High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[43021HST]

I suppose you won't believe any NoToHS2 propaganda as well? You wouldn't want to appear hypocritical would you? After all, they could be run by a NoToHS2 propaganda company trying to 'whip up some negative guff about the scheme'.

The thing is I may have a go at the guff creating, NotoHS2 propaganda company for the exact same reason. In fact I dont belive anything I read about HS2, because what happens with big projects like these is that they propose all the grand schemes, but they go for the cheaper 'lidl' option instead or they go for the full option but the investment to the rest of the system gets cut. I dont want to end up like France where the mainline is great but the secendary and branch lines are crap, I belive in fair investment of the railways; to much money goes to improving the railways for cities, but not enough goes on the more rural railways.The railways and infrastructure in the Southeast are in far better nick compared to areas like bridgend, Port Talbot and Neath. If a little less money went to improving the businessmans journey between cities and a little more went to more local lines, that would be a good idea. But looking as we have the tory's for the next four years, my idea of fair investment will only become a dream.

 

[sprinterguy]

If a railway was utilised 24/7 though the noise would also never stop.

Yes it would, there are intervals between trains passing which are of a considerably longer duration than the amount of time it takes each train to pass by. Motorway noise is constant as the gaps between vehicles is so small and there are multiple lanes of traffic moving in the same direction simultaneously.

I've spent 18 years of my life living within 20 yards of a twin track railway and one year living half a mile from the M6, and the year living near the M6 was a lot more unpleasant.

 

[tripleseis]

I must say I would prefer to live near a railway than a motorway. Motorway = constant roar. Railway = generally more peaceful. I stayed at a hotel recently near Brugge Centraal and to tell you the truth if you didn't know the station was there you wouldn't notice the noise at all.

For years, Kidlington residents had to fight long and hard to get the Highways Agency to resurface the A34 because the traffic against the concrete was making a constant noise 24/7.

 

[Metroland]

Indeed, a couple of trains per hour, each way, gone in seconds, is equivalent to the continous roar of traffic for one hour on an A road.

 

[Geezertronic]

Indeed, a couple of trains per hour, each way, gone in seconds, is equivalent to the continous roar of traffic for one hour on an A road.

I have to agree. My parents home backs onto the WCML in Marston Green (you can see their house down the embankment just after Marston Green station) and I lived there for 10 years and to be honest, the planes taking off from BHX bothered me more.

Now I live on a busy road and it took a considerable while to get used to the cars.

 

[Striker]

Indeed, a couple of trains per hour, each way, gone in seconds, is equivalent to the continous roar of traffic for one hour on an A road.

Reading this you seem to be saying that train noise is MUCH MORE annoying than road noise?

 

[Metroland]

Definately not, and having lived next to busy roads and railways, the rail option is better.

On the subject of why railways get investment in cities or major main lines, that's because it's what rail is good at doing. Very rural lines have always had the axe hanging over them since the dawn of mass road transport in the early 20s. There is simply not the usage for them to be especially profitable. The network we have now is about right with a few missing links needed, and more mainline and city capacity, plus mass electrification and lower cost signalling to replace victorian equipment on many rural and secondary routes.

 

[LE Greys]

I certainly agree that road noise is far more annoying than both rail and air. Where I live, I am under the Luton approach, just down the hill from the A1(M) and a mile from the ECML. Luton goes quiet for hours at night, and is fairly intermittent throughout the day. The railway is only audible when the wind is in the right direction, but it is also intermittent and varied. SIG bogies produce a very distinctive sound, meaning that they are completely different from EMUs, which are completely different from freight. The same is true for Rolls-Royce, CFM and IAE jet engines, let alone props. The road is the same noise all the time, and it never stops. That's the maddening thing, there is never a break.

 

[Geezertronic]

Same with the airport depending on which way the wind blows. The dull whine of engines followed by the thrust upon takeoff can be heard from BHX for miles (or at least 5 miles in my case) when the wind is against us.

My parents house is worse as they are effectively at the bottom of the runway (not literally...)

 

[YesToHS2]

How can you not respond to the critics when they are spouting rubbish like this?

