared to be the case from a supporting photo. What the true figure was I wonder.

You have highlighted what usually happesn on internet forums! I find this one to be one of the most civil and informed. ther eis far more debate and constructive analysis here than on every other forum I;ve ever been a member of! You have also highlighted a common failure of printed media - reporting inaccuracies!

Secondly, people are quite negative in general which isnt really helpful when we are trying to build the country's future. The problem of energy and electricity generation wont go away and needs to be resolved with or without hsr. to say we shouldn't have hsr because we wont have any electricity is not very logical it assumes nothing will be done. And I don't think that the idea that we should all just stay at home to work and i guess never travel anywhere is very realistic or appealing ! It is however undoubtedly true that in the future we will have more home working.

Unfortunately, it often happens that someone who is not in favour of soemthing new is seen as negative. Not all change is for the better, and not all new construction is necessarily positive. I am changing my view towards HS2, but there are very real concerns that need to be addressed, and some of the arguments put forward in favour of the new line are weaker than others. As an example, I am more convinced by the capacity issues than I am about increasing prosperity.

Thirdly so many countries have already got or are planning to have high speed lines - can they all be wrong ? Also there are some very disparaging remarks about the country north of watford with some commentators here asking why anyone wants to go there ! And if no-one wants to go to or from the north why is the existing road, railway and airport infrastructure creaking at the seams ?? Even today there were reports of further growth in rail passengers despite the recession.

That is not one of the strongest arguments for HS2! In fact, the creaking infrastructure could be seen as an argument against HS2, because the money may be better off being spent in improving capacity wher eit is obviously desperately needed. As discussed in this thread, other countries have different approaches to building high speed lines, and also different requirments due to history and poulation density/concentrations. Spain is a good example, as there the population is mainly in the central area around Madrid or around the coasts. High speed lines can speed through areas with relatively low levels of population on their way to to the coast. Is this the case in the UK?

Fourthly why do people assume that hsr is only for uk connections. You know it is possible that some people from englands second and third largest cities might want to go on direct trains to europe rather than having to change in london !!

That's a better argument in my view! Particularly if you accept that the future of short haul cheap flights is questionable!

 

[rb311]

Its politically sensitive enough for the Government to tell people they need to throw out their AM/FM analogue radios and switch to DAB digital ones - look at the pussy-footing around something like this

-

The government is right to be sensitive to this idea. Replacing a reliable and cheap technology with a far more expensive and unsatisfactory system, requiring (in this day and age of environmental sensitivity) thousands of perfectly serviceable radios to be consigned to the scrap heap is another example of idealogy resembling idiotology.

Has there been no argument for more pump storage power plants to be built. Surely when the wind is blowing at night they electricity could be used to store power for peak times. That would keep the critics quiet.

This is entirely the point about windmills. They need multi million pound alternative systems to be built to back them up. Dinorwic and their like are simple peak demand generation systems only and are designed to cope with surge requirements like the adverts in coronation st. They are unable to cope with long term demand, like when all the windmills go slack in a winter high (which is often when the weather is the coldest, actually..)

Fusion is certainly the long term solution to provide electricity, but don't hold your breath until it comes on stream.

However electric cars/trucks etc will not be taken up by the masses unless they offer the same practicality for a similar price. Cars will need to be able to drive at least 500 miles on one tank of electricity and require only 5 minutes to recharge, at the very least, particularly if there is a premium to be paid for the priviledge of going green.

However, oil exploration and potential reserves are always subject to the technology available to exploit them. Up till now we have feasted on the low hanging fruit that is land based oil wells or shallow waters like the North Sea.

Huge reserves are out there and as the technology improves so they will be exploitable in the future. Of course, this technology won't be cheap and at the same time the greedy government (particularly the UK) will feel free to slap more tax on the fuel allegedly due to environmental reasons, but mainly (and probably) to subsidise loss making government projects like HS2.

 

[Metroland]

However electric cars/trucks etc will not be taken up by the masses unless they offer the same practicality for a similar price. Cars will need to be able to drive at least 500 miles on one tank of electricity and require only 5 minutes to recharge, at the very least, particularly if there is a premium to be paid for the priviledge of going green.

That is indeed the problem with electric vehicles. Even the new cars that are coming on market have very limited ranges, are not cheap, nor are very quick to charge. Electric trucks are even worse, they are quite small and are only really useful for local deliveries. You could of course use rail for the bulk movements between centres, the main issue would currently be capacity hence why we need more lines. Remember there are 24 times more roads than railways.

