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!
Which will in itself wipe out some/all of the advantage of improved journey times if you can't cut it fine knowing that if you miss your train you can get on the next one even if you might not get a seat.
Though I suspect that flexible tickets, if they exist, won't be cheap.
Save 15 minutes on the journey but get to the station half an hour before the train to make sure you don't miss it...
That’s not really any different from now where most people have advanced fares (in major part down to Virgin’s price gouging on flexi tickets) - you have to turn up 30 mins before to make sure you don’t miss the train. Which gives away the benefit of West Coast upgrade and puts you back to BR 1994 time-wise when you could walk up and get the next service.
For one, you would lose a lot of the speed gain. For another, demand isn't mirrored north and south of Brum. Waiting times are a bit moot because the Chiltern tunnel evacuation approach doesn't, as I recall, allow for true walk up travel, nor do the dwells at Old Oak, so you'll have booked a specific train and will arrive for that one, not at random.
I've not yet seen any documentation that this is actually true.
In order to claim credit for compulsory reservations preventing more than a certain number of people on the train they would have to have a safety-grade ability to actually enforce it. HS2 is highly ulikely tohave this capability with respect to classic compatible trains. It would also mean that the capacity of trainsets is fixed for the rest of time, which would rather spit in the face of the supposed future proofing approach.
I'm not aware of any other railway tunnels in the world where this approach has been taken, although given HS2s record for stupid innovations, maybe I should expect that they have tried it. But then again, I have yet to see any documentation of this.
For one, you would lose a lot of the speed gain. For another, demand isn't mirrored north and south of Brum. Waiting times are a bit moot because the Chiltern tunnel evacuation approach doesn't, as I recall, allow for true walk up travel, nor do the dwells at Old Oak, so you'll have booked a specific train and will arrive for that one, not at random.
The services have always been separate despite the fact you could join them now if you wanted - this tells you what you need to know.
I've not yet seen any documentation that this is actually true.
In order to claim credit for compulsory reservations preventing more than a certain number of people on the train they would have to have the ability to actually enforce it. HS2 is highly ulikely tohave this capability with respect to classic compatible trains. It would also mean that the capacity of trainsets is fixed for the rest of time, which would rather spit in the face of the supposed future proofing approach,
Also, isn't the number of people able to get on the train limited by the size of the trains itself? So if there was some limit on the number of people the tunnel evacuation plan could cope with, run shorter trains.
All a bit silly anyway IMHO when we happily run crush loaded trains through long Victorian tunnels which have basically zero provision for escape, unlike the HS2 tunnels which I guess will have a raised walkway etc.
Also, isn't the number of people able to get on the train limited by the size of the trains itself? So if there was some limit on the number of people the tunnel evacuation plan could cope with, ruin shorter trains.
All a bit silly anyway IMHO when we happily run crush loaded trains through long Victorian tunnels which have basically zero provision for escape, unlike the HS2 tunnels which I guess will have a raised walkway etc.
The Times are reporting that the London section (Old Oak Common - Euston) will be saved from the axe. Does not mention what form. Expected to be announced during his speech today (03/10) at the Conservative Conference.
They also claim Phase 1 will open in 2032, earliest
Rishi Sunak is poised to announce that he is scrapping the northern leg of HS2 and reinvesting “every penny” in regional road and rail schemes.
The prime minister believes the rationale for HS2 is based on “old assumptions” and will abandon plans to build the line between Birmingham and Manchester. However, following intense cabinet lobbying, he is expected to say that the line will terminate at Euston in central London rather than Old Oak Common in west London.
He is likely to confirm the decision tomorrow in his speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
Under the plans, the money the government would have to spend on the northern leg — about £36 billion — will be reinvested in the Midlands and the north. But much of this money is not scheduled to be spent until the 2030s, limiting Sunak’s room for immediate giveaways. He is also expected to make a commitment to a high-speed rail link between Manchester and Leeds.
A source familiar with the prime minister’s thinking said: “HS2 was based on old assumptions. The pandemic has changed the nature of travel. Regional connectivity is more important.”
No 10 said that “no final decision” had been taken. Any plans will need to be signed off by the cabinet, but two sources told The Times that they expected the details to be announced in Sunak’s conference speech.
My knowledge of parliamentary procedure is almost zero but it seems weird to me that a project that took acts of parliament, royal assent etc. can be cut back so much with none of the same procedure or scrutiny.
So basically, Sunak's plan says that the investment that has now been lost in the midlands and the north will now be reinvested into the midlands and the north, only with less ambition, and in the 2030s long after his own government has been driven into near complete electoral oblivion in 2024/2025.
