High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[j0hn0]

at the very least, it will help us move away from an entirely London-centric economy.

and I cannot see why people still think that we don't need a massive capacity upgrade south of Rugby.

Hasn't this been debated to death? aren't these the same old arguments?

 

[222666]

They should allow faster running on the WCML in the first instance. Then I think an "upgrade" should be done of ECML, albeit delayed for some years because of the economy right now.

Those HS2 pictures look great (as a concept) but would really be an insult - why build "super jumbo" size, & have masses of empty space in it? This would never happen on the railway, & I'm sure even the more wealthy commuters are feeling hard done by already. Who is HS2 actually for?

 

[TGV]

We've had this discussion many times before.

First of all - people who keep saying the UK isn't geographically suited to HSR are simply wrong. Our country is the PERFECT size and proportions for high speed lines (REF: http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-A...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279965114&sr=1-2). The major cities are just the right distance apart to make HSR the ideal method of travel. Any further apart like the USA and flying has the advantage. Closer together and driving becomes quicker. Cost is another matter, but I'm not an economist, I'm only pointing out the real, physical benefits.

As for 5h between London and Glasgow... while that may be good in terms of traditional rail, you're missing the whole point. If the plane can do it (including check in times) in under 3h, then 5h is losing business isn't it? THAT'S the point. If the government have CO2 targets to reach to satisfy the Euro agreements and the boffins are telling them that an investment in HSR will help reduce road and air traffic, then that's the selling pitch.

Look at it as future proofing. It wasn't long ago that when we were all on 56k dial-up connections that 1Mb broadband was an incredible thought and 5Mb? Who would need such a thing? Well now we're on 20Mb, or even 50Mb in places and it seems the norm. You need to future proof your industry and business or you're going to start taking backwards steps in the future. If the auto manufacturers keep making cars that can do 70mpg in air conditioned point-to-point comfort, who on earth is going to take a train if the end-to-end journey times can't compete? High speed rail speeds up the rail part of the journey to the point that it becomes a viable choice for many. Gotta move with the times people - we can't keep clagging along in Deltics and pass it off to the paying public saying "it's fine, what more do you want?". Rail isn't customer-centric enough at the moment.

 

[Geezertronic]

And as mentioned before, people seem to forget the WCML Upgrae fiasco and also forget that any additional railways will also be built to increase capacity not just to go faster.

 

[222666]

You know that! Long drawn out fiasco & all. I do think that IF & when the ECML gets it's turn (very distant future), that lessons will have been learned from all that.

I hope that if they do build HS2 that the stock is nothing like the images we've seen, put simply, there should be seating, not vast empty spaces, like you said, it's for capacity not just speed.

I'm just a little baffled that Birmingham & cities beyond will get ANOTHER upgrade when GWML, MML or ECML could be next. Personally I think only one major project should be done at a time (because of money!) & give it to one of those that need it, not one that's not even been built yet

 

[LE Greys]

You know that! Long drawn out fiasco & all. I do think that IF & when the ECML gets it's turn (very distant future), that lessons will have been learned from all that.

I hope that if they do build HS2 that the stock is nothing like the images we've seen, put simply, there should be seating, not vast empty spaces, like you said, it's for capacity not just speed.

I'm just a little baffled that Birmingham & cities beyond will get ANOTHER upgrade when GWML, MML or ECML could be next. Personally I think only one major project should be done at a time (because of money!) & give it to one of those that need it, not one that's not even been built yet

Considering that the main sections of the ECML suffering from capacity problems are double-track, upgrading might be a lot simpler. Simply building a 155 mph double-track railway alongside the current route, perhaps even a 200 mph HS3, with a few diversions would be a lot easier than ploughing up the current railway and rebuilding it. Actually, the current sections could then be downgraded to 100 mph local passenger and goods lines. Stations would be the biggest problems, especially Peterborough, Doncaster and Newcastle Central (York is OK if we connect the new sections at Colton Junction). This may be a better answer than trying to squeeze extra speed out of the existing lines.

 

[Chris125]

Its amazing how many people say how expensive and disruptive building HS2 would be, and we're better off with massive upgrades of exisiting mainlines - have people forgotten the WCML upgrade?

Comparing that with HS1 should easily convince people how large increases in capacity should be delivered on a seperate alignment, and therefore may as well be done to HSL standards - the planning process is lengthy and controversial, but the cost spread over the whole construction timescale is more than reasonable for the short, mid and long-term benefits.

Chris

 

[sprinterguy]

HS2 needs to be looked at and planned now due to the massively long lead times required to get to the operational stage of even the first leg of a high speed line (London-Birmingham). The recent HS2 report states that the London-Birmingham section could be up and running by 2026, and even if this earliest estimate was met then the traditional anglo-scottish routes are already predicted to be reaching maximum capcaity by that point.

I've never been a strong supporter of HS2, as I am someone who has believed that the distances involved between cities in the UK are too short to really benefit from high speed rail (although I am questioning that notion now!), and that the high speed network would have to at least reach Leeds and Manchester to be truly beneficial in any sense.

However, I can see that building a brand new High Speed line will cause much less disruption than would upgrading the existing anglo-scottish and inter-regional routes, where opportunities for increased line speeds and reduced journey times are restricted anyway.

Plus, the current Intercity routes are predicted to be reaching capacity by that point, so a high speed line would be highly beneficial in releasing capacity on the classic network and allowing more paths for commuter and regional services.

Principally, I think it is wrong that HS2 should take precedence over what I see as much more necessary improvements to the existing network, such as the MML and GWML electrification and the Thameslink programme, but concede that HS2 could prove extremely useful...so long as it's not necessary to sacrifice investment in the rest of the rail network!

 

[Green Lane]

I've never been a strong supporter of HS2, as I am someone who has believed that the distances involved between cities in the UK are too short to really benefit from high speed rail (although I am questioning that notion now!), and that the high speed network would have to at least reach Leeds and Manchester to be truly beneficial in any sense.

I think it's right to question that notion. Cutting inter-city journey times even further opens up whole new possibilities of economic activity not just from tourism/shopping etc.. but also ultimately expanding viable commuting distances.

Recently, someone on here wrote a post and IIRC they were a couple and one was working in London and the other in Manchester, and you can see already it's probably viable to live in Birmingham (for example) or somewhere in the Midlands and do this, using rail.

With journey times slashed further, you could in theory see people talking the same ways about London & Glasgow in the future, I think the cutting of journey times gives people far more opportunities in how they choose to live and work.

However, the increase in capacity (as previously stated south of Rugby) would be the obvious immediate benefit of a second line as has become so obvious to me in recent weeks, particularly as I departed Euston on a rush-hour 12-car LM service to Birmingham the other day, which was totally rammed and that was in first class!

 

[222666]

Also depends on the route. Say ECML, there are plenty of diversionary routes up to Doncaster, so I can't see it being as bad as WCML works. The main diversionary route of the WCML upgrade was the M1 motorway!

 

[Waverley125]

yes, we do. Long-term having journey times of 2hr+ between Major centres like London & Leeds/Manchester/Nottingham/Sheffield/Newcastle/Edinburgh massively inhibitts growth, as you end up with a regionalised economy where benefits & cash can't flow easily from 1 part of the country to another.

It also means that the short-haul airline industry continues to dominate travel between London & Scotland & inhibits our ability to get cars off the road & plains out of the sky, reducing Carbon emissions, wasted productivity & the waste of our landscape.

The aim of HSR is not to increase capacity, it's to reduce journey times & encourage modal shift to rail from other forms of transport. Upgrade all you want but present infrastructure won't go much above 140-100mph less than we want HS2 to be. Also, bear in mind the WCML upgrade cost about 1/5th of HS2 with far fewer benefits.

The problem with the HS2 proposal as it stands isn't that it's too much-it's that it's not enough. A single HS line from London to the edge of Birmingham will deliver limited benefit. The law of diminishing returns means that for every mile further you build, the cost per mile actually falls because of economies of scale and the steadiness of demand, reducing opportunity cost for suppliers. Additionally, we also have the most expense HS in the world, and if we can get costs down to French of German levels, HS becomes an even better proposition on the CBR.

The objective needs to be to link London to all of the major cities in the North & Scotland, and then to build more networks for South Wales & the South West. And to ignore Heathrow, as this actually encourages the use of LHR which, with the complaints about flight paths, is already a problem. Building HSR to heathrow makes it more easily accessible, increases the demand for paths, and means there's a better case for Runway 3 (and shutting down Gatwick) than there is at the moment.

