High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[Geezertronic]

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.

I would certainly like to see that proof if you can post us links.

 

[grey_man]

I think all that's great Metroland, but there is a world of difference between Ashford which is both a commuter town and which benefits from the links to Europe and Inter City services to Glasgow and Manchester. I understand that HS2 will almost certainly be good for the transport infratsructure of the UK, but it does not appear to address some of the most challenging issues facing passengers.

geezertronic. You don't need links. You just need to travel on trains to see where the problems lie.

 

[Geezertronic]

geezertronic. You don't need links. You just need to travel on trains to see where the problems lie.

I do travel on the trains, more often than you seem to give me credit for. I do Birmingham International to London Euston regularly (2-3 times a week) and more often than not London St Pancras to St Albans (City) as well (at least once a week).

I am very well aware of the overcrowding issues on the WCML as I see packed trains going to and leaving Euston in the peaks. In fact, the 1903 service I travelled on last night was 8 coaches available due to a door fault in coach A so the train was more packed than usual (although the Train Manager declassified Coach G which is always the right thing to do). The extra coaches taking the 390 sets to 11 coaches will be very welcome when they come depending on which services they operate on (just upgrade the whole fleet guys!!)

I also share your pain on ticket prices especially since I usually book a day before but due to the nature of my work I tend now to book an offpeak ticket on the way back so if I miss the 1903 I can always catch a later train without fear of my ticket not being valid (plus it's cheaper than an Advance, I used to miss the 1843 regularly and be stuffed)

And if such statements are to be made such as "in fact, I would go as far as to say that the evidence proves...", then links must be provided for all to see the evidence.

 

[grey_man]

Fair enough.

 

[coral reef]

I have to say I understand the objections of the NIMBYs better than I understand some of the criticisms laid at HS2 here, and thats why I commented.

The NIMBYs points are obvious, if possibly a little overbown in some respects, but nonetheless it cannot be argued that there will be no environmental impact or noise - so in that respect they have a valid point. But I really don't understand the criticism of a new project to increase capacity in that it doesn't answer questions that relate to the entire network and passenger experience ad are being looked at independently to HS2 as one would expect. Its like someone suggesting we need to buy a coffee machine and me criticising the idea because I want to know how it is going to reduce traffic on the M25. Its like, Eh?

 

[grey_man]

I think the point is more that you've already got a **** coffee machine, you've had it twenty years and the office has been putting prices up so now it's about £20 a cup. You're not allowed to buy coffee from anybody else and there's no tea or hot chocolate. In fact they make you buy the coffee. On Fridays, they take your twenty quid BEFORE they tell you there is no coffee, but here's some tepid water with **** in it. You have to drink it. There is no choice.

Suddenly somebody is suggesting you buy another **** coffee machine. You'll have to pay £200 up front so that there'll be more coffee in 20 years time but it might still be ****. They can't make any promises. When somebody asks 'why don't we just get a better coffee machine' somebody says 'but buying another **** coffee machine means there'll be more **** coffee. We'll be charging you £30 a time for it.'

Hope that clears it up.

 

[YesToHS2]

Or if you look at it from another angle.

You've had the same coffee machine for 20 years and it's not so over used, complicated and costs so much to maintain that the coffee prices are through the roof.

You are then offered an espresso machine which whilst it has a waiting list and a considerable price tag ,it offers so much more and we will built to a high standard.

Once you have the new espresso machine you now have a choice, either the deluxe 'posh' coffee which you may or may not have to pay more for or you can have the basic bath water coffee. You would choose the espresso coffee even if it did come at a small premium for it, so the only way to shift the cheep s**t would to reduce the prices. You now have choice and therefore competition.

 

[Greenback]

I think the point is more that you've already got a **** coffee machine, you've had it twenty years and the office has been putting prices up so now it's about £20 a cup. You're not allowed to buy coffee from anybody else and there's no tea or hot chocolate. In fact they make you buy the coffee. On Fridays, they take your twenty quid BEFORE they tell you there is no coffee, but here's some tepid water with **** in it. You have to drink it. There is no choice.

Suddenly somebody is suggesting you buy another **** coffee machine. You'll have to pay £200 up front so that there'll be more coffee in 20 years time but it might still be ****. They can't make any promises. When somebody asks 'why don't we just get a better coffee machine' somebody says 'but buying another **** coffee machine means there'll be more **** coffee. We'll be charging you £30 a time for it.'

Hope that clears it up.

It does for me!

Or if you look at it from another angle.

You've had the same coffee machine for 20 years and it's not so over used, complicated and costs so much to maintain that the coffee prices are through the roof.

You are then offered an espresso machine which whilst it has a waiting list and a considerable price tag ,it offers so much more and we will built to a high standard.

Once you have the new espresso machine you now have a choice, either the deluxe 'posh' coffee which you may or may not have to pay more for or you can have the basic bath water coffee. You would choose the espresso coffee even if it did come at a small premium for it, so the only way to shift the cheep s**t would to reduce the prices. You now have choice and therefore competition.

Or, to put it yet another way, you get very, very expensive **** premium coffee, or slightly less expensive even more **** coffee. Either way, the choice is pretty limited if you don't like coffee.

I think that sums up nicely the position of those who want to see a shake up of the whole system first. Otherwise we will just be getting more and more of the same. New line, same old ****.

 

[grey_man]

Having thought about it...

I think the point is more that you've already got a **** coffee machine, you've had it twenty years and the office has been putting prices up so now it's about £20 a cup. You're not allowed to buy coffee from anybody else and there's no tea or hot chocolate. In fact they make you buy the coffee. On Fridays, they take your twenty quid BEFORE they tell you there is no coffee, but here's some tepid water with **** in it so that it looks a bit like **** coffee to make you think you're getting what you paid for but it isn't **** coffee, it's just ****. You have to drink it. There is no choice.

On more days than you would like, they make you drink the **** coffee standing up for two hours in a phone box that smells of **** with four other people. On some days, you are joined by a tired, fractious child who screams blue murder for the whole two hours. On other days they blast boiling hot air into the phone box, on other days freezing cold air. On other days they black out the phone box. Sometimes they combine things.

You can buy your **** coffee for £10 if you order it three days in advance, but if you can't drink it at the exact time they tell you in the apparently unlikely event your diary changes, they trouser the tenner and make you drink your **** coffee an hour later for £20 anyway.

You can guarantee a seat and slightly frothy **** coffee for £30 but they've stopped doing chocolate sprinkles. The reason for this is unclear but now and then they force you to watch a video of the smiley, beardy **** in a bomber jacket who owns the coffee machine buying a plane that's so expensive it can take him to space and back. He looks very happy.

Suddenly somebody is suggesting you buy another **** coffee machine. You'll have to pay £200 up front so that there'll be more coffee in 20 years time but it might still be ****. They can't make any promises. What they can say is you can have your **** coffee 20 per cent quicker. You'll be retired by then, but the kids can continue your tradition of having ****, expensive coffee. Only quicker.

Dave in accounts has to have the new **** coffee machine on his desk. He's heard it's noisy and he'll have to move his stapler, but he's told that they'll put a spider plant next to it to cut down on the noise. If he doesn't like it, there's a spare desk in the broom cupboard he can move to. They'll help him pack.

When somebody asks 'why don't we just get a better coffee machine?' or 'why don't we dust off the old coffee machine we had before that is still there, that was pretty good' somebody else says 'but buying another **** coffee machine means there'll be even more **** coffee for you to choose from. We'll get some new cups and you can have it quicker. It might still be ****. We can't say. It's being ordered by the same people who ordered the current **** coffee machine. A beardy **** might be running it. But we'll be charging you £30 a time for it. Or more. We can't say. Won't be less though. Why would we?'

 

[Greenback]

Well, at the moment there is a big queue for the old coffee machine, whcih means that some people aren't happy with queuing for it, and it does need a lot of maintenance, which means it isn't always working and we sometimes have to have a cold drink as a replacement.

Don't forