High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[Kneedown]

The cost for the initial phase (London to Birmingham) will be around £17bn, and it was suggested but not confirmed that extension to Manchester and Leeds would be £30bn.

And for that much we could probably electrify the GWML, MML, NE-SW mainlines and still have change left over for infills and suburban schemes, all of which would benefit many more people than HS2 ever will!

 

[rb311]

And for that much we could probably electrify the GWML, MML, NE-SW mainlines and still have change left over for infills and suburban schemes, all of which would benefit many more people than HS2 ever will!

This is the point that I have been making. Spreading £17,000,000,0000 around the network would tick many more boxes than building one line between London & Birmingham which will simply draw more economic development out of Brum and into London when people realise they can easily commute between the West Mids and Central London.

And what sort of boxes would spreading the development around tick? Firstly it would disperse economic development all around the country, by improving links between business centres not including London. It will therefore inject money into local economies all over the country rather than just a narrow corridor.

It would improve the existing network to the extent that new lines would not need to be built, and, in one particular example, by restoring the GCR to be a freight only line, with inter modal transfer, remove HGVs off the motorways..

A lot more wins than losses, therefore. Problem is, spreading investment out around the country to improve, restore, alter existing infra structure is not a big news story and so does not attract political attention.

Lest we forget, it was a political decision to rip up most of the national train set in the 1960s, so why should a decision taken now be any better?

 

[Geezertronic]

But even if HS2 gets canned completely, the £17b will not be made available to upgrade/improve existing lines so by saying the £17b could be better spent is wishful thinking.

 

[gordonthemoron]

more homes would need to be demolished if the WCML was widened than are affected by HS2

 

[LE Greys]

more homes would need to be demolished if the WCML was widened than are affected by HS2

Sextupling the line would be very difficult, and besides you might as well build the new sections so that trains could potentially use them at 200 mph. So why not just build HS2 if it's purely about capacity.

I still wish that some of this money would go towards a new viaduct/tunnel at Welwyn, but that's wishful thinking.

 

[Geezertronic]

more homes would need to be demolished if the WCML was widened than are affected by HS2

Also if Euston was expanded to accept longer trains on the existing WCML, some of the planned house demolitions as a result of HS2 would still apply around Euston wouldn't they?

 

[tbtc]

What we spent on the wcml upgrade might have paid for the line to Birmingham which we could now be using !!!

Spot on

 

[Kneedown]

But even if HS2 gets canned completely, the £17b will not be made available to upgrade/improve existing lines so by saying the £17b could be better spent is wishful thinking.

Yes, yes, so people keep saying. But there's noreason why it couldnt be. All thats needed is a policy change.

 

[YesToHS2]

For arguments sake lets say the critics are right, there is no business case and we will all be working from home in 10 years time. What is the point then of spending £17 on tinkering with old rail networks then?

If the critics are right and there is no business case for HS2 then there definitely isn't any business case for upgrading old lines. If we have learned anything it is that trying to upgrade old lines cost a lot more than it does to build new one, it's not even as if the WCML was fully upgraded with the £10bn we threw at it.

At least HS2 has the potential first and foremost to create the equivalent of 100% extra capacity and a modal shift in transport resulting in economic benefits for the whole county.

 

[sprinterguy]

Upgrading the classic lines with incremental schemes to increase capacity wouldn’t just be a one off expenditure amounting to £17 billion though would it? If demand for rail travel continued to increase, then further investment would be required to maintain an increasingly pressured rail network, causing more disruption to existing train services, even with a major programme of upgrades: Not every bottleneck can be alleviated realistically.

HS2 is a pressure valve for capacity that will be developed independently from the existing classic lines, negating disruption from the works, and once opened will offer a much improved service for Intercity passengers (Admittedly not on all major routes) and improved regional and local train services making use of released capacity on the classic lines.

I can’t remember where, but I’m sure I’ve seen a figure of £750 million set aside for development of HS2 up to 2014: Hardly the figure of £17 billion, or even £34 billion a number of people seem so terrified of. It’s not like all investment in the existing rail network is going to be dropped in favour of HS2: In fact, there is a lot of study work going on within the local transport bodies that will be affected and served by HS2 as to how local public transport services can be improved and integrated to work with High Speed Rail.

 

[Kneedown]

The very simple fact of the matter is that HS2 will only benefit people travelling between London and Brum, ultimately Manchester and Leeds. All in all a minority of the travelling public.
Using the money to upgrade and modernise existing routes that are desperately in need of it will benefit a far greater proportion of the travelling public, and therefore the costs will be recouped quicker.
We all pay taxes. Not just those living in London and Birmingham.

