The Economist : HS2 Railroad to nowhere

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Where does or will this £32 billion come from, incidentally? Has it been set aside already, or will it come from that old favourite device, putting up to fares to "pay for improvements"?

Neither, it will come from borrowed money, so interest repayments need to be added to the cost for HS2. We are not just in debt at the moment - we are still increasing the amount of money we borrow each day to fund the interest payments on the debt we already have. It's akin to paying your mortgage on a credit card.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you seriously think no-one knows about this and you've stumbled on a secret? Network Rail are way ahead of you and have already looked into this.

This doesn't however, undermine the case for HSR. In fact, far from it. The document you've linked to points out that the study is in relation to the specific conditions for HSR in California. Yet, it still ends with this:

"Life-cycle assessment shows that high ridership coupled with planning for system-wide energy and emission reductions are necessary for a high-speed rail network to improve the environment and human health"

Hardly something earth-shattering, or new....

Two things:

1) It's a riposte to the assertion you have made now and in the past that HS2 is unequivically and unquestionably environmentally friendly. There is enough evidence to suggest that HS2 is at best neutral. All I request of you Paul, is you at take the environmental argument out of the HS2 debate. I don't claim that HS2 is damaging the environment, but neither to I believe it will be benefical. So can we please make the arguments for HS2 on ground other than the environmental benefits?

2) The conclusion of the Califonian study asserts that for a benefit to become apparent for High Speed Rail it needs both high ridership and a completely new energy mix based on low carbon technology. Neither of these are a fete accompli in the UK, so it's a huge leap of faith to assume that the ridership will be high enough to assume environmental benefits. And benefits will only accrue if there is a modal shift in travel. If it generates extra travel then that's not saving any carbon. It may be good for the economy, but make the argument on that basis, not the effect on the environment.

 

[Metroland]

It's a riposte to the assertion you have made now and in the past that HS2 is unequivically and unquestionably environmentally friendly. There is enough evidence to suggest that HS2 is at best neutral. All I request of you Paul, is you at take the environmental argument out of the HS2 debate. I don't claim that HS2 is damaging the environment, but neither to I believe it will be benefical.

I'm not aware any transport scheme, with current technology, that is 'environmentally beneficial' to any great extent, more motorised transport inevitably means more pollution. Certainly the alternatives (more road building, airport expansion) are considerably more damaging.

The question the objectors cannot answer is will restricting the growth in travel be good for the economy or people's quality of life - or even if people will accept that. If we cannot get considerably more rail capacity, we are locked into using lorries for most freight, and we are locking out substantial passenger growth on important corridors by less polluting modes, which is certainly not 'environmentally beneficial'.

The current calculations for HS2s 'environmentally neutral' claims are based on contemporary power supplies in any case, which will have to de-carbonise in order to meet treaties.

 

[WatcherZero]

And that is before we start to acknowledge that most contacts are based in and around London. So there are many reasons why London would be the preferred base for most companies despite an increase in costs. Make Birmingham and Manchester closer and it's likely that companies will relocate away from these centres because they are easier to get back to.

If that were true why are all the banks moving north to Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh? Assuming that people will only work in London and then building the infrastructure as such becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Public transport spending per head in London is 4x that of the North or the Midlands.
Why?
Because more people travel by train in London.
Why?
Because they spend 4x per head on public transport in London.

Youl find many tech companies also locate next to Research Universitys to access graduates and university research/patents and surprise surprise the greatest concentration of tech firms outside the Oxford-Cambridge area is in the North.

 

[Zoe]

Make Birmingham and Manchester closer and it's likely that companies will relocate away from these centres because they are easier to get back to.

It will though make the job market of the South East available to the North as commuting to London would be possible. It could though encourage people to relocate from the South East that wouldn't be able to currently as it would still be practical for them to keep their jobs in the South East and commute due to the faster journey times.

 

[Snapper]

Neither, it will come from borrowed money, so interest repayments need to be added to the cost for HS2. We are not just in debt at the moment - we are still increasing the amount of money we borrow each day to fund the interest payments on the debt we already have. It's akin to paying your on a credit card.

This is a statement that completely lacks credibility for two reasons. For a start, the costs of borrowing are already factored in.

The credit card analogy is simply silly. Governments borrow money to fund infrastructures projects. They always have and they always will. The trick is what the value the infrastructure projects add to the economy of UK PLC - and that the borrowing is manageable.

1) It's a riposte to the assertion you have made now and in the past that HS2 is unequivically and unquestionably environmentally friendly. There is enough evidence to suggest that HS2 is at best neutral. All I request of you , is you at take the environmental argument out of the HS2 debate. I don't claim that HS2 is damaging the environment, but neither to I believe it will be benefical. So can we please make the arguments for HS2 on ground other than the environmental benefits?

2) The conclusion of the Califonian study asserts that for a benefit to become apparent for High Speed Rail it needs both high ridership and a completely new energy mix based on low carbon technology. Neither of these are a fete accompli in the UK, so it's a huge leap of faith to assume that the ridership will be high enough to assume environmental benefits. And benefits will only accrue if there is a modal shift in travel. If it generates extra travel then that's not saving any carbon. It may be good for the economy, but make the argument on that basis, not the effect on the environment.

More scaremongering. There's absolutely no reason to leave out the environmental benefits of HS2 as they quite clearly exist. Admittedly, the NIMBY's would much prefer that they didn't as it would help to shore up their already weak case. The American study makes it quite clear that some of it's conclusions are only suitable for California. The Californian report is actually a very narrow piece of work that focuses on lifetime costs and carbon emissions. What it misses out completely is other types of pollution such as noise.

There's also something elese that's being missed out. Building HS2 will free up capacity on the existing network. Those extra trains will have a much lower emmission scale because the line they can then run on has been built for centuries.

As for 'modal shift' - it's already happening. It's quite clear that some of the passenger growth that we're seeing on the UK's railways at present comes from people transferring to rail from car and plane.

None of what HS2 is proposing is a 'huge leap of faith'. It's simply an extension of what has been proven elsewhere. After all - HSR is hardly a new idea...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If that were true why are all the banks moving north to Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh? Assuming that people will only work in London and then building the infrastructure as such becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

It's not just the banks. The BBC has moved a lot of departments out of London to places like Manchester and the Civil Service is continuing to do the same.

 

[Schnellzug]

With estimated completion dates of anything up to 2033 (and the date for starting not until 2018, apparently), it's all largely hypothetical anyway, isn't it, really. Look how plans can change in that time. I think this is something that can be filed in the "we'll see" category for the foreseeable future.

 

[Snapper]

With estimated completion dates of anything up to 2033 (and the date for starting not until 2018, apparently), it's all largely hypothetical anyway, isn't it, really.

No. It is anything but hypothetical!

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

This is a statement that completely lacks credibility for two reasons. For a start, the costs of borrowing are already factored in.

The credit card analogy is simply silly. Governments borrow money to fund infrastructures projects. They always have and they always will. The trick is what the value the infrastructure projects add to the economy of UK PLC - and that the borrowing is manageable.

How can the cost of borrowing be fully factored in when we have no idea what out borrowing costs as a nation are going to be over the next 25-50 years? Unless you're seriously suggesting issuing 50 year bonds which the market will want a massive premium for. America lost it's AAA rating and who knows if we will in the future?

As for paying the credit card with the mortgage, my fault, I wasn't refering to HS2, so I must apologise. I was referring to the general UK debt which is still growing. It IS like paying for your mortgage with a credit card though in the hope that you are going to get a better job (national growth) in the future.

More scaremongering. There's absolutely no reason to leave out the environmental benefits of HS2 as they quite clearly exist. Admittedly, the NIMBY's would much prefer that they didn't as it would help to shore up their already weak case. The American study makes it quite clear that some of it's conclusions are only suitable for California. The Californian report is actually a very narrow piece of work that focuses on lifetime costs and carbon emissions. What it misses out completely is other types of pollution such as noise.

As for 'modal shift' - it's already happening. It's quite clear that some of the passenger growth that we're seeing on the UK's railways at present comes from people transferring to rail from car and plane.

None of what HS2 is proposing is a 'huge leap of faith'. It's simply an extension of what has been proven elsewhere. After all - HSR is hardly a new idea...

Scaremongering? In what way? Why is pointing out that environmental case is not proven scaremongering? It's at best neutral when you consider lifetime costs.