We need a plan to serve all areas of the UK, and not just the West Midlands/North West. So here's a plan

HS2a: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Warwick-BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET

HS2b: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Stafford-Congleton-Stockport-MANCHESTER PICCADILLY

HS2c: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Stafford-Crewe-LIVERPOOL LIME STREET

HS2d: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Leicester-NOTTINGHAM

HS2e: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Leicester-Heanor-SHEFFIELD

HS2f: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Leicester-Heanor-Rotherham-LEEDS

HS2g: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Leicester-Heanor-Rotherham-Garforth-Darlington-NEWCASTLE-Morpeth-Kelso-EDINBURGH WAVERLEY

HS2h: Euston-Hemel Hempstead-Towcester-Stafford-Crewe-PRESTON-CARLISLE-GLASGOW CENTRAL

HS3: MANCHESTER PICCADILLY-PRESTON

HS4: LIVERPOOL LIME STREET-MANCHESTER PICCADILLY-LEEDS

HS5: GLASGOW CENTRAL-EDINBURGH WAVERLEY-North Queensferry-Glenrothes-DUNDEE-Stonehaven-ABERDEEN

HS6: DUNDEE-Perth-Stirling-GLASGOW CENTRAL

 

[caliwag]

Interesting figures there Metroland.

HS potentially moves 15000 punters an hour between London and Birmingham...why?:roll: The whole exercise is is just macho posturing. Let's just improve the existing railway, for EVERYONE not the rich few who will undoubtedly be stung for a rapid trip from, err Old Oak Common (cough cough) to Birmingham. Fantastic! Is Birmingham ready for this influx?

 

[Greenback]

Waverley your plan omits everything south and west of Birmingham! A bit odd, considering you preface it by saying we need to serve all areas of the UK!

I think one of the problems with HS2 is that there is some doubt as to what it's actually for. Some defend it on the grounds that it's to boost capacity, others claim it's to encourage modal shift. Perhaps the truth is that in reality it;s just because we haven't got high speed lines like other countries and we feel left out!

 

[Geezertronic]

Perhaps the truth is that in reality it;s just because we haven't got high speed lines like other countries and we feel left out!

That's a bit of a daft statement to make. The fact is that a new line would provide extra capacity and since there is no point making it to convential speeds, high speed is the only option that should be considered given that it should be an improvement on the existing infrastructure.

It has to be done properly though and any new lines must be integrated properly with existing lines (including HS1 to provide through trains to the channel tunnel)

 

[Metroland]

Interesting figures there Metroland.

HS potentially moves 15000 punters an hour between London and Birmingham...why?:roll: The whole exercise is is just macho posturing. Let's just improve the existing railway, for EVERYONE not the rich few who will undoubtedly be stung for a rapid trip from, err Old Oak Common (cough cough) to Birmingham. Fantastic! Is Birmingham ready for this influx?

The civil aviation thing is probably overblown, it's a tiny market for 22 million people a year, although it does stick out as much pollution as the whole of National rail and London underground (moving over 2 billion people) per year.

Of course a lot would come from road. I guess there is about 6,000 people per hour moving in each direction on the M1, and slightly less on the M40.

The pendolino service can currently carry this, and slow line services about the same again.

There is the Chiltern line too.

While most passengers would undoubtedly come from rail, for such a new service, and a lot of new journeys generated, saving roughly no carbon (with current power generation technology), the argument would be it would free up the classic route for further modal shift with commuter services and freight, which would most defiantly save carbon.

The chief argument is probably still that journey time reductions would shrink the n/s divide and economic imbalances and really the Victorian WCML is at the near limits of what it can produce with it's current mix of speed, traffic mix and stopping pattern. The alternative would be to build more roads or airports, which would be far more polluting and not save any time over the 100-350 mile mark.

 

[Greenback]

That's a bit of a daft statement to make. The fact is that a new line would provide extra capacity and since there is no point making it to convential speeds, high speed is the only option that should be considered given that it should be an improvement on the existing infrastructure.

It has to be done properly though and any new lines must be integrated properly with existing lines (including HS1 to provide through trains to the channel tunnel)

Is it? How many times have we heard how Britain only has one, short high speed line when Japan, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have them and are building more? This argument. that other countries are ahead of us, crops up all the time in railway magazines and in the general media.

 

[Metroland]

I guess the worry is, if you are international business, you are looking at tax, working rights and transport and the availability of labour (which is transport related), before you locate.