The other issue with continuing business as usual is it assumes we can replace all the generating capacity with alternatives. To replace gas used for central heating and oil for transport, you would have to enlage the baseload grid by several factor - it's even questionable that the lights can be kept on with the current one.

Demand management can be a more effective solution, this is why you can buy 10 energy saving lightbulbs for less than £1 right now, because it saves a lot of money, fuel and engineering expertise meeting more supply.

However, oil exploration and potential reserves are always subject to the technology available to exploit them. Up till now we have feasted on the low hanging fruit that is land based oil wells or shallow waters like the North Sea.

Huge reserves are out there and as the technology improves so they will be exploitable in the future. Of course, this technology won't be cheap and at the same time the greedy government (particularly the UK) will feel free to slap more tax on the fuel allegedly due to environmental reasons

Partly true, but deep water drilling is hugely difficult and expensive (note the recent BP accident) and oil sands are very polluting and energy intensive, they also require a lot of water, the same as most biofules, another crisis for the planet.

I support green taxes, if they are to internalise the external cost of pollution. But really they should be used for green projects like wind farms, greener transport and so on.

Even the Middle East are trying to move away oil based economies which is very telling.

but mainly (and probably) to subsidise loss making government projects like HS2.

Emotive terms like that doesn't move the debate forward, you need to do the whole equation.

Any investment the government makes in transport has to pass cost benefit anaylsis crititeria, which is actually stacked against public transport. Any project has to prove the investment that is made, will not only pay back, but usually add more value.

With HS2 expected to make operating surpluses and will only be built if it reaches certain CBA critieria, it is an *investment* not a subsidy.

There are people that believe the market can do everything, but the evidence tells a different story. Pollution is indeed a form of market failure, as is congestion. The only market solutions are to internalise the externaties or use any tax money to provide alternatives. As rail is one of the most effective modal shifters and creates more jobs than private transport, it's often a good investment for a government.

Obviously the same CBA is appplied to other rail projects, therefore it is a myth if the government have £20 billion to spend, it will be spent elsewhere in transport or rail. There is only a few rail reopenings in England that get anywhere near the scores needed, the same with many other improvements. Scotland of course uses a slightly different system, that's why we have seen more re-openings and improvements in this area.

 

[LE Greys]

That is indeed the problem with electric vehicles. Even the new cars that are coming on market have very limited ranges, are not cheap, nor are very quick to charge. Electric trucks are even worse, they are quite small and are only really useful for local deliveries. You could of course use rail for the bulk movements between centres, the main issue would currently be capacity hence why we need more lines. Remember there are 24 times more roads than railways.

The other issue with continuing business as usual is it assumes we can replace all the generating capacity with alternatives. To replace gas used for central heating and oil for transport, you would have to enlage the baseload grid by several factor - it's even questionable that the lights can be kept on with the current one.

Demand management can be a more effective solution, this is why you can buy 10 energy saving lightbulbs for less than £1 right now, because it saves a lot of money, fuel and engineering expertise meeting more supply.

Assuming we do manage to expand the grid, electric road vehicles could be made to work, but only with a lot of new infrastructure. While I don't think we could do this with electric cars, trolleytrucks could probably work. Assuming we have a trolleybus network in some towns and cities (necessary to replace diesel buses, trams can't work anyway) then it should be possible to link them up by using dedicated motorway lanes with overhead wires. A battery back-up would be useful to travel from grid to delivery point (possibly with a charging point at the location).

Thing is, this will take a lot of investment. Not sure how much a trolleytruck would pay for using the wires, but it's bound to be more than the cost of diesel if you try to recoup the set-up costs from revenue gained. Trolleybuses are possibly more efficient than diesel buses, but once again set-up costs come in. I would have used Cambridge as a testbed, since the guided busway would be ideal for electrification. Luton-Dunstable might make a decent place for a test instead.

I think it's worth looking at at least.

 

[gordonthemoron]

they could grass over the motorways for a start, or cover them with solar panels

was in Zürich recently, they have doubly articulated trolley buses, and loads of trams

 

[LE Greys]

they could grass over the motorways for a start, or cover them with solar panels

was in Zürich recently, they have doubly articulated trolley buses, and loads of trams

Same in Geneva, and they're expanding the network, so someone's made a success out of it.