HSR is not a new idea. But comparisons with other countries are specious for two reasons. Our geography means that distances between major economic centres are not as significant as in France, and secondly, our classic lines are already quite fast. Certainly faster that most countries convential lines. So whilst elsewhere else you are comparing slow rail services with HSR, in Britain you are comparing HSR with semi-high speed rail. Therefore comparisons are not entirely accurate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It will though make the job market of the South East available to the North as commuting to London would be possible. It could though encourage people to relocate from the South East that wouldn't be able to currently as it would still be practical for them to keep their jobs in the South East and commute due to the faster journey times.

Is it really likely that any sizeable numbers of people are going to consider commuting from Manchester to London? The cost would be prohibitive and the time excessive. The HSR is only part of the journey, once you travel to the station and from the station you're still not going to get to London in under 2 hours.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If that were true why are all the banks moving north to Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh? Assuming that people will only work in London and then building the infrastructure as such becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

All the banks? A few have moved some back office function but it's hardly been a mass migration. The business end of most financial institutions are still based in London and always will be. Unless we tax them to death and force them abroad that is.

 

[route:oxford]

"The £32 billion at its disposal might well yield a higher return if it were spent on less glitzy schemes, such as road improvements and intra-city transport initiatives. If the aim is to regenerate “the north”, the current plan might prove a high-speed route in the wrong direction."

The clue there being "might well".

If only journalists and "campaingers" were obliged to have some form of professional indemnity insurance to back up their claims.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

The question the objectors cannot answer is will restricting the growth in travel be good for the economy or people's quality of life - or even if people will accept that. If we cannot get considerably more rail capacity, we are locked into using lorries for most freight, and we are locking out substantial passenger growth on important corridors by less polluting modes, which is certainly not 'environmentally beneficial'

I DO support another rail line. I just don't support HS2 in it's current form. I would like HS2 to be more conventional in nature. I would like to see more stops, plenty of integration with existing rail and road corridors and plenty of rail connected freight facilities. That way it will at least do better at paying for itself. The last time I caught a train that was Glasgow-Preston-London there were 3 of us in the carriage, and one of them was Mrs GPO. I fear that this will be a similar scene on HS2, carting fresh air around. The subsidy required would then threaten the viability of the rest of the network, particularly lightly used branch lines.

 

[Snapper]

How can the cost of borrowing be fully factored in when we have no idea what out borrowing costs as a nation are going to be over the next 25-50 years? Unless you're seriously suggesting issuing 50 year bonds which the market will want a massive premium for. America lost it's AAA rating and who knows if we will in the future?

As for paying the credit card with the , my fault, I wasn't refering to HS2, so I must apologise. I was referring to the general UK debt which is still growing. It IS like paying for your mortgage with a credit card though in the hope that you are going to get a better job (national growth) in the future.

Scaremongering yet again I'm afaid. HS2 is a single project. It's not the whole of the Governments borrowing. There's absolutely no sound financial reason why the cost of the borrowing can't be accurately calculated.

Yet again, the credit card analogy really doesn't make sense and is actually rather silly. This is Government borrowing (and hardly a huge per annum amount) - not some family buying a house with 'plastic'

Scaremongering? In what way? Why is pointing out that environmental case is not proven scaremongering? It's at best neutral when you consider lifetime costs.

Even the evidence you produced (the California report) fails to support your assertion. The case is most certainly not 'at best neutral' and to try and allege that makes me think that you can't have read your own supporting evidence. The California study makes it perfectly plain that HSR most certainly can be environmentally beneficial - and that's without the other factors that I've pointed out that the report ignores.

HSR is not a new idea. But comparisons with other countries are specious for two reasons. Our geography means that distances between major economic centres are not as significant as in France, and secondly, our classic lines are already quite fast. Certainly faster that most countries convential lines. So whilst elsewhere else you are comparing slow rail services with HSR, in Britain you are comparing HSR with semi-high speed rail. Therefore comparisons are not entirely accurate.

Once again, this is simply untrue. It has been pointed out by numerous sources that the distances between station that are proposed for HS2 are very closely matched by other (successful) HSLs in Europe and elsewhere. As for the idea that 'our lines are already quite fast' - that completely ignores that fact that HS2 isn't all about speed but very much about capacity. Extra capacity at a much higher speed is just a double whammy when it comes to improvements. Add in a larger loading-gauge and it just gets better!

Is it really likely that any sizeable numbers of people are going to consider commuting from Manchester to London? The cost would be prohibitive and the time excessive. The HSR is only part of the journey, once you travel to the station and from the station you're still not going to get to London in under 2 hours.

And the point of this is? This isn't about commuting. This is about people travelling and the capacity for both passengers and freight.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

The clue there being "might well".

If only journalists and "campaingers" were obliged to have some form of professional indemnity insurance to back up their claims.

Touche.

And the difference between RAIL proclaiming 1m jobs is?

Both sides have been over exaggerating and proclaiming studies and forecasts as 'facts'. Not that Paul would ever admit that. Any study that benefits HS2 is fact, any that doubts it is lies or scaremongering.

 

[Snapper]

I DO support another rail line. I just don't support HS2 in it's current form. I would like HS2 to be more conventional in nature. I would like to see more stops, plenty of integration with existing rail and road corridors and plenty of rail connected freight facilities. That way it will at least do better at paying for itself. The last time I caught a train that was Glasgow-Preston-London there were 3 of us in the carriage, and one of them was Mrs GPO. I fear that this will be a similar scene on HS2, carting fresh air around. The subsidy required would then threaten the viability of the rest of the network, particularly lightly used branch lines.

The experience of existing High-speed lines really does make a nonsense of this argument. Adding more stops goes against all the logic of a high-speed network and removes the advantages that have led to modal shift from the airlines!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Touche.

And the difference between RAIL proclaiming 1m jobs is?

Both sides have been over exaggerating and proclaiming studies and forecasts as 'facts'. Not that would ever admit that. Any study that benefits HS2 is fact, any that doubts it is lies or scaremongering.

No, any study that actually backs up its assertions with figures that add up or conclusions that can be seen as logical, sensible and well argued is factual.

Simply making assertions that black is white doesn't fall into this category. For example, your assertion that the California study says that the environmental benefits of HSL are 'at best' neutral. All it takes is reading the study to see that is untrue.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Scaremongering yet again I'm afaid. HS2 is a single project. It's not the whole of the Governments borrowing. There's absolutely no sound financial reason why the cost of the borrowing can't be accurately calculated.

Yet again, the credit card analogy really doesn't make sense and is actually rather silly. This is Government borrowing (and hardly a huge per annum amount) - not some family buying a house with 'plastic'

The analogy is funding borrowing with more borrowing. Perfectly acceptable. We are currently funding borrowing with more borrowing in the hope that growth will be able to pay this off. However, if we allow our debt to get too high, we risk the markets factoring in a higher premimum for lending to the UK. This then means we are paying a higher interest rate on yet more borrowing. Adding £32bn to this is not going to make this less likely and we are then heaviliy reliant on HS2 being as successful as promised, which many of us have our doubts.[/quote]

The California study makes it perfectly plain that HSR most certainly can be environmentally beneficial - and that's without the other factors that I've pointed out that the report ignores.

For "can be" you are reading "is", and that's not correct. It will only be beneficail if ridership is high, and high on all journies, even off peak. Also, it needs investment in our energy generation. Nethier of which are guarenteed. My assertion is not that it's environmentall damaging, it's that the benefits are being oversold, and highly dependent on forecasts that may not happen.

that fact that HS2 isn't all about speed but very much about capacity. Extra capacity at a much higher speed is just a double whammy when it comes to improvements. Add in a larger loading-gauge and it just gets better!

Agreed about capacity, but HS2 is not the best option in my opinion, as it is likely to be too expensive and underused.

And the point of this is? This isn't about commuting. This is about people travelling and the capacity for both passengers and freight.

That wasn't a reply to you, it was a reply to Zoe who said that people will relocate to the North keeping their jobs in the South. Even as said, as a proud Northerner I can't imagine why many people would want to relocate to the North and then spend thousands of pounds commuting back down South.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The experience of existing High-speed lines really does make a nonsense of this argument. Adding more stops goes against all the logic of a high-speed network and removes the advantages that have led to modal shift from the airlines!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, any study that actually backs up its assertions with figures that add up or conclusions that can be seen as logical, sensible and well argued is factual.

