High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[MidnightFlyer]

The question in the title: under 5h London-Glasgow and under 1h30 London-Birmingham, so do we need a highly-expensive, vast high speed rail network to take Britain's railways into the 21st century?

 

[robert2000]

ermmm, yes.

its called supply and demand.

 

[generalvegitable]

no we don't need it, all we really need to do is make one of our existing main lines (e.g the west coast) European loading gauge and add a few special international stations at strategic places and then with a bit of work, and re-nationalisation, we would have a world class system, this rock is too overpopulated for High speed rail, but you could argue that we already have high speed rail everywhere, by some definitions high speed is anything over 90mph, and almost all of our lines are that speed. we don't need this fancy new line that the government think is going to solve everything, we need to concentrate on our current network.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

ermmm, yes.

its called supply and demand.

OK:
Quadruple track Rugby-Coventry and put slow loops on Coventry-Birmingham to allow 4-5tph to Euston,
Get the extra 390s in for half-hourly Liverpools;
Put extra cars on extra services Birmingham-WCML-Scotland; and
Put an extra 4th Manchester train to Euston via Crewe with the old WCML IC stock; and
As for journey times, can anyone really complain? All the above for the fraction of the cost.

 

[ukrob]

ermmm, yes.

its called supply and demand.

No, we don't 'need it' - that has nothing to do with supply and demand.

There is demand for more capacity, not necessarily demand for HSR.

I would prefer billions was spend on sorting out the countries railways before building new ones.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

no we don't need it, all we really need to do is make one of our existing main lines (e.g the west coast) European loading gauge and add a few special international stations at strategic places and then with a bit of work, and re-nationalisation, we would have a world class system, this rock is too overpopulated for High speed rail, but you could argue that we already have high speed rail everywhere, by some definitions high speed is anything over 90mph, and almost all of our lines are that speed. we don't need this fancy new line that the government think is going to solve everything, we need to concentrate on our current network.

I like full stops.

I don't think we need another HS line at the moment, but we may well in the future. I think the money should be rolled into carrying out improvements (big or small) across the network making it easier and safer to run.

 

[Greenback]

At this moment in time, with so much being cut, to go ahead with HS2 would be folly.

There are other lines that need capacity far more than the London - Birmingham corridor, and any availabke moeny should be directed to the current network first, rather than on a white elephant.

 

[j0hn0]

do we really "need" anything really?

But a first reposte to the naysayers would be..... WCML Upgrade!!

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/07/23-government-to-consider-revised-high.html

Having lived in Germany and Holland, our railways really are good for what they do, we just need more carriages.

At a time when cuts are everyones favourite topic, the new government are fully committed to building a fantastic new network for the country, as rail enthusiasts, whats not to like??

 

[me123]

Do we need High Speed Rail. Well, yes. The era of short haul air travel has to come to an end soon, and the only feasible alternative would be high speed rail. Especially for runs up to Scotland, where HSR would take thousands of passengers off planes each and every day.

But, do we need it now? It's something that's long overdue here, but I don't think money should be wasted on the project at this time. Journey times are pretty good for the bulk of the network; Scotland-London in four hours, for example. The extremities (such as Aberdeen and Penzance) may not be great at the moment, but I honestly don't think that HSR would benefit them for many decades anyway. I think that the best use of the money at this time should go to the conventional railway; use the money to electrify some key lines, provide essential capacity upgrades, renew ageing stock and keep the existing network going. Once we get that right, then we can look onto getting high speed rail through the country.

 

[moonrakerz]

Do we need High Speed Rail. Well, yes.

Well - no !

I don't think money should be wasted on the project.

Have edited your statement slightly..........

The extremities (such as Aberdeen and Penzance) may not be great.

With all due respect to the good citizens of these two pleasant places any talk of putting a high speed line to these places really just makes sensible (ish) ideas, such as speeding up London/Birmingham/Manchester/Glasgow seem equally ill thought out.
HS to Penzance - they thought Brunel was mad when he did what he did !

 

[Geezertronic]

OK:
Quadruple track Rugby-Coventry and put slow loops on Coventry-Birmingham to allow 4-5tph to Euston,
Get the extra 390s in for half-hourly Liverpools;
Put extra cars on extra services Birmingham-WCML-Scotland; and
Put an extra 4th Manchester train to Euston via Crewe with the old WCML IC stock; and
As for journey times, can anyone really complain? All the above for the fraction of the cost.