So basically, Sunak's plan says that the investment that has now been lost in the midlands and the north will now be reinvested into the midlands and the north, only with less ambition, and in the 2030s long after his own government has been driven into near complete electoral oblivion in 2024/2025.
From my very unscientific sampling of NW views relating to HS2 I’ve formed some conclusions. It appears most people living and working in and around Manchester are at best ambivalent towards HS2 and at worst openly hostile. The disinformation campaign of the mass media and the anti rail lobby has been very effective, almost totally so. As I’ve said previously I do feel HS2 has been sold incredibly poorly to the public and this is a major part of the problem.
At this point if I was in Sunak’s position then I’d see a bit of HS2 bashing as a possible vote winner. He may just be testing the water. The silence from Labour on this issue is also very telling. Although it may be the case of “never interfere with the enemy while he’s making a mistake”
The problems start north of Rugby where there are only 3 lines for a stretch (no Down Slow), and worse at Colwich as the WCML comes down to 2 tracks for a mile or so through Shugborough tunnel.
There are still 75mph slow lines in the Trent Valley (and via Northampton).
Then there are capacity issues on all lines beyond Crewe, despite the WCRM upgrade which just tackled a few pinch points.
The last bit to Crewe is so cheap and easy to build. Maybe the plan was to can the Northern end and then give the cheap part of it a reprieve as a sop.
To be honest, while this strategy more often than not works, I think Labour should take the opportunity to capitalise on HS2 by not only phrasing it as a failure of the current Conservative Government, but also as a failure to invest into the north along the result of a broken system that had consultants circling around HS2 like vultures to a corpse instead of drawing upon the experience of people such as Rob Holden leading to the spiralling costs. In other words, phrase HS2 not as a failed investment, but the product of a failing government that the country could do without. I understand it's risky, but at this point Keir Starmer just does not inspire whatsoever because he's mostly seen as just a means of getting rid of the Tories and not necessarily a Prime Minister in waiting. The issue for me as a non-partisan left-leaning voter Labour just doesn't seem to properly stand for anything.
HS2 is in danger of becoming a political football. The lesson to learn is that major infrastructure projects should be outwith government control so that the changing tide of political flavour is irrelevent to the needs of the country. I can see the lesson being (re-)learnt is don't do major infrastructure projects.
Feel free - the south-west is gonna join Wales & Scotland & NI in a new celtic country. We'll claim a little bit of Somerset & Dorset as spoils ( say, Bristol to Bournemouth ). London can become it's own city state & the tories can stay in the home counties & waffle as they like.
Pleeze can Croydon come, don't leave us behind. Remember it got so bad in London that for a long while we dd not have a governing body for London as a whole.
This is the issue! Since day 1 it was sold to the public as a 20minute time saving! I was against it from day one because of this very selling point.
It’s only been the last year or 2 I’ve actually been in support of HS2 as I’ve gained a better understanding of what it’s really about, that being capacity to open existing lines to more services,stops etc the 20 minute time saving is nothing compared to this. But hey,the public only care about saving a few minutes of time so that’s the line that was pushed!
I think HS2 is suffering like Brexit did. The name is High Speed Two but speed is not the whole story by a long way. Brexit skewed the Stay or leave Europe argument into a bandwagon for anti Europe views. With HS2 I see little being done to justify it - little/no appetite from politicians.
I think kinda yes and no. On the one hand, you're correct that if you terminate at Old Oak Common, then you have a not very useful line.
But on the other hand, to my mind, Euston was always a bad, unimaginative idea. We already know that big terminus stations in large cities is a sub-optimal design because of all the conflicting moves in a confined space etc. Modern, better, designs, run the lines through the cities (Crossrail, Thameslink). Making Euston a terminus meant you need the massive 11-platform monster station - and building that underground in the middle of London is basically throwing money away.
I think it would have been much better to have HS2 run through London, making sure it stops at a couple of stations that between them give direct connections to most places in both central and outer London, and then let it split so it could terminate in a few smaller stations that would be cheaper to build. For example, maybe split the line at OOC so some HS2 trains run through to Stratford and Ebbsfleet/Kent, and others, with some new tunnelling, run to Clapham Junction and East Croydon/Gatwick. If Euston was replaced by something like that, a lot of good would come out of it. But on the other hand, maybe too much work has been done and money spent at Euston already.
I like this idea. Croydon and beyond perhaps a bit tricky as using existing stretched infrastructure. I would perhaps favour getting to a through Euston station and then splitting.