 

[rb311]

If the critics are right and there is no business case for HS2 then there definitely isn't any business case for upgrading old lines. If we have learned anything it is that trying to upgrade old lines cost a lot more than it does to build new one, it's not even as if the WCML was fully upgraded with the £10bn we threw at it.

At least HS2 has the potential first and foremost to create the equivalent of 100% extra capacity and a modal shift in transport resulting in economic benefits for the whole county.

Firstly, the business case for HS2 is totally different to the numerouus business cases to upgrade, improve or re-open existing lines, so the first argument is a non starter.

HS2 is a very narrow corridor transport option, and I think you're right it will only bring benefits to one county: Greater London.

I am still waiting for the answer to a previous question. How much benefit as come from the Javelins on the original high speed line? Answers anyone??

 

[sprinterguy]

Nobody gets to select what their taxes are spent on, and HS2 expenditure would only constitute a miniscule proportion of the amount of tax paid by each individual.

And HS2, once extended to Leeds and Manchester is likely to also benefit people in Liverpool, Preston, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, York as well as indirectly benefit people living in the likes of Huddersfield, Peterborough, Rugby and Milton Keynes: I don’t have to live immediately adjacent to a major Intercity route for it to be of some benefit to me: For instance, the existence of the East Coast main line offers benefits for people living in Inverness, Aberdeen, Sunderland, Bradford and Hull amongst others.

 

[j0hn0]

The very simple fact of the matter is that HS2 will only benefit people travelling between London and Brum, ultimately Manchester and Leeds. All in all a minority of the travelling public.
Using the money to upgrade and modernise existing routes that are desperately in need of it will benefit a far greater proportion of the travelling public, and therefore the costs will be recouped quicker.
We all pay taxes. Not just those living in London and Birmingham.

but it will benefit the other towns due to capacity relief and increased services for them.

ad infinitum

 

[sprinterguy]

I am still waiting for the answer to a previous question. How much benefit as come from the Javelins on the original high speed line? Answers anyone??

HS1 was never designed to be a fast route between two points in the UK, it’s a fast continental route into and out of the UK, so isn’t really comparable to the HS2 proposal. On HS2, classic compatible trains running onto the existing network will be the fast Intercity services that currently operate on the East and West Coast main lines, whereas the Javelins on HS1 are a sort of businessman’s express that offer a faster time into central London from a limited range of commuter belt towns for those that deem the shorter journey time to be valuable to them rather than catering for a major Intercity travel demand.

 

[j0hn0]

I am still waiting for the answer to a previous question. How much benefit as come from the Javelins on the original high speed line? Answers anyone??

This is not yet clear as there needs to be comparable operating periods.

HS1 was built for Eurostar services to London St Pancras, Javelins are supplemental and don't serve major population centres anyway.

Ebbsfleet was built with regeneration in mind. I guess this hasn't happened due to the economics and so could affect revenues.

In my opinion it looks like a good service, if you live in those areas. Having travelled on the train, I found it really comfortable and it travels a long way in a short space of time. St Pancras has the best transport links and so whats not to like?

 

[YesToHS2]

The very simple fact of the matter is that HS2 will only benefit people travelling between London and Brum, ultimately Manchester and Leeds. All in all a minority of the travelling public.

I think you will find Birmingham is only smaller in size than London. That's not even the rail point,HS2 services from day one will server more than just a couple major business and population centres. There will be many intermediary stations served by classic compatible train services, if I many point you in the direction of an article that sets out the proposed service patterns http://yestohs2.blogspot.com/2010/11/hs2-calling-at-station-near-you.html.

Just to put it in some perspective the cities servers alone count for 3.1 million people. The greater North West region which will be well served has a population of 3.4 million. To say that the population that will be served is insignificant is just untrue. HS2 is part of a wider plan to connect the North to the south and free up capacity on the UK's busiest lines.

Cross rail is costing £16bn I don't hear people saying we can't afford that or question it's reasoning, cross rail will only create 10% capacity. On that basis it would cost £160bn to create the same capacity levels of HS2. The argument over cost is ridiculous when you consider the 10s of billions spent on London over the past 20 years.

The north isn't asking for a hand out, business and communities just want to be a part of the success of London not be apart from it.

 

[Geezertronic]

The very simple fact of the matter is that HS2 will only benefit people travelling between London and Brum, ultimately Manchester and Leeds. All in all a minority of the travelling public.
Using the money to upgrade and modernise existing routes that are desperately in need of it will benefit a far greater proportion of the travelling public, and therefore the costs will be recouped quicker.
We all pay taxes. Not just those living in London and Birmingham.

