Explain HS2 to a 'noob'!

[alexl92]

I apologise if this has been covered before; I struggle with the forum search feature.

I was wondering whether someone could explain in simple terms whether HS2 in it's current form is a good or bad plan? I'm not a complete newbie to railways in general by any means but the discussion over HS2 confuses me.

My understanding of it is that the concept is as follows: Y-shaped dedicated high speed rail lines connecting London, Brum, Sheff, Manc, Leeds and Scotland (but I'm sure I've missed some), decreasing journey time and increasing capacity. I understand it's a a good plan on paper, but the way the Government plan to execute it in terms of route and construction etc has been poorly planned and will cost far too much.

I also heard about a plan drawn up by a bloke in York (I think?) which according to the report at the time would have made more sense in terms of the route and the cost compared to HS2, but that the government refused to even consider his idea. I can't remember any specifics though.

Over all, my impression was great idea, terrible plan to execute it - and yet I mentioned this to a railway journalist recently and their response was to more or less bite my head off.

I realise that to a great extent it's a matter of opinion but if anyone could help me to understand slightly better that would be great!

Many thanks in advance

 

[NotATrainspott]

I apologise if this has been covered before; I struggle with the forum search feature.

I was wondering whether someone could explain in simple terms whether HS2 in it's current form is a good or bad plan? I'm not a complete newbie to railways in general by any means but the discussion over HS2 confuses me.

My understanding of it is that the concept is as follows: Y-shaped dedicated high speed rail lines connecting London, Brum, Sheff, Manc, Leeds and Scotland (but I'm sure I've missed some), decreasing journey time and increasing capacity. I understand it's a a good plan on paper, but the way the Government plan to execute it in terms of route and construction etc has been poorly planned and will cost far too much.

I also heard about a plan drawn up by a bloke in York (I think?) which according to the report at the time would have made more sense in terms of the route and the cost compared to HS2, but that the government refused to even consider his idea. I can't remember any specifics though.

Over all, my impression was great idea, terrible plan to execute it - and yet I mentioned this to a railway journalist recently and their response was to more or less bite my head off.

I realise that to a great extent it's a matter of opinion but if anyone could help me to understand slightly better that would be great!

Many thanks in advance

In short: HS2 is the most developed plan to get domestic high speed rail sorted in the UK. The folk behind HSUK, the alternative plan you mentioned, have the advantage that their scheme consists of little more than lines on an Ordnance Survey map. On the other hand, every element of HS2 actually needs to be feasible, and that's a far more complicated process than anything the finished documents make it seem like. The HSUK plan requires a huge number of assumptions to appear superior to HS2 on paper, such as the ability of a new line to follow the M1 motorway without costing more per kilometre than HS2 through the Chilterns. It also does not really consider the wider economic effects of what they plan to build in a way that the government can and will do, in order to justify the scheme. Choices like splitting the route into the western and eastern arms of the Y network might not make as much sense on a purely railway technical perspective, but they make much more sense when the scheme is seen as a major national infrastructure project that will define the UK economy of the future in the same way as the railways defined it in the Victorian period.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Michael Wand's idea is something I posted another thread about earlier. Could he be the bloke you're thinking of?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I also heard about a plan drawn up by a bloke in York (I think?) which according to the report at the time would have made more sense in terms of the route and the cost compared to HS2, but that the government refused to even consider his idea. I can't remember any specifics though.

I can just imagine the Select Committee hearing submissions from highly-regarded railway organisations and from greatly respected internationally known academics, all of which were formally introduced in order to make their submissions, then the next speaker to speak being formally announced as "a bloke in York".....

 

[Blamethrower]

I think the OP understands it fairly well.

It is a good plan, up to a point.

Bad points are things like not enough connections to classic lines and truly uninspiring station designs (apart from Bhm).

There are many good points, many of which have been done to death on here, but most of us agree that we are at capacity on the current railway. What most disagree with is how to deal with that issue - whether we should make do and mend (how very British) or build a new line entirely.

I am in the "Build a new line" camp because not only do you build a faster, more direct service to the cities, you build a more RELIABLE railway. A point which is overlooked by many who think that "upgrading" existing lines will work and/or those who have never commuted on the WCML / ECML / MML into London

 

[UrbanWorld]

This amazingly expensive HS2 network only serves four cities centre to centre: London, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester, leaving many cities at a clear economic disadvantage. High-speed rail works well in countries with one major city in each region hence serving that region and city well. The UK has clusters of cities 30 or 40 miles apart from each other. Serving one city directly with high-speed rail will clearly disadvantage a neighbour. High-speed rail's suitability to the UK is clearly in question, because of the urban make-up of the UK, not giving the benefits that other countries like Spain and France enjoy.

Many experts have identified a fast train solution using the existing network. Their solution is to divert HS2 funds to the appalling regional and local rail networks where the needs is and where economic growth will be created. Improving regional and local rail is viewed as more beneficial to far more people on an everyday basis than introducing a flagship high-speed rail network.

The current network has a backbone that runs north from London to Glasgow, the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and from London to Edinburgh, East Coast Main Line (ECML), either side of the Pennine hills. The ECML and WCMLs are slow because slow trains mix with fast express trains slowing the whole network. Improving local and regional rail along the WCML and ECMLs taking slow local and regional trains off these important throughways leaves them as fats expressways capable of a constant 140mph. This may entail some new local track here and there, making two track into four track, etc, and sorting out the WCML and ECML bottlenecks.

This leaves them to carry tilting trains at 140mph, the maximum design speed of the trains. Currently they only reach 125mph. A train from London to Manchester or Liverpool at a full 140mph all the way from London will give highly acceptable travel times from centre to centre of about 1hr 37mins which no one would call slow at all.

To make matters even better, one proposal by a former Network Rail executive was to reactivate the old Birmingham to Paddington line via High Wycombe uprating to fast electric and only serve Birmingham and that region. Of course local rail could use the line in Bucks, again improving local services. This uprated line takes trains off the WCML improving WCML capacity into London.

Improved essential local rail will then lift the local economies and this approach ticks all the boxes eliminating the need for new high-speed track and the massive inconvenience associated in construction of high-speed lines.

Prime non-high-speed rail points are:

1. Improve local & Regional Rail, which by default creates....
2. WCML & ECML 140mph expressways.

 

[HSTEd]

Really I think there might be too many classic connections, used as a way to escape paying for captive spurs when they would really make much more sense in the long run.

Liverpool for example. Especially with all this talk of HS3 now.

And as for upgrades - find me a way to upgrade the WCML so that a single pair of tracks carries 18 400m double deck trains per hour.

 

[UrbanWorld]

HSUK combines HS2 and HS3 in one plan for less money than HS2 alone. HSUK do plan to build new high-speed track and upgrade existing tracks and bring in disused trackbeds. A few weeks ago HSUK were summoned before the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. HS2 is not certain to go ahead as alternatives are still being considered.
http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/home.html

HS2 has little interchange, one of its prime problems. HS2 benefits 4 cities greatly while HSUK benefits all and also gives the west to east HS3 line. HS" was clearly poorly thought out, while HSUK has looked at it properly after the backlash of HS2 and come up with great plan. Those against HS2 are not necessarily against high-speed rail. Most do not like the form of HS2. HSUK is offering high-speed rail - but to all.