I am still uncomfortable with Curzon Street being a terminus in Birmingham. If a Birmingham terminus is such a good idea then why did New Street replace the original terminus from London called er Curzon Street ?. HS2 trains should at least get as far as Wolverhampton and somewhere to service trains beyond. Some or more of the ttrains could then go on to Manchester etc etc.
A four platform station between Euston and St Pancras with the tracks continuing onto HS1 and a large set of stabling/storage/cleaning etc sidings at Ripple Lane.
Then trains would go out of service at the new station and run ECS to Ripple Lane. You would also have the option to keep some in service to Stratford or if you wanted to be really bold run a few beyond there to Ashford (and maybe even one or two to Paris etc).
I like this idea. It allows for more connections near the centre of London. Using the existing HS1 to the other side of London - Ebbsfleet might be far enough. Maybe Ashford isa bit far but would pick up trade from the SE corner of England beyond London. It would also save on expensive land in the middle of London.
True - if you're able to allow boarding to start, say, 20 minutes before departure, it makes it a lot more pleasant than having everyone lined up on the platform waiting to jump on a train as soon as it pulls in.
Wait - are you suggesting the convenience of the passengers should trump operating convenience !.
On second thoughts I often see crowds of people rushing for their train at Euston as they are often platformed rather close to departure times. Same is true at Victoria so no convenience to lose anyway. In fact I prefer London Bridge for Croydon as there is only one platform I need to head to. So on balance a through station is more convenient than a terminus.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Surely not? If they are driven to near oblivion in 2024/25 then it would take a truly awful five years under Labour for them to bounce back into being the largest party. I despair at the possibility of that happening.
HS2 is in danger of becoming a political football. The lesson to learn is that major infrastructure projects should be outwith government control so that the changing tide of political flavour is irrelevent to the needs of the country. I can see the lesson being (re-)learnt is don't do major infrastructure projects.
I think it's already at that point now. In a civil debate I had with family over it the other day, there was very much talk of HS2 just being an extension of the centralised London commuter belt. No doubt many will see it as a north-south issue if Euston's expensive completion, necessary as it may be, will be seen through despite the northern legs being axed. Indeed it does seem like the UK has an outdated/incorrect mindset towards widescale infrastructure projects.
It's laughable that Sunak is saying he doesn't want to be 'rushed' into making a decision. Please remind me, just how long has HS2 been in the planning?
What Andy Street had to say in an emergency press conference was interesting though. If he indeed resigned that would put Sunak in a very bad (or perhaps l could say even worse) place.
My knowledge of parliamentary procedure is almost zero but it seems weird to me that a project that took acts of parliament, royal assent etc. can be cut back so much with none of the same procedure or scrutiny.
Have you a source for your view on this matter? There are numerous ministries in Government and transport ministry being viewed as one of the lesser ones when posts become available at reshuffle time and accepting the views on this thread that he is not really interested in any transport brief, I find it more likely that he views matters in financial rather than socio-economic terms, as you would expect when he was Chancellor.
True - if you're able to allow boarding to start, say, 20 minutes before departure, it makes it a lot more pleasant than having everyone lined up on the platform waiting to jump on a train as soon as it pulls in.
An absolute waste of money from start to.. Well.. Why do we have this obsession with High Speed Rail just because they have it on continental Europe? This is a small island and the pain of HS2 was never worth the gain. The masse populace of Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds etc have been crying out for decent rail connections seemingly since time began and if the cancellation of HS2 is what it takes then I'm more than glad.
If you believe that the (actually small amount) of resources freed up by cancellation of HS2 would be invested in improvements to existing rail services, particularly local services in the north which already lose money hand over fist, then l have a nice bridge to sell you.....
Wait - are you suggesting the convenience of the passengers should trump operating convenience !.
On second thoughts I often see crowds of people rushing for their train at Euston as they are often platformed rather close to departure times. Same is true at Victoria so no convenience to lose anyway. In fact I prefer London Bridge for Croydon as there is only one platform I need to head to. So on balance a through station is more convenient than a terminus.
It probably shouldn't have a high weighting if deciding between a through station and a terminus but it's nice nevertheless.
It probably depends on the station but I've often been able to get on trains a fair while before departure (10, 20 minutes or more) on long distance trains out of London.
I don't think the next election is a foregone conclusion - politics is too volatile for that.
As for the one after.....if a week is a long time in politics then 5 years is a geological era.
You obviously know precious little about the internal operation of Government. Let's just say that until whatever needs to be done in Parliament has been sorted and a "grid slot" has been agreed no decisions have been officially made....
Well I don't actually know his beverage of choice. For a public servant to have been so indiscreet though, he must have been pretty sloshed. Any other conclusion would rather call into question his professionalism, wouldn't it?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