Simply making assertions that black is white doesn't fall into this category. For example, your assertion that the California study says that the environmental benefits of HSL are 'at best' neutral. All it takes is reading the study to see that is untrue.

That's a rather patronising reply. It's not a nonsense argument, it's my opinion. I know it doesn't agree with yours, but perhaps, for once, see someone else's point of view? As you have said, it's not all about speed, but about capacity. Few people are motivated to travel by a small time saving, and the route from Manchester has already largely cornered the airline market.

Paul, the Califonian study takes two widely different ridership figures, and also uses the current energy generation mix. Neither of which accurately represent the likely impact on the UK. I'm not claiming (and never have) that we should use that as evidence that HS2 should not be built. I have provided it to allow people to see that there are a huge amount of variables in the enironmental argument and it's entirely possible that HS2 could be detremental. But it's not proven, but nor is your claim that is it's good. I am trying not to use absolutes, so using the phrase "at best neutral", is an attempt to acknowlege that the environmental debate suits neither of our view points especially well. I can claim that if ridership is low and our energy generation is not changed than it could determental. You can claim if ridership is high and we invest in energy generation it can be good. Both claims use the word IF. NEITHER can be proved because we don't know how many people will use it or what our power generation mix will be.

 

[RichW1]

In the end we need more capacity for the major cities that are linked together.

The project will be funded in the same way or similar as any other infrastructure project and not from the annual transport budget for all the other rail lines and services. There will be a lot of private money.

The line will be packed, I promise you that. It'll be so packed in-fact, that 2 tracks south of Birmingham will be no-where near enough. Look at Paris to Lyon; both are smaller populations than London to Birmingham and the rest of the north of England that is joined in one massive metro area, yet they still lack capacity to cope and said they (French) wish they'd built it a s a four track line.

This should not be seen as an end in itself, this is just the start of what will become a national network over the next 100 years long after I'm dead. In the contaxt of the nation and history, this will just mark the beginning of the UK becoming a high-tech, high-speed country beyond anything we've seen so far. High-speed will be linking us nation wide in the end, it's just a matter of time (too much time in the UK's case too often).

We need more houses, more railways, more airport runways, more offices, better roads and to think we can keep operating on a largely geographical form dating from the 1930's is ridiculous. We need one big push over the next 30 years to build, build, build for the 21st century. One big push will mean we can, with modern technology, fit more people in places still with pleasant environments at higher densities and high speed transport connections across the country. We can't do it if people keep constraining the UK to historic borders and transport corridors meaning we can do less business and live less comfortably in more grid-lock. I'll support high-speed rail to the hilt because after a lot of thinking I have come to the conclusion that if we want to really compete this next century, we have to identify appropriate corridors and areas within certain cities and around them to build bigger, faster and more of what we need in all areas of life. This will overlay the 20th century fabric, as the 20th did over much of the 19th.

 

[Zoe]

There is a danger that if the route through the Chilterns AONB is forced through against opposition then it could attract Swampy style protests and removing the protesters could be costly. It could also significantly delay any further high speed rail building in the same way that many road projects in the late 1990s were cancelled in part due to environmental concerns following protests against the Twyford Down, Newbury Bypass and Honiton to Exeter improvements.

 

[The Planner]

This has all gone very "RailChat" and is just the same as the thread over there. Snapper refused to acknowledge any one with differing opinions or didnt agree with HS2 there either.

 

[A0]

It is quicker and less disruptive to build new lines than upgrading/widening old ones, as HS1 showed. Widening bridges is particularly troublesome, to modern building standards and 25kV clearances you usually have to build a new one, which disrupts existing road traffic as well as rail.

The positive however is that widening does not incur the NIMBY resistance and long planning delays. New lines which speed between big population centres without stopping are of no use to local people who are affected, hence the paradox that new roads face less opposition than high speed lines, although they are more environmentally disruptive. High speed lines (300km/h or better) cannot even curve as much as motorways, so any route through crowded England is going to destroy housing, or else involve very expensive tunnelling + pressurised trains like HS1.

The other point is the economics of really high speed is that a 200mph train requires nearly three times the energy of a 125mph one, whereas it is only 25% more for 140mph. Energy ain't going to come cheap again, and we have a looming capacity problem with electricity generation.