"HS2 carnage caused will be unbearable"
"concrete bomb"
"prepare you ark"
"slicing through the countryside"

And these are just a few of the emotive sound bites that the stop HS2 campaigner keep quoting. Now, it would seem to me that if they had any real arguments against the principal of HS2 or HSR in general they wouldn't have to use quotes like this to try and scare the public, their arguments should speak for themselves shouldn't they?

I'm not going to use the YesTo blog to attack the hard line critics any longer, I think they are doing a good job of alienating themselves and are becoming desperate to gain support from the wider public. Soon the blog will be full of all the latest information once more details on HS2 are released.

Instead of using emotive language and denying the benefits of HSR all together perhaps they should join in the debate and lobby the government to make sure they receive adequate compensation and that all efforts are made to mitigate impacts.

I agree with a lot of the balanced arguments on here that say that HS2 should be part of a whole package of rail upgrades and that the currently franchise systems needs a complete overhaul but I can't help but feel frustrated when I read yet another scaremongering quote.

Rant over.

 

[Bish Boy]

HS2 is fine if you live near the main station but what is the point when you live further away and you need to get on a victorian system to one of these fancy stations sitting in someones stinking armpit because there isn't enough rolling stock to cope with the current levels of passengers nevermind by 2017. Doesn't really matter to me i live in pacerland in the real north (not Manchester) but surely network expansion, rationalisation and speed improvements would be better value for money. If we are to have HS2 as it is now inevitable it needs to be linked to HS1 and it needs to go further north to make a real difference.

 

[Invincibles]

If the aim of HS2 is to connect major economic centres to aid the country in international competition then I suppose the theory is that the extra wealth created can be used to pay for the other improvements as needed.

I assume that is why China spends all its time trying to build very fast railway lines that only the rich can use instead of doing anything more widely beneficial

Actually I find the arguments for a high speed network very compelling, and if it can be done in a way that makes significant differences to journey times between the major UK centres then there will inevitably be a radial effect to the rest of the country.

To work though the temptation to stick stations in every city that the train passes must be resisted, unless 2 dedicated 140mph tracks are created to take the "stoppers".

 

[YesToHS2]

The thing is, we don't even have to look abroad to see how HSR can have economic benefits. The critics would have us believe HSR will mean that London draws in more wealth to the detriment of the towns served by HSR. But you only have look at Ashford to see that HSR can bring benefits, even with the Javelin services supposedly being empty? http://www.greengauge21.net/blog/ashford-celebrates-high-speed-1-boom/

[edit] Stop HS2 campaign director Joe Rukin says that the project is a “massive, massive gamble”, So doesn't this mean that even in his eyes HS2 has a chance of bringing economic benefits? If it was truly a bad idea he wouldn't have use the word gamble? That implies that there are two possible outcomes, not the devastation that is being promised by his and other's campaigns.

 

[LE Greys]

To work though the temptation to stick stations in every city that the train passes must be resisted, unless 2 dedicated 140mph tracks are created to take the "stoppers".

That makes sense, especially since they could easily have conventional signalling, providing XC or some other operator with an additional route to work with, which would make access to the high speed line stations a lot easier.

 

[Geezertronic]

I've always said that in my opinion HS2 should be quad tracks between London and the Y split at least, anything else leaves the scope for growth such as those suggested above unobtainable without further (and disruptive) engineering

 

[Metroland]

Looks like Labour is going soft on HSR, then again they always did give priority to touchy feely things, even if they are a finanical drain.

The Labour party has raised doubts over one of the main policies of Gordon Brown's premiership by warning that a £17bn high-speed London-Birmingham rail link is no longer "untouchable" owing to public spending cuts.

The shadow transport secretary, Maria Eagle, said the 250mph line, unveiled with the former prime minister's backing in March, would be included in a policy review ordered by party leader Ed Miliband.

"As Ed Miliband has said, we rightly start with a blank sheet of paper – that sheet doesn't have a high-speed train line already running through it," said Eagle.