What about services running on HS2 serving Glasgow and Edinburgh? Even a 390 running at 140mph from London to Birmingham/Manchester via HS2 then via the WCML onwards to nothern locations will show a journey time decrease to that currently offered via the WCML?

A common misconception by the No brigade is the "London to Birmingham" suggestion which does not appear to be the case since connections to existing lines are planned.

 

[Kneedown]

I think you will find Birmingham is only smaller in size than London. That's not even the rail point,HS2 services from day one will server more than just a couple major business and population centres. There will be many intermediary stations served by classic compatible train services, if I many point you in the direction of an article that sets out the proposed service patterns http://yestohs2.blogspot.com/2010/11/hs2-calling-at-station-near-you.html.

Just to put it in some perspective the cities servers alone count for 3.1 million people. The greater North West region which will be well served has a population of 3.4 million. To say that the population that will be served is insignificant is just untrue. HS2 is part of a wider plan to connect the North to the south and free up capacity on the UK's busiest lines.

Cross rail is costing £16bn I don't hear people saying we can't afford that or question it's reasoning, cross rail will only create 10% capacity. On that basis it would cost £160bn to create the same capacity levels of HS2. The argument over cost is ridiculous when you considebr the 10s of billions spent on London over the past 20 years.

The north isn't asking for a hand out, business and communities just want to be a part of the success of London not be apart from it.

So basically you're saying that potentially 7.5million people in Brum and the northwest stand to benefit from HS2? The population of the country as a whole is around 60mil. That leaves 52.5million people who wont benefit but are still paying for it.


As regards Crossrail, many people, myself included are against it for similar reasons ie it's an uneccessary luxury in tight times when the rest of the infrastructure needs bringing into the 21st century.

 

[Chris125]

HS2 will not come out of the existing rail budget, just like Crossrail, so cancelling it would not result in that money being spent on the rest of the network - its that simple. We'd all love to see more money spent on the railways, but that kind of figure outside of ordinary department spending has to be justified by a far wider 'national interest' that piecemeal upgrades wont - just look at the debacle of the WCRM. Plus of course, even if that money wasnt spent on HS2 it still leaves the WCML running at capacity by 2020 - anyone who thinks spending money on upgrading secondary and branch lines at the expense of our main economic centres needs to reconsider our countries priorities.

I can understand why people might not think its 'fair' that London gets such a large share of spending, but there's a damn good reason for it - at least with HS2 that investment will directly benefit other areas of the country while laying down the beginnings of a new network... and those who think you shouldnt pay for something you'll rarely if ever use? Well goodbye most public spending!

In the real world there are few better uses of taxpayers money than investing in long-term infrastructure with a high cost:benefit ratio and which will require a large workforce and a new generation of skilled workers and engineers which will benefit the UK for decades afterwards. Dont forget too that a Manc/Brum/Leeds/York network opens up more capacity and perhaps new services on existing lines, including potentially new direct services to London that will benefit people far beyond the planned line.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

The very simple fact of the matter is that HS2 will only benefit people travelling between London and Brum, ultimately Manchester and Leeds. All in all a minority of the travelling public.
Using the money to upgrade and modernise existing routes that are desperately in need of it will benefit a far greater proportion of the travelling public, and therefore the costs will be recouped quicker.
We all pay taxes. Not just those living in London and Birmingham.

Lots of money gets spent by the Government in one particular area. I don't remember people in Newcastle complaining about the cost of a second Severn Bridge or people in Plymouth complaining about the upgrading of the A1 in North Yorkshire to "Motorway" standard...

...most people accept that Government money gets spent on things that don't always directly benefit them.

HS2 will benefit a lot of the main population areas of the UK though. Not just a faster London service to/from Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh/ Glasgow etc (since services *will* run on to "classic" lines at first, and run on extended dedicated lines in the longer term)...

...but also the existing main lines will find they have spare capacity. As I've said before, if London - Leeds is run by HS2, then paths on the ECML can be used to provide London - Lincoln/ Cleethorpes/ Middlesbrough, or Stansted - Cambridge - Leeds. The "London - domination" of the WCML/ MML/ ECML can be changed to provide alternative services - e.g. if Manchester - London is via HS2 then the WCML stations like Tamworth can benefit from increased services (more links from Watford/ Milton Keynes/ Trent Valley to Lancashire etc).

HS2 won't benefit every single person in the UK, granted, but it'll free up a lot of paths and allow new links to be provided to a lot of new places. I was against it at first, but I can appreciate the benefits and that we can't afford another WCML upgrade (after all those disruptions/ delays).