 

[RichW1]

Let's cut through the whole debate because in the end people will always like to debate the whys and how's and do we really need this change? The Victorians and Georgians did this but did it anyway and those that moan today now love the result! We need to be bold if we are going to connect people and places with work and opportunity (which is the only thing that has ever changed poverty levels throughout history) In Victorian times the railways were seen as bad altogether because they would 'encourage the lower classes to move around'!!!! The railways turned out to change the world.

The next revolution has to happen because the railway is full. No amount of spend on existing infrastructure will release sufficient capacity, not at least any amount of affordable expenditure.

I'd also like to address those that talk about distances between major cities....Scotland's central belt has 3.2 million people in it and they deserve much faster times thana re being offered to them now which the current railway cannot provide. The world does not end at manchester and Leeds (I live in London and can see this). It cannot be right that such a critical mass is left out with 4hour plus times.

 

[YesToHS2]

It is becoming clear to me now that a lot of the arguments are based around A handful of documents that were released almost a year ago and older in some cases. Every correspondence I have had from the dft and HS2 Ltd have indicates that they are committed to HS2. But with the full details not being released until Feb 2011 is it hard to know the exact form that HS2 will take.

HS2 Ldt have been tasked with insuring that all sound and environmental impacts can be mitigated. This could mean that the route is still being refined so no one knows exactly where the line will run and how it will be constructed.

One thing I do know is that HS2 is needed now simply to help ease overcrowding. Just how many more people will be using the UK's rail services in the future no one knows but all projects see at least a doubling of demand by 2033.

So even if economic and environmental benefits were taken out of the equation there would still be a need for a new line to be built. It just so happens that HSR brings more benefits for every pound spent on it than a low speed line would.

I think I will go back and look at the alternatives but I'm certain that the alternatives for upgrading the WCML are unworkable and unrealistic. It simply a case of convincing people that the WCML can not be further upgraded.

 

[Kevitch]

Just a couple of thoughts.
1) Would this Government pay for HS2 then sell it to another Canadian Pension Fund.
2) Why have all rail improvements have to Involve London. Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh could all do with improvements to a 30 mile radius around them to bring their commuters in.
3) Rail travel should be for service to the public. Not profit. I doubt I'll live long enough to see any Government in this country have the guts to nationalise what is a good network.

Kevitch

 

[YesToHS2]

2) Why have all rail improvements have to Involve London. Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh could all do with improvements to a 30 mile radius around them to bring their commuters in.

Although I get your point it's no entirely true. The Manchester Liverpool electrification is an exciting development at least for the North West reducing journey times by up to 15 minutes. The government also has a wider plan as part of the RUS to create what will be called the North Hub, Which stretches from Liverpool to Newcastle and will see many improvements.

There are many improvements still being undertaken, the government hasn't given up on the WCML either, there are still improvements being undertaken and planned.

So when the anti HS2 critics say that ALL the money for current rail infrastructure will go on HS2 it's a blatant lie.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Follow the debate further over at skyscraper city. Google e-mails me when ever anything to do with HS2 is even mentioned so I follow the discussions where ever they go.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Newly revised case for HS2, Including more details and tackling the arguments against head on. click here

 

[Old Timer]

...The next revolution has to happen because the railway is full. No amount of spend on existing infrastructure will release sufficient capacity, not at least any amount of affordable expenditure..

I am sorry but I completely disagree with that assertion. Where is the evidence to support this proposition ?

 

[142094]

Although I get your point it's no entirely true. The Manchester Liverpool electrification is an exciting development at least for the North West reducing journey times by up to 15 minutes. The government also has a wider plan as part of the RUS to create what will be called the North Hub, Which stretches from Liverpool to Newcastle and will see many improvements.

The Northern Hub doesn't do much for places such as Newcastle, Darlington and Durham. All it will mean is less delays on TPE services, which are only 1tph in each direction for these trains.

I have to say I'm rather sceptical about HS2. I've been on the Javelins and it seems to me that a good amount of people will still go the slower way to save money. I think that the Dft should have its priorities in this order:

1) New rolling stock to replace older types and offer more capacity
2) Electrification infill projects
3) More line reopenings

 

[RichW1]

Britain already offers some of the highest frequencies in the world and these are full on peak. HS2 is about capacity and not just a vanity project. If it was, we wouldn;t be 20-30 years late in doing it!