In an interview with the Guardian that deals a significant blow to the political consensus around high-speed rail, she questions the economic case for the line, which will cost £30bn if it is extended to Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield after the London-to-Birmingham phase is completed in 2026.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/10/labour-high-speed-rail-link

 

[YesToHS2]

Looks like Labour is going soft on HSR, then again they always did give priority to touchy feely things, even if they are a finanical drain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/10/labour-high-speed-rail-link

I it's safe to say this can be ignored, the anti lobbyists will use it as ammunition for a while but on the whole it can be dismissed. Greengauge21 have already dismissed what Labour has said.

http://www.greengauge21.net/blog/labour-questions-economic-case-for-high-speed-rail-link/

I would go further in saying it's a case of a new leader of the opposition trying to gain some support from an audience easily swayed. It's funny how to PMs supported HSR for the past decade and now a new inexperienced leader is in charge he has done a U turn on a policy his part had set out.

 

[coral reef]

That is curious, especially considering the various runs I've done over that section, including the record in 2006. Speeds on most sections between Carstairs and Lockerbie often go over 110, I have recorded 116 at Tebay and the record run's maximum speed was 129 at Winsford. All were north of Crewe. The curves around Beattock and the Lune Gorge are all tilt-controlled (Kirkpatrick on the record produced the full eight degrees, which felt like 45 at least).

I have also done the route in diverted HSTs, and did not record one section faster than 110 mph, despite the work. All standard speed limits are 110 or lower, with EPS being 125. The standard limit might rise to 125 for short sections, but that seems unlikely at present.

I agree. I've downloaded the Network Capability – Baseline Declaration : (1) Track and Route Mileage : (2) Line-speeds : London North Western Route (North) pdf from Network Rail (I can't however find where it is now on the impenetrable NR website - if anyone else knows please post the link) and it quite clearly states TASS is fitted all the way pretty much from Crewe to Carlisle and I assume it continues into Scotland. Indeed at the Scottish border the linespeed is 110mph/125EPS. The linespeed between Harrison's sidings and Shap summit is 95mph/110EPS on the down main and 95mph/115EPS on the up.

The argument that the higher power will make up for the slower non-tilt speed is poor IMO. After all, the very same argument can be used to say that a tilt CC HS2 unit would be even faster than a pendolino over the same stretch. Yes, a CC HS2 unit may only be a bit slower than a pendo over that section (doubtful) but a tilt CC HS2 would be 20-30 minutes faster. Add this to the time saving over the HS2 line and we're talking nearly an hour off London - Glasgow from present. To me its a no brainer, considering there are high speed tilting trains out there proving themselves right not now, I don't see why the option has been written off so early in the process.

 

[YesToHS2]

I don't see why the option has been written off so early in the process.

I fear the government and HS2 Ltd may be giving into the lobbyists over cost at least. If the costs go up any further this will only add fuel to the fire where the lobbyists are concerned.

I would prefer to see a well thought out HS2 that fulfils it full potential. I think there is already concern over the costs if the CC units. We will have to wait and see what the full report reveals at the end of the month.

I certainly won't be happy or fully support a pared down HS2.

 

[Squaddie]

I fear the government and HS2 Ltd may be giving into the lobbyists over cost at least. If the costs go up any further this will only add fuel to the fire where the lobbyists are concerned.

You appear to be using the term "lobbyist" to mean someone who is opposed to the high speed rail project.

May I remind you that there are lobbyists on both sides of the argument - and that you are most definitely a lobbyist, as you have gone to the trouble of creating a website to present one side of a complex issue.

 

[YesToHS2]

You appear to be using the term "lobbyist" to mean someone who is opposed to the high speed rail project.

May I remind you that there are lobbyists on both sides of the argument - and that you are most definitely a lobbyist, as you have gone to the trouble of creating a website to present one side of a complex issue.

Sorry, anti HS2 lobbyists. Happy now? I thought using the term critic was a bit unfair on the people of have genuine concerns and questions to ask.

 

[grey_man]

Maybe we shoud use the terms 'critics' and 'happy clappers' then.

Happy now? As you would say.

 

[YesToHS2]

If I have to use "anti HS2 lobbyists" can I at least shorten it to AHLs?

 

[vtiman]

the problem is that some of those opposed to hs2 do not state where their allegiances lie nor why they are coming to the conclusions they are.

it is one thing being concerned if you think you may have to move or that the line should be routed this way or that to avoid a school or a site of particular interest but some who are against hs2 go further then that ie

"it will be a white elephant" - sweeping statement. -show proof.
"the ridership figures dont add up"----tell us why
"in 20 years everyone will be working from home" so no-one will travel?
"it will not reduce emissions"current power generation not that in 20yrs!!
"no-one north of birmingham will benefit" through trains will run !!
"london to birmingham £35 billion" 17 billion !
"all this to save 20 minutes" actually 40 mins or less than half the time
"we can use the money better on the existing network" wcml wcml wcml !
"upgrade lines" code for building new lines somewhere else !!!!!!!!!!!!