Having gone through the pain of rebuilding the WCML, with new signalling new wiring and power supplies, new track, there really is no excuse for unreliability. Anyway what do you do with those Pendolinos, which have another twenty years life at least? Stoke/Macclesfield/Stockport could be served from a loop from HS2, but Milton Keynes and Coventry could not. And you still could not get from London to Glasgow in three hours, because no way would HS2 be justified beyond Lancashire.

Oh, and the country is bust.

The problem is freight capacity. Doubling the Chiltern line was supposed to solve that, but given all the new passenger trains that has created a new bottleneck, which is Moor Street - Aynho junction.

The real capacity crunch is south of Rugby. My suggestions:

NO to HS2.
YES to overlaying ERTMS on the signalling all the way from Watford to Carnforth, so Pendos can do 140mph nearly all the way
YES to reopening the GCML south of Rugby as a freight line. It's intact and hardly any building on it. Only problem is you would probably need a tunnel under Rugby, as it crosses the WCML at right angles in the middle of town. It can connect to the Chiltern line at Ashenden junction. There is little opposition to reopening old lines.

You could electrify it at low incremental cost, but wonder if there is the demand, as 66s run freight apart from Freightliner.

Partly right on the GC - you do have a rather large gap at Brackley though, where BR removed the viaduct and the town has grown signifcantly in the years since the railway was removed.

Having said that, the question ought to be where are the 'traffic' (freight or passenger) flows going to / from which need to be supported by additional capacity. No point in reopening the old GC from Rugby to Aylesbury IF the traffic needs to get from, say, Nuneaton to Tilbury - it won't help the problem.

There seem to be a couple of fairly big problems with HS2, cost notwithstanding:

1- whether it will really help having another fast London - Birmingham - Manchester line

2- the fact the current proposed route to Birmingham reuses very little derelict / former rail lines. Instead once it's into North Bucks / Northants it appears to be cutting across undeveloped countryside. If it were an airport or motorway being proposed, I suspect there are no shortage of people on this board who would be supporting those who will be affected in opposing this, who are currently claiming those affected are simply NIMBYs for opposing (a tad hypocrytical). HS1 was very different, in that it DOES largely follow existing transport corridors e.g. M20 / M2 which limited the damage done to the general environment.

3- Re-development of Euston to accomodate. Now anyone who reads Private Eye will have seen a recent article there suggesting the terminus should be Old Oak Common where links with the NLL, GWML, WLL and Crossrail would allow for far easier interchange than tearing up and redeveloping Euston - which does seem a valid point.

I think the article in the Economist was well written and highlighted a number of issues which pro-HS2 campaigners have yet to address.

 

[Oswyntail]

There is a report in the Times today about a "Berlin Wall" effect for wildlife. It is worth bearing in mind that this story is based on research on motorways, where the width of the corridor and frequency of traffic has been reflected in distinct genetic pools forming either side of the road. The same research found this was not true of railways which are narrower and less intensive.

 

[Metrailway]

About 50% of freight on the southern end of the WCML is going to/from Southampton/Felixstowe

 

[mallard]

If the GCML still existed, there would be less need for HS2, since it would provide some extra capacity south of Rugby. Unfortunately, the GCML doesn't still exist. Rather than rebuilding it and providing some of the benefits of the GCML, we should build HS2 and get all the benefits. It's not going to be any more expensive. The GCML isn't a viable option.

If you do nothing the WCML gets clogged up, overcrowding gets worse, paths are slowed to increase the number of services and the effect of engineering works becomes even worse. Just look at what happened to some of the southern commuter lines in the 1970s/80s. Without HS2, all WCML services get worse. With HS2, some southern-end WCML services may get slower, but they will likely get less overcrowded. Doing nothing is not an option.

Upgrading the WCML again will cost at least as much as HS2 (the last one cost £10bn, prices have risen and all the "cheap wins" have already been done), cause much more disruption and won't provide the same benefits.

HS2 is the only feasible way to improve the services currently provided by the WCML. In fact, it's the only feasible way to preserve the current levels of service while increasing capacity.

 

[Zoe]

HS2 is the only feasible way to improve the services currently provided by the WCML. In fact, it's the only feasible way to preserve the current levels of service while increasing capacity.

The current plans are not the only option, you could build a "WCML bypass" closer to the existing route.

 

[mallard]

The current plans are not the only option, you could build a "WCML bypass" closer to the existing route.

So, demolish/tunnel under all the towns and cities that the WCML goes through? Or go around them, making the "new" line very not-straight and slow? Or build a nice, fast, straight line that bypasses the most congested areas of the WCML and connects to the largest population centres? Called "High-Speed 2"?

 

[Zoe]

So, demolish/tunnel under all the towns and cities that the WCML goes through? Or go around them, making the "new" line very not-straight and slow? Or build a nice, fast, straight line that bypasses the most congested areas of the WCML and connects to the largest population centres? Called "High-Speed 2"?

It doesn't have to plough through the Chilterns AONB, there are other routes available. London to Birmingham already has a good service so the main line could go straight to Manchester/Leeds with a link to Birmingham so trains from Birmingham to the North could join the line.

 

[mallard]

It doesn't have to plough through the Chilterns AONB, there are other routes available. London to Birmingham already has a good service so the main line could go straight to Manchester/Leeds with a link to Birmingham so trains from Birmingham to the North could join the line.

What other routes? Following the WCML won't get you an alignment suitable for high-speed and/or will mean "ploughing through" major population centres.

Going East of the WCML means that you can't serve Birmingham effectively and thus, the line has no "phase 1" and the entire route to Manchester must be built in one go, with a politically unacceptable price tag. Even then, since the Chiltern AONB stretches all the way to Luton, you still don't avoid it.

If you look at this map of AONBs, you'll quickly realise that you can't go North-West from London without crossing one.

Of course it's right to be respectful of AONBs when building HS2, but they're basically impossible to avoid. The HS2 plan already does more than I believe is reasonable to preserve the natural beauty of the Chilterns.

 

[Zoe]

What other routes? Following the WCML won't get you an alignment suitable for high-speed and/or will mean "ploughing through" major population centres.

No, going directly through the likes of Milton Keynes would be expensive but there are routes closer to the M1 that could be used as these would not be as environmentally destructive. If it was simply about capacity then high speed wouldn't be as important but clearly this is about high speed also.

 

[mallard]

No, going directly through the likes of Milton Keynes would be expensive but there are routes closer to the M1 that could be used as these would not be as environmentally destructive. If it was simply about capacity then high speed wouldn't be as important but clearly this is about high speed also.

They're not proposing the current route out of spite, it's been chosen because the engineers, politicians, etc. genuinely think that it is the best route. I very much doubt you could find a reasonable route that follows the WCML/M1 that could both serve Birmingham effectively and be straight enough for high speed. The WCML itself isn't straight enough for much beyond the speeds already achieved, even with tilting rolling stock and the M1 goes to Leicester, not Birmingham.

If your absolute priority is to minimise environmental damage, then your best option is to simply do nothing. If you want to improve rail services to the North, ease capacity issues on the WCML and generally improve the country, then the current HS2 plan makes an awful lot of sense.

 

[Zoe]

They're not proposing the current route out of spite, it's been chosen because the engineers, politicians, etc. genuinely think that it is the best route.

This point of view however is not universal, I am certainly not the only person suggesting an alternative route. Is it really that important that the main line should go directly to Birmingham? Routes via the M1 were considered but it seems they are determined that the line should go on the most direct route to Birmingham possible (even though Birmingham already has a good service) and not head straight to Manchester/Leeds on a less destructive route.

 

[Snapper]

This has all gone very "RailChat" and is just the same as the thread over there. Snapper refused to acknowledge any one with differing opinions or didnt agree with HS2 there either.

Opinions aren't sacrosanct. They're able to be challenged. They are being acknowledged by being argued against.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If your absolute priority is to minimise environmental damage, then your best option is to simply do nothing.

Untrue. If you don't provide a less environmentally damaging alternative to present modes of transport when travel is growing, that's hardly minimising environmental damage.

 

[mallard]

This point of view however is not universal, I am certainly not the only person suggesting an alternative route.

You're not really suggesting an alternate route at all, just objecting to the current one. Saying "somewhere near the existing WCML or M1" (or words to that effect) isn't a route suggestion.

Of course not everybody is going to agree. You're entitled to disagree, it's a democracy, but you're not entitled to have your disagreement override the benefit to (a greater number of) others.