The fact is there's no room left for Intercity and not to mention the capacity for freight and regional services high speed lines anywhere will free up. The conventional network should not be ignored as it will still present secondary towns and cities with the best classic line network anywhere in the world to grow commerce and move people because of its role prior to HS2 and 3 and 4 hopefully!

 

[YesToHS2]

I can't find one person that says the WCML isn't full. The critics just choose not to make a point of it, instead suggest that we upgrade it again, It £10bn didn't solve the problem do they really thing throwing another £3bn at it will do any good, also rail package 2 by Atkins calls for all new rolling stock with slightly better acceleration so lets call it a £5bn, for what some slight tinkering. The more I read about the problems facing the WCML the more I can see that a new line is the only option.

Instead of tacking the arguments over the WCML they put forward flimsy arguments for upgrading and then choose to focus on costs which they always exaggerate and then bang on about CO2.

Quick note: YesToHS2 is now open to articles from individuals. If you feel you have an argument to add or supportive research paper e-mail info@yestohs2.co.uk. All articles will be credited to individuals.

 

[Old Timer]

Britain already offers some of the highest frequencies in the world and these are full on peak. HS2 is about capacity and not just a vanity project. If it was, we wouldn;t be 20-30 years late in doing it!

The fact is there's no room left for Intercity and not to mention the capacity for freight and regional services high speed lines anywhere will free up. The conventional network should not be ignored as it will still present secondary towns and cities with the best classic line network anywhere in the world to grow commerce and move people because of its role prior to HS2 and 3 and 4 hopefully!

I presume this is in answer to my previous comment ?

If that is the case, then I think you need to look at how we opeerate train capacity in the UK these modern days.

Since Privatisation we have seen an increase in demand for passenger services, but because we are now fragmented, we operate more freight services during the day time when line capacity is at a premium. Just go along the WCML for example on an afternoon or early evening and you will encounter no end of freight.

Much of this freight I am sure could be operated at night as we used to in BR days. The problem now is that unlike BR days a F/Liner is no longer held up by a Class 2 but is actually an obstacle to the Class 2 itself.

As we have increased linespeed on the slow lines without any increase in the speed of freight rolling stock, so we have reduced the overall capacity of the line.

Now if we look at the various knee-jerk measures enforced by the plethora of safety instructions and directives, written by organisations too timid to anything other than fall down in worship to the latest safety fad, you will find we have such things as junction double blocking, ridiculous braking "rules", and driving "standards".

Yet we perpetuate without question the very causes of these ridiculous litanies of Industrial self-flagellation.

We are reluctant to deal with lineside vegetation for fear of upsetting people, who probably in the main do not use the railway anyway. We insist on using preset braking systems rather than operating with continuously variable systems. Because of this we now have a scenario where trains cannot stop because the railhead is contaminated, and we cannot scrape off the mulch that gets onto the wheel treads because any form of scraper, or brake shoe is viewed with horror.

WE have become so paranoid about any error in braking that the whole point of the overlap has been completely lost. We spent £millions on trying to stop trains passing a signal at red, even though something like 98% of the signal over-runs are contained within the overlap, indeed THAT IS THE PURPOSE of the overlap !

Our only approach to moving more people is to run more trains when in many cases we would be better off increasing train length. Frequent EMU services conspire to create disruption and militate against running anything which is outside of the operational time / distance profile.

 

[j0hn0]

I presume this is in answer to my previous comment ?

If that is the case, then I think you need to look at how we opeerate train capacity in the UK these modern days.

Since Privatisation we have seen an increase in demand for passenger services, but because we are now fragmented, we operate more freight services during the day time when line capacity is at a premium. Just go along the WCML for example on an afternoon or early evening and you will encounter no end of freight.

Much of this freight I am sure could be operated at night as we used to in BR days. The problem now is that unlike BR days a F/Liner is no longer held up by a Class 2 but is actually an obstacle to the Class 2 itself.

As we have increased linespeed on the slow lines without any increase in the speed of freight rolling stock, so we have reduced the overall capacity of the line.

Now if we look at the various knee-jerk measures enforced by the plethora of safety instructions and directives, written by organisations too timid to anything other than fall down in worship to the latest safety fad, you will find we have such things as junction double blocking, ridiculous braking "rules", and driving "standards".