If other countries have far better infrastructure, then business may locate elsewhere.

We also, by law, have climate change obligations to meet, and are now net importers of energy, which causes trade imbalances and weakness in the pound.

On the aviation side, embarrassingly the UK flies more than any other EU country (almost double that of Germany with double the population). In fact, per head, the UK flies twice as much as the petrol-headed Americans. The government would want to actively look at other ways other transport can take the strain and you cannot expand aviation without breaking all your climate change obligations.

 

[gordonthemoron]

as far as infrastructure is concerned (at least within the EU), those with cheaper labour costs (former communist east europe) have far worse rail/road networks than even the UK

 

[Metroland]

Well if you want to run a low wage, lower wealth economy that's fine. Low skill manufacturing jobs have much of the workforce locally, high skill white collar jobs, workers live in a much more diffuse pattern and travel more, where time is important. When they grow more wealthy, they want to move out of the city, and high house prices as the economy grows forces some out anyway, for which they need to commute.

Yes you need to export goods, but the infrastructure isn't that backward in those countries you cannot do that.

When people get more wealthy they buy cars and take foreign holidays, all of which needs more infrastructure.

If you are opening a chocolate factory in Poland, you can probably find all the labour you need in the local area. If you are running a international consultancy in Leamington spa, I suspect that is not the case. Your managers and sales people will also need to travel more on business. Likewise, if you were operating a swanky office in London, you would want to make sure all your clients and staff can get in and out.

Nevertheless all these eastern EU economies are improving road and rail networks as the economy grows, in fact Poland is building HSR.

 

[Geezertronic]

Is it? How many times have we heard how Britain only has one, short high speed line when Japan, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have them and are building more? This argument. that other countries are ahead of us, crops up all the time in railway magazines and in the general media.

If a new South-North line is to be built, it would be ridiculous not to build it to HS speed and gauge standards. That has no bearing on what our neighbours are doing but we might as well build it so that through trains from the North do have the ability to utilise the tunnel in the future.

 

[Greenback]

If a new South-North line is to be built, it would be ridiculous not to build it to HS speed and gauge standards. That has no bearing on what our neighbours are doing but we might as well build it so that through trains from the North do have the ability to utilise the tunnel in the future.

I agree - IF a new N-S line is to be built. I just agree more with those who say there are more pressing needs at the moment, there is little doubt that it will be of great benefit, but I wonde rhow much of the railway budget as a whole will be eaten up once, or if, it gets underway?

 

[YorkshireBear]

in times like this no we don't, you could spend it improving what weve got with MML GWML and NW electrification easily affordable plus IEP extra carriges for DMU's , we are not a very big country HS2 is not needed as of yet,

building it alone would cause more CO2 than air travel between glasgow and London for 60 years... that figure supports this. Faster you go the less CO2 savings you make. The benfits are not thought through so therefore should not be considered.

 

[caliwag]

Well...a warning shot of the sign of things to come...putting eggs into the high-speed basket. So who is going to use HS2 and why? has anyone done any meaningful research? I have not been asked and I don't know anyone else who has...mind you I don't know anyone that has won the lottery!!

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/july/28/southeastern_to_be_quizzed.aspx
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
LOL...Eric Pickles (former leader of Bradford City council), on radio 4, Today programme does not wish to rule out referenda on ALL issues, except perhaps hanging (thank you John Humphries for raising that one)!
I therefore look forward to the good peoples of the Chilterns, or all points South of the Manchester ship canal, resoundingly welcoming HS2 in a referendum...yes we love the idea of the provision of a fast, yet noisy, railway, passing through our back garden to the fine, hard-working Northerners...including err, Mr Pickles' former friends as surely Bradford will want to be in on the HS act!

Referenda...build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone (banana)

 

[Geezertronic]

I take it you're a NIMBY then?

 

[caliwag]

Not at all...just reporting the way things seem to be going to fuel the discussion, perhaps with a heap of cynicism.

I am not keen on road expansion. I think HS2 is neither desirable nor viable, for reasons I've posted earlier. I also think it is being promoted because it makes the engineering and business world look exciting, vibrant and go-ahead, a bit like much of the whizz bang architecture we are seeing.
I'd rather a sensible, pragmatic, softly softly approach is taken...improving and expanding what we have for the good of everyone and sustainability...a big ask I know, it just depends on attitude and approach.