Extra cars on existing trains, yes. But how are you going to fit all those extra trains all down the WCML South of Rugby without eating into the recovery headway time, especially the non 125mph capable IC stock which I presume would have to be timed slower than the Class 390s?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Extra cars on existing trains, yes. But how are you going to fit all those extra trains all down the WCML South of Rugby without eating into the recovery headway time, especially the non 125mph capable IC stock which I presume would have to be timed slower than the Class 390s?

With the money saved I woould put six tracks in say Roade-Apsley, OR actually scrap the extra Manc/Bhm trains (the half-hourly Liv is planned anyway) and whack all Pendos up to 12-car, and pay for platforms extensions at relevant stations - still would come to a lot less than the overall cost of HS2

 

[Geezertronic]

With the money saved I woould put six tracks in say Roade-Apsley, OR actually scrap the extra Manc/Bhm trains (the half-hourly Liv is planned anyway) and whack all Pendos up to 12-car, and pay for platforms extensions at relevant stations - still would come to a lot less than the overall cost of HS2

They can't extend all stations which is why the new and extended 390s will apparently have SDO. Personally I think any new track laid between London and anywhere needs to be High Speed (above 140mph) rather than following older alignments. Even if existing stock cannot do that sort of speed then there's no harm in planning for any future stock purchases.

The WCML South is a bottleneck anyway. You'd also have to consider if Euston could handle the extra trains with or without any new track.

 

[Ivo]

@ MattE2010: A plan like that would facilitate electrifying both the GWML and the MML before we get even close to HS2 figures :roll:

I would say that they should leave HS2 for now. Ensure that every major city on the mainland (say, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff and the Core Cities Group) has at least two trains and 12 passenger cars (16 for Birmingham and Manchester) to London every hour*, and where feasible introduce passing loops on the slower lines for the LM longer-distance services to use (and south of Watford make this arrangement permanent if it isn't already); yes, that does mean putting every LM service on the slow lines (for the most part). In the cases of Brum and Manchester, I would say that these should continue to have three trains an hour to London, but also possibly a better service - 12 carriages' worth? - between themselves (against the 8-10 provided by CrossCountry).

If the Government insists on HS2, they can ensure that it includes a stop in the Bicester area to facilitate links to the imaginary (or rather EWRL ) line through Bristol/Swindon/Oxford/MK/Bedford/Cambridge.

Regarding Euston... It's a fair point. As a last resort, couldn't the LO services be diverted away from Euston somehow? Even if it simply meant building a new station underneath the Euston area, and possibly next to the Circle Line at Euston Square?

*You say that Liverpool will gain the long-awaited second service soon?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

They can't extend all stations which is why the new and extended 390s will apparently have SDO. Personally I think any new track laid between London and anywhere needs to be High Speed (above 140mph) rather than following older alignments. Even if existing stock cannot do that sort of speed then there's no harm in planning for any future stock purchases.

The WCML South is a bottleneck anyway. You'd also have to consider if Euston could handle the extra trains with or without any new track.

SDO - are you sure?: the reason none will be working glasgow trains is because they don't want to extend Lancaster, Oxenholme & Motherwell to deal with them - all other VT network stations can hold them.

I reckon Euston could deal with a departure every 3-4 mins. At current it is:

3: London Ovg
9: VT
3/4: LM

Could squeeze another couple in there per hour?

 

[Geezertronic]

SDO - are you sure?: the reason none will be working glasgow trains is because they don't want to extend Lancaster, Oxenholme & Motherwell to deal with them - all other VT network stations can hold them.

According to here, SDO is to be installed. You have to consider that the extended sets may not always be able to stick to their planed routes and may have to call at a station with a non-extended platform

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/alstom-opens-new-pendolino-depot.html

I reckon Euston could deal with a departure every 3-4 mins. At current it is:

3: London Ovg
9: VT
3/4: LM

Could squeeze another couple in there per hour?

You could and this has been done during the ash cloud fiasco (and probably is now with some extra trains during the day) but I wouldn't consider this a regular thing.

 

[ukrob]

SDO - are you sure?: the reason none will be working glasgow trains is because they don't want to extend Lancaster, Oxenholme & Motherwell to deal with them - all other VT network stations can hold them.

I reckon Euston could deal with a departure every 3-4 mins. At current it is:

3: London Ovg
9: VT
3/4: LM

Could squeeze another couple in there per hour?

SDO is part of the upgrade spec for when the additional carriages are inserted.

Remember Virgin has an extra path for the 2nd Liverpool service each hour, although unused at the moment. That is one extra path out of Euston gone straight away.