 

[YesToHS2]

It just occurred to me the critics say that we should use a incremental system of upgrades such as the 4 package £20bn project to further upgrade the WCML. Has it not occurred to them that HS2 phase one is part of an incremental package that will serve north, east and west? It is unfortunate that in order to "breakout" of London we will have to spend £17bn but that's just the way it is. It is said that once the construction leaves the wider London area that costs of construction will half.

Can the critics find a cheap way of increasing capacity on the WCML inside of London? I do not think so. It strikes me that most of the critics/protesters live on another planet.

 

[tbtc]

Has it not occurred to them that HS2 phase one is part of an incremental package that will serve north, east and west? It is unfortunate that in order to "breakout" of London we will have to spend £17bn

Realistically, if you want to build a new railway line linking much of the UK then the place to start is between London (biggest city) and Birmingham (second biggest). But HS2 will extend further and benefit more of the country.

Contrast this with Crossrail which won't extend beyond Shenfield/ Abbey Wood - Maidenhead/ Heathrow, with little scope for the rest of the UK to benefit.

I'm all for Crossrail, of course, but I think we need to compare a "closed" system in "Greater" London and an "open" system which will serve most of the biggest places in the UK once completed.

 

[YesToHS2]

Are any supporters interested in writing an article for the blog? I have read some well put together arguments on here and I think it would be good for people to see HS2 from the perspectives of other supporters.

 

[brianthegiant]

Are any supporters interested in writing an article for the blog?.

absolutely, have an idea or two, I'll send you an email to discuss, b

 

[Philip Elliott]

HS2 will benefit a lot of the main population areas of the UK though. Not just a faster London service to/from Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh/ Glasgow etc (since services *will* run on to "classic" lines at first, and run on extended dedicated lines in the longer term)...

...but also the existing main lines will find they have spare capacity. As I've said before, if London - Leeds is run by HS2, then paths on the ECML can be used to provide London - Lincoln/ Cleethorpes/ Middlesbrough, or Stansted - Cambridge - Leeds. The "London - domination" of the WCML/ MML/ ECML can be changed to provide alternative services - e.g. if Manchester - London is via HS2 then the WCML stations like Tamworth can benefit from increased services (more links from Watford/ Milton Keynes/ Trent Valley to Lancashire etc).

As I said before the likes of Leeds services also cater for non end to end to journeys. These need to be maintained resulting in no release in capacity. On the WCML the plan is actually to reduce the service level - Stoke to go to 1tph from 2 and Coventry to drop from 3tph to 1 ! That is based on a Euston - Liverpool service calling at Watford, MK, Rugby, Coventry, BHI, New Street, Sandwell, Wolves, Stafford, Crewe & Runcorn. There won't be any issues with overcrowding on that!:roll: Meanwhile Birmingham could see 4 x 1,100 seat trains an hour - where on earth is the patronage for that going to come from?

It is nonsensical to suggest HS2 would benefit the number of people suggested. The majority of people in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester want to travel to...the respective city centre not London. We'll have the ridiculous situation where it'll be quicker to get to Birmingham from London than Crewe, Leicester or even the likes of Halesowen & Rugeley.

As a VT employee I cam get to London for free but I rarely bother as I can't have a long day out as the last bus home from Rugby is 17.52 - if we want more people to travel by rail we need more towns & cities to have a rail service. Building a line that goes through unconnected towns (Brackley, Kenilworth) and not stopping is just disgusting - the proposed alignment would stop any chance of Brackley of ever getting a station.

What many supporters forget is that whilst claiming the West Coast as full, HS2 will have already run out of train capacity before being built. It will be a 14tph line with 15/16tph services - oops! The 'classic compatible' trains will also have less seats than a 11-car Pendo or Mk.4 set.

How anyone think running a London - Leeds line via Birmingham (but not stopping) is a good idea? Trying to run all north-south IC services on one 2-track railway is a recipe for disaster....."we are sorry to announce the north is closed due to a cow on the line"

We should be looking at building a London - Nuneaton 140-155 mph that has a loop to Milton Keynes and connects to the existing route in the Crick area for Birmingham services. A 390 running at 140mph will be able to get to Glasgow quicker than a HS service. In fact the advertised Glasgow service is based on a major rebuild of the WCML along the 200 mile stretch north of Preston so HS2 will be very disruptive. The cost is also not included in advertised figures.

 

[LE Greys]

As I said before the likes of Leeds services also cater for non end to end to journeys. These need to be maintained resulting in no release in capacity. On the WCML the plan is actually to reduce the service level - Stoke to go to 1tph from 2 and Coventry to drop from 3tph to 1 ! That is based on a Euston - Liverpool service calling at Watford, MK, Rugby, Coventry, BHI, New Street, Sandwell, Wolves, Stafford, Crewe & Runcorn. There won't be any issues with overcrowding on that!:roll: Meanwhile Birmingham could see 4 x 1,100 seat trains an hour - where on earth is the patronage for that going to come from?