Yet we perpetuate without question the very causes of these ridiculous litanies of Industrial self-flagellation.

We are reluctant to deal with lineside vegetation for fear of upsetting people, who probably in the main do not use the railway anyway. We insist on using preset braking systems rather than operating with continuously variable systems. Because of this we now have a scenario where trains cannot stop because the railhead is contaminated, and we cannot scrape off the mulch that gets onto the wheel treads because any form of scraper, or brake shoe is viewed with horror.

WE have become so paranoid about any error in braking that the whole point of the overlap has been completely lost. We spent £millions on trying to stop trains passing a signal at red, even though something like 98% of the signal over-runs are contained within the overlap, indeed THAT IS THE PURPOSE of the overlap !

Our only approach to moving more people is to run more trains when in many cases we would be better off increasing train length. Frequent EMU services conspire to create disruption and militate against running anything which is outside of the operational time / distance profile.

Couldn't we use a "laser" train like they do at Amsterdam centraal?

Clears all the leaves off proper good, jobs a good un.

 

[YesToHS2]

They're using it Amsterdam? Figures, the system was being developed and tested in the UK yet we don't use it. The the APT we just let the other countries has the tec rather than using it ourselves. That is why we have the most expensive railways in the world and why we are so far behind. We should of built HS2 10 years ago. It probably would of cost the same as the WCML upgrade.

 

[brianthegiant]

Aylesbury Ramblers organised an anti HS2 protest walk recently. they cleverly announced Wendover Railway station car park as the meeting point, except that since they weren't there to catch the train so none of them were allowed to park there, causing much confusion.
the irony...

 

[YesToHS2]

MPs protecting their seats rather than looking at the national interest

 

[imagination]

To be fair to them, the job of an MP is to protect the interests of their constituents. There's nothing wrong with them being emotive against it if that is also the opinion of their constituents.

If they are deliberately misleading the public, however, that is a different matter.

 

[Clip]

Aylesbury Ramblers organised an anti HS2 protest walk recently. they cleverly announced Wendover Railway station car park as the meeting point, except that since they weren't there to catch the train so none of them were allowed to park there, causing much confusion.
the irony...

There used to be free parking there - even for ramblers on a sunday till the took that away too. Bet you that fooled them!

 

[YesToHS2]

To be fair to them, the job of an MP is to protect the interests of their constituents. There's nothing wrong with them being emotive against it if that is also the opinion of their constituents.

If they are deliberately misleading the public, however, that is a different matter.

If the MPs were really against HS2 they would have been vocal about it in September when the more details were released. The fact that they have only began to make a fuss now after pressure from local campaigners for them to quit makes me question their reasoning.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
David Cameron: high speed rail link will go ahead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...meron-high-speed-rail-link-will-go-ahead.html

 

[rb311]

With regard to MPs representing the views of their constituencies I bet you, Yes to HS2, to would be the first to complain if your local MP didn't represent the views of the majority in your constinuency.

I might be wrong but the consituencies that are most affected in the Chilterns, for example, Chesham and Amersham have been, are, and will be forever more, safe Tory strongholds, so the local MP is hardly protecting her seat. Dogs and cats vote conservative in Amersham.

What would/will be a scandal /will be if the people's representative in Parliament didn't express the views of the majority of their constituents.

To win the argument you simply can't laugh at concerned local residents, or call them all stupid, or just say this project is in the national interest. Provide instead persausive arguments and take them directly to the people affected and win them over. Over to you. I think Great Missenden village hall offers good rates to hire by the hour.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I get Railnews delivered. In the last edition I read there were a load of anti-HS2 letters, all from people in the Chilterns or south of Brum where the line will run. There was one letter from someone living on the line route who was in favour which I suppose is progress

 

[Geezertronic]

To win the argument you simply can't laugh at concerned local residents, or call them all stupid, or just say this project is in the national interest. Provide instead persausive arguments and take them directly to the people affected and win them over. Over to you. I think Great Missenden village hall offers good rates to hire by the hour.

Problem is the No and NIMBY brigade don't help themselves with some of the crap they spurt out. To constantly go on about CO2 etc.. and that HS2 will have a drastic effect on the flood plains is just ridiculous along with the argument that HS2 will be a "concrete bomb" etc... is just emotive nonsense at best.

 

[gordonthemoron]

and apparently HS1 is not that noisy