However I appreciate that the West Coast upgrade was messy, though can anyone succintly suggest what the root of the problem was...bad planning, stop-go funding, poor engineering, political meddling?! I don't know.

Bit like Crossrail...I did some design work on that in 1993!...political meddling and £16b+ later it may still have a few % shaved off!

 

[EWS 58038]

Skip HS2. Get your loading gauges up to 2010 standards and start running duobledeckers to gain 45% capacity increase on EVERY train.

 

[Geezertronic]

Skip HS2. Get your loading gauges up to 2010 standards and start running duobledeckers to gain 45% capacity increase on EVERY train.

And how much disruption would that cause on lines like the WCML and ECML whilst this is carried out? A massive amount I would suggest and the disruption caused by the WCML upgrade would look small in comparison

And presumably you'd have to upgrade every pantograph on every train using these "upgraded" lines to accomodate the higher positioning of the OHLE?

And you wouldn't get a 45% increase on EVERY train would you? Unless you plan on stacking the 350s and 390s on top of each other?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

The main justification that has been given for HS2, apart from marginally reduced journey times, is that the West Coast Main Line will soon be full. When the WCML upgrade was first proposed, it included a version of ERTMS, which would have allowed trains to operate at higher speeds (140 mph) and headways to be shorter. This would have vastly increased capacity.

As an example, the new high speed line between Shanghai and Nanjing in China, which has CRTMS (the Chinese equivalent of ERTMS) working from day one, has trains departing as little as every three minutes, with line speeds of up to 380 km/hr.

As the WCML upgrade progressed (or rather didn't), it was soon realised that due to the absence of a proper diversionary route, to keep trains running and reduce cost over-runs, it would be necessary to de-scope and in-cab signalling was eliminated.

At some time in the future, it will be necessary to take this pain and introduce ERTMS on the WCML, so, to lessen this pain, increase capacity and avoid the need for a high speed line, here's a much lower cost solution: -

1. Electrify the Midland Mainline (looks like it might happen anyway);
2. Reinstate the 16 miles of missing main line railway between Matlock and Millers Dale Junction, enabling through trains to operate between Manchester and London via the Midland Mainline - this was a critical element of the original electrification of the WCML in the sixties, providing a credible diversionary route whilst the WCML was undergoing knitting. Peak Rail is of course an issue, but if they are granted running rights on summer Sundays and someone else is paying to maintain the infrastructure, they might actually be better off than they are now;
3. Equip the WCML with ERTMS, using the newly electrified and extended Midland Mainline, plus the Chiltern as diversionary routes to / from Birmingham, Manchester and all points North & West;
4. Forget HS2 for another fifteen years, until UK plc has got its books balanced and is living within its means.

I believe that this would offer much of the increased capacity that HS2 would provide at a fraction of the cost and the only sacrifice would be the marginally reduced journey times, which seem to be acceptable to most people as they are and would in any case be improved with 140 mph running.

 

[rb311]

The suggestion put forward by Kingfisher appears to me to be a far more pragmatic and sensible approach than a new build rail line. By joining some of the gaps created by the Beeching butchery, the main advantages of the old rail network could be exploited.

Cost, both to the taxpayer, the majority of whom would never benefit from the new link, and to the environment, can't be justified by cutting a very short list of journey times by marginal amounts.

Rebuilding on existing track bed is much more sensible in terms of both engineering and environmental costs and would enable more options to be available to the travelling public.

But these relinks or whatever you wish to call them should be funded privately by train companies, afterall they will be the ones who will benefit most from them.

 

[EWS 58038]

Another good way in creating capacity is by getting rid of all the junctions and build fly-overs. It doesn't only allow for higher speeds, it also gives more capacity as junctions are not ocupied by conflicting train paths.

It has taken something like 30 years for the UK te realise the Hitchin fly-over was indeed needed. And what I still don't understand is why such a bottleneck as the Welwyn viaduct survived all improvement made to the east coast. Fix it and gain another 12 paths an hour on the route at relatively low cost. And yes, that does include some bridge construction and tunneling.

But when I used the Pendolino service from London to Manchester I was astonished how bad the line actually is. We had to reduce speed to 25 mph to divert on to the line to Manchester.... What a joke. Five minutes lost on that one. And there are numurouse of these examples in the UK.

Another capacity generator is a country wide clockface timetable.