 

[scandal]

Whilst it would be easy to cut "big ticket" schemes like HSR I think its all a bit of a red herring, the benefit cost ratio and the actual cost (over a 30 year period) and benefits are fantastic. If we can justify spending £1bn a year on free bus passes for old people why on earth can't they committ £1bn a year for 30 years for a HSR network that will pay itself back many times over and brining many benefits to the country in not only reducded congestion and cleaner air, but also enhancing rail usage in this country and improving safety on the roads. The scheme also allows classic lines to be freed up and to deal with capacity, services from off the HS network can operate too, for example cities which are off the network can benefit from using parts, for example XC services from the North of Scotland to Bristol and the SW will benefit from as well as London to Birmingham passengers.
Of course many European countires benefit from HSR to improve communications not only for passengers but for freight and goods, there is I beleive a La Poste TGV set that operates in France. Business is also attracted into a fast thinking mobile country that is happy to benefit in its future which is surely a turn on espeically as it "shrinks" the country if you will with journey times.

The question is not, do we need another main line on the west coast, it is more do we need faster trains in this country.

 

[Ivo]

But surely the geography of Britain isn't really suitable for HSR? The largest cities (especially London/Birmingham/Manchester) are too close together for a speed of 186mph (300kph) to be able to justify; such a speed would only be active for about 30 minutes for it had to be cut! The only way I could see it being worthwhile in that sense is for HS1 to link up with the HS2 idea and allow through routes from, say, Manchester to Cologne. Then they could justify it, and could claim some financial assistance from the EU in the process! (The idea being that it would benefit much of western Europe, not just our island.)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

But surely the geography of Britain isn't really suitable for HSR? The largest cities (especially London/Birmingham/Manchester) are too close together for a speed of 186mph (300kph) to be able to justify; such a speed would only be active for about 30 minutes for it had to be cut! The only way I could see it being worthwhile in that sense is for HS1 to link up with the HS2 idea and allow through routes from, say, Manchester to Cologne. Then they could justify it, and could claim some financial assistance from the EU in the process! (The idea being that it would benefit much of western Europe, not just our island.)

You really think you could get money out of the EU? There wasting it all on their pensions paperwork etc whilst slowly taking over Britain, not to mention nicking most of our taxes and controlling our laws.

 

[Ivo]

Ah, true; but if they want to build a good rapport with one of the busiest parts of the future United States of Europe then they will need to be nice to us occasionally, otherwise there might just be another War of Independence!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Ah, true; but if they want to build a good rapport with one of the busiest parts of the future United States of Europe then they will need to be nice to us occasionally, otherwise there might just be another War of Independence!

lol I'd rather fight a war of independance than be chummy with the EU

 

[Metroland]

This country is quite suited to HSR, which is typically most beneficial over the 100-400 mile mark, meaning most UK conurbations can be connected with super-fast trains.

No other form of transport can offer those city-city journey times.

The choice is really whether you want more roads, feeding cars into congested cities, more air, which means more congestion around airports (and only really over the anglo-scottish stretch they can really compete) or more rail capacity.

I think the WCML upgrade proved that bolting on enhancements to classic lines isn't always cheaper and are hugely disruptive.

It's more than likely that building a network piecemeal would be most financially prudent.

As it's been pointed out, built over 30 years amounts to around £1 billion per year, which is chicken feed in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Trog]

I think the WCML upgrade proved that bolting on enhancements to classic lines isn't always cheaper and are hugely disruptive.

I agree with the above, we should build a spine high speed line up to southern Scotland. Although perhaps not all at once, as I believe traffic drops off quickly once you get north of Manchester etc. Serving the major centres on route either directly or by branches or connections onto the current network.

Birmingham due to its function as such a major rail hub, is the most obvious place to serve in the southern part of the country north of London.

This should be coupled with schemes to eliminate choke points on the classic network, that would hinder the diffusion of traffic off the high speed line, and which slow down traffic running accross the country.

 

[rail-britain]

under 5h London - Glasgow
massive rail network to take Britain's railways into the 21st century?

We already have services under 5 hours between London and Glasgow
Most of the "limited stop" services, on the WCML, are not well used (pricing policy)
However this is likely to change when the ECML direct services cease
Sadly I reckon this will see prices increase again, unless West Coast Trains realise people would rather pay the same money to fly

Aren't we already in the 21st century?!?

 

[LE Greys]

Is it possible to get passenger loading figures for domestic air travel? If we ignore connecting passengers (which make up the majority on Birmingham-London flights - although I don't have actual figures) then it would be worth considering those as the main competition for high-speed rail. On frequency and aircraft size, the busiest is London-Glasgow, followed by London-Edinburgh, suggesting that a north-south line might be able to abstract passengers from that. If it ran via Heathrow, and used an efficient codeshare system, London-Birmingham flights would probably disappear, with London-Manchester and London-Newcastle declining and switching to smaller aircraft.

It might just work.

 

[HSTfan!!!]

I think we certainly need to catch up with the rest of Europe, considering we're the pioneers of it, Britain is so behind when it comes to rail.
I'm sure it's quicker for me to get to Paris by rail from Wales, than it is to Scotland by rail, not sure what the difference is mileage wise but still.

 

[route101]

Is it possible to get passenger loading figures for domestic air travel? If we ignore connecting passengers (which make up the majority on Birmingham-London flights - although I don't have actual figures) then it would be worth considering those as the main competition for high-speed rail. On frequency and aircraft size, the busiest is London-Glasgow, followed by London-Edinburgh, suggesting that a north-south line might be able to abstract passengers from that. If it ran via Heathrow, and used an efficient codeshare system, London-Birmingham flights would probably disappear, with London-Manchester and London-Newcastle declining and switching to smaller aircraft.

It might just work.

There isent London to Birmingham flights , i have read there was years ago though Im pretty sure Edinburgh has more flights to London than Glasgow. The idea of HS trains with codeshares is pretty good , they have it in Europe . So for example you could take a HSR to train to Heathrow with a BA ticket and connect to say Bangkok . And maybe they will provide a drinks service on the train.

 

[me123]

Have edited your statement slightly..........

You've deliberately edited my quote to make me look as though I'm saying something else. If you don't think HSR should ever happen, then fair enough. But please say it yourself, and don't edit my quotes (or anyone elses) just to suit you.

With all due respect to the good citizens of these two pleasant places any talk of putting a high speed line to these places really just makes sensible (ish) ideas, such as speeding up London/Birmingham/Manchester/Glasgow seem equally ill thought out.
HS to Penzance - they thought Brunel was mad when he did what he did !

The places that will benefit most from High Speed Rail are those furthest away from their destination (normally London). The problem I have with the initial plans to only go to Birmingham and then slowly work your way northwards is that the benefits to Scotland (where there are many benefits to be had) are negligible until the line gets up here. Indeed, for Aberdeen-London, the improved journey time is still considerably slower than flying. My point; it will be a while before any high speed rail network delivers real benefits, and the way things are such an investment is not feasible at this time.

In the long term, I do see benefits for HSR. I really do think that speeding up the journey times between Scotland and London in particular will see huge benefits, and see a huge shift onto the train and away from short haul aviation. The only reason that I'm saying "not now" is because we have a huge budget deficit, we have many problems on the existing network that need fixed, and we could realistically see huge improvements to existing services by investing money in some sorely neglected areas of the original rail network.

In the future, when the country's finances are in a better state, then we should turn back to HSR and, once again, decide whether or not to pursue this option.

 

[Metroland]

Is it possible to get passenger loading figures for domestic air travel? If we ignore connecting passengers (which make up the majority on Birmingham-London flights - although I don't have actual figures) then it would be worth considering those as the main competition for high-speed rail. On frequency and aircraft size, the busiest is London-Glasgow, followed by London-Edinburgh, suggesting that a north-south line might be able to abstract passengers from that. If it ran via Heathrow, and used an efficient codeshare system, London-Birmingham flights would probably disappear, with London-Manchester and London-Newcastle declining and switching to smaller aircraft.

It might just work.

There's no flights to Birmingham from London and I don't think Liverpool now.

The figures for 2009 are below, despite all the fuss, it's actually not very many people: About 7 million, which is the not even the size of a small TOC. Think there's about 22 million domestic flight passengers in the UK altogether, mostly from Scotland. I've not included Aberdeen or Inverness in the figures or cross country flights, or those to places like Newquay. Just those relevant to an HSR,

London Heathrow –

Manchester 908,723
Newcastle 475,432
Edinburgh 1,306,065
Glasgow 1,079.970
Leeds 21,160

Gatwick –

Manchester 288,191
Newcastle 110,583
Edinburgh 647,908
Glasgow 514,660
Leeds 30,431

London City -

Manchester 21,913
Newcastle 28
Edinburgh 326,553
Glasgow 114,920
Leeds 0

Luton -

Manchester 582
Newcastle 68
Edinburgh 326,553
Glasgow 326,033
Leeds 0

Stansted -

Manchester 467
Newcastle 140,979
Edinburgh 373,714
Glasgow 305,052
Leeds 0
Prestwick 278,284

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2009Annual/Table_12_2_Dom_Air_Pax_Route_Analysis_2009.pdf