"we cant afford it"it is a few years before it will be started the debt should be under control by then and we need to differentiate between ongoing costs which can be reduced versus investment in infrastructure. reducing the former allows us to pay for the latter.

in other words these are just statements. the case for hs2 has been made based on certain historical trends and other data and evidenced by the amount of congestion on the existing road air and rail infrastructure. respected organisations like arup and leading industry figures have supported hs2. until labours u-turn on hs2 (along with tuition fee and rail fare increases which were also until very recently labour policies - bandwagon anyone) miliband around our necks will outclegg clegg at this rate !!!!

i am upfront in that i support hs2 and that I have no vested interest.
some of those opposed are in the construction business. one tory who is opposed lives in the chilterns and is in the car import business. how many of those opposed who are rejecting hs2 on environmental grounds (ie they live in the chilterns) drive suv's or other large cars, how many drive into london on the despised m40 they probably opposed also ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
actually i do have a vested interest. i want our economy to be strong and infrastructure is a part of that. i want the north and scotland to be linked more strongly to london and continental europe.

i want us all to fly and drive less and pollute less. if more people use trains those that have to be on the road will face less congestion which costs billions per year. less short haul flights will mean slots freed for longer range aircraft to destinations where one must go by plane.

hs2 is not an attack on roads or planes or classic rail it is a complementary asset which will reduce the load on the current overloaded systems. It will also reduce emissions because in 2025 the electricity will be provided more by renewables because it has to be. offshore wind will need backup systems possibly with gas hopefully not nuclear though !

this is where democracy kind of falls apart ! long term strategic decisions in the best interests of the entire country must be taken. where does the ordinary man find the information and how does he or she digest it ? do we vote for someone to make decisions for us or do we try to do this ourselves ? I am just posing the question !!! I am not for a moment suggesting that we just stand by and let the govet do what it wants and certainly dont want the entire country bulldozing.

 

[grey_man]

But the question is, will it improve the railways for passengers? That is not clear. The structure of the railways in the UK is a complete mess and there is no evidence beyond guesswork that HS2 will change that.

Just one more example to those I've already given. I was supposed to be in London today and had booked to try to get a cheaper ticket. The meeting was cancelled at the last minute, as they are, and I cannot get a refund on the journey. £100+ for nothing. If I'd booked the full fare of £245, no problem. I'd get a refund minus £10. How is any of this good for my business which pays £10,000 a year in rail fares? Do we have to wait twenty years and spend £30 billion or whatever to be in the same position?

Until you can prove that HS2 will deal with overcrowding and outrageous fares and other structural problems, the case is far from proven. Feel free to show me cast iron evidence that it will deal with overcrowding and silly fares that simply drive people on to the roads. I don't want 'we can assume' and 'it stands to reason'. Proof. A commitment from the government to cap fares. Anything.

My opinion remains that the industry needs to be tackled before we add anything else to it.

 

[coral reef]

Until you can prove that HS2 will deal with overcrowding and outrageous fares and other structural problems, the case is far from proven. Feel free to show me cast iron evidence that it will deal with overcrowding and silly fares that simply drive people on to the roads. I don't want 'we can assume' and 'it stands to reason'. Proof. A commitment from the government to cap fares. Anything.

Basically you're asking HS2 to prove something it can't possibly prove. HS2 is not a policy statement on ticket pricing, so why on earth do you expect it to resolve any of those issues?

With respect to overcrowding, that really is a no brainer. If there is parallel infrastructure taking away long distance high speed services then stands to reason this will free capacity on the classic line for other services. No doubt you will come back with the point that this will not help capacity on sections north of the completed parts of HS2. The answer to that would be of course not. The completed sections can only help capacity on the sections it duplicates, to improve capacity on other sections one would need to duplicate them with extensions to HS2. However, this is indeed the plan, so I'm not certain exactly what the criticism to this is, apart from impatience.