It is nonsensical to suggest HS2 would benefit the number of people suggested. The majority of people in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester want to travel to...the respective city centre not London. We'll have the ridiculous situation where it'll be quicker to get to Birmingham from London than Crewe, Leicester or even the likes of Halesowen & Rugeley.

As a VT employee I cam get to London for free but I rarely bother as I can't have a long day out as the last bus home from Rugby is 17.52 - if we want more people to travel by rail we need more towns & cities to have a rail service. Building a line that goes through unconnected towns (Brackley, Kenilworth) and not stopping is just disgusting - the proposed alignment would stop any chance of Brackley of ever getting a station.

What many supporters forget is that whilst claiming the West Coast as full, HS2 will have already run out of train capacity before being built. It will be a 14tph line with 15/16tph services - oops! The 'classic compatible' trains will also have less seats than a 11-car Pendo or Mk.4 set.

How anyone think running a London - Leeds line via Birmingham (but not stopping) is a good idea? Trying to run all north-south IC services on one 2-track railway is a recipe for disaster....."we are sorry to announce the north is closed due to a cow on the line"

We should be looking at building a London - Nuneaton 140-155 mph that has a loop to Milton Keynes and connects to the existing route in the Crick area for Birmingham services. A 390 running at 140mph will be able to get to Glasgow quicker than a HS service. In fact the advertised Glasgow service is based on a major rebuild of the WCML along the 200 mile stretch north of Preston so HS2 will be very disruptive. The cost is also not included in advertised figures.

That's one reason why I for one (and Greengauge 21 for another) expect to see an HS3 running from Leeds to Stratford via Peterborough, Cambridge and Stansted Airport. When HS2 runs out of capacity, there will certainly be calls for another line to back it up.

 

[dstrat]

Do we need high speed?

Of course we bloody do. As much as some of you think the trains are there for your amusement its actually purely a method of getting from A to B. We should always strive to able to do this transition in the shortest time possible. With some of the attitudes here, we would never have got out of caves and dressing ourselves in woad.

 

[Chris125]

Philip, i get your point about existing WCML capacity but paths can still be freed up, especially off peak, because there will be less variety of medium and long distance trains and their respective stopping patters - these can be standardised up to a point, reducing the need for looping, reducing conflicts and making the service more reliable.

Its also worth remembering that with the WCML full from 2020 its hard not to see some stops being ommitted before HS2 opens anyway in order to cope with long-distance demand.

Chris

 

[Geezertronic]

On the WCML the plan is actually to reduce the service level - Stoke to go to 1tph from 2 and Coventry to drop from 3tph to 1 ! That is based on a Euston - Liverpool service calling at Watford, MK, Rugby, Coventry, BHI, New Street, Sandwell, Wolves, Stafford, Crewe & Runcorn. There won't be any issues with overcrowding on that!:roll:

Do you have a source for that? Be interesting to have a look at that

Meanwhile Birmingham could see 4 x 1,100 seat trains an hour - where on earth is the patronage for that going to come from?

You're falling into the "missing the point" trap.

It is nonsensical to suggest HS2 would benefit the number of people suggested. The majority of people in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester want to travel to...the respective city centre not London. We'll have the ridiculous situation where it'll be quicker to get to Birmingham from London than Crewe, Leicester or even the likes of Halesowen & Rugeley.

And your point is?

Building a line that goes through unconnected towns (Brackley, Kenilworth) and not stopping is just disgusting - the proposed alignment would stop any chance of Brackley of ever getting a station.

Again, missing the point. If a 2 track HS2 line stopped everywhere, it would defeat the object. If HS2 was 4 track, the case for intermediate stations along the route increases dramatically.

How anyone think running a London - Leeds line via Birmingham (but not stopping) is a good idea?

Current plans show Birmingham City Centre station as a Terminus so it would be foolish to stop here and reverse as the journey time would increase. Birmingham Interchange (by the airport) is on the main route.

Trying to run all north-south IC services on one 2-track railway is a recipe for disaster....."we are sorry to announce the north is closed due to a cow on the line"

Ignoring your exaggeration, I believe HS2 should be 4 track at least until the planned Y split

A 390 running at 140mph will be able to get to Glasgow quicker than a HS service.

A 390 running at 140mph over HS2 (even to Birmingham) would do the journey in less time than on the current WCML