 

[grey_man]

I'm asking the question because it is being sold on its economic benefits, one of which must be the cost of rail travel in comparison with other forms of transport, and because the pro-lobby are demanding cast iron facts from those opposing it while there are so many uncertainties in their own case. I also would like to think that the Government is thinking about the cost to passengers as it develops the remit for this service.

I don't expect anything. I'd like the Government to look at the structure of the rail industry in this country before it adds more of the same. I'm not against HS2. I'm against it not changing anything and not changing it in spectacularly expensive fashion.

My impatience stems from the fact that successive Governments have gone along with the ongoing farce that is the rail network in the UK and nobody seems to be asking questions about what we do about that before we start this project. Some of us also remember what happened with the WCML development and are used over far too many years to seeing rows of coaches parked outside stations at weekends, usually to the complete surprise of passengers with their expensive tickets. We know how capital projects go in this country.

(I did suggest that 'it stands to reason' is either a valid argument for both sides of this debate or not at all. I'd like a bit more certainty about how this project fits in with a wider debate about transport. And that has to include all aspects of the rail service in all regions of the UK. )

 

[tbtc]

Some of us also remember what happened with the WCML development and are used over far too many years to seeing rows of coaches parked outside stations at weekends, usually to the complete surprise of passengers with their expensive tickets

...which is one reason I've been convinced that additional capacity* between London and "the north" should be on a brand new line, rather than piecemeal improvements to the ECML/ MML/ WCML...

HS2 can be built to Birmingham without disrupting a single journey on the three "main lines" north, no "rail replacement" coaches needed, no weekend disruptions etc.

* - capacity (rather than speed) is why I'm broadly in favour of HS2

 

[Squaddie]

HS2 can be built to Birmingham without disrupting a single journey on the three "main lines" north, no "rail replacement" coaches needed, no weekend disruptions etc.

But how long will it be before passengers with their expensive "High Speed" tickets will also be crawling along the M40 in replacement buses? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way).

I'm with grey_man on this one. I want a fast, modern, efficient rail network in this country, and that includes high speed lines wherever possible, but the evidence suggests very strongly (in fact, I would go as far as to say that the evidence proves) that we don't yet know how to run one.

 

[Metroland]

Sure about that?

THE first anniversary of the launch of High Speed domestic services between London and Kent has been marked with news that the 225km/h trains have provided over a million journeys for passengers who had not used trains before.

Southeastern’s High Speed services, which were launched exactly a year ago using Hitach-built Class 395 units on the the High Speed One route from London St Pancras International, are now carrying 6.5 million passengers a million a year – and customer satisfaction is reported to be the highest anywhere on the National Rail network.

Sixteen per cent of journeys – more than a million – have been made by passengers who had not used the train before, the operator Southeastern said today.

Southeastern has also disclosed that tickets to travel on High Speed services have been bought at 1,800 stations around the country, in other words at more than two out of three.

High Speed services have proved particularly attractive to people in East Kent, and the percentage of all journeys to London using High Speed trains in the past month have been: Ashford (66), Broadstairs (47), Canterbury all stations (47), Dover (64), Folkestone (66), Ramsgate (55), Strood (41).

The last survey undertaken by the watchdog group Passenger Focus showed 95 per cent of passengers thought the new service was ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/12/13-domestic-high-speed-attracts-1m.html

The business community in Ashford, Kent, is celebrating the first anniversary of the High Speed 1 rail link this month, which they credit with having made a “huge” difference to the economy of Ashford.

High Speed 1 is the railway between St Pancras in London and the Channel Tunnel and connects with the international high speed routes between London and Paris, and London and Brussels. High-speed domestic trains also use the railway, which has connections with Eurotunnel, Ashford and Ebbsfleet. It has reduced journey times from Ashford to central London to an average of 37 minutes.

Ashford's Future, the agency overseeing the town’s £2.5bn public and private sector growth programme, told Insider that the year since the link started has seen an upsurge in businesses relocating to the area – and the town is now being billed as “the fastest growing town between London and the continent”.

http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/south-east/43368-/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the question is, will it improve the railways for passengers? That is not clear. The structure of the railways in the UK is a complete mess and there is no evidence beyond guesswork that HS2 will change that.
My opinion remains that the industry needs to be tackled before we add anything else to it.

This is why the McNaulty report is due in April on VFM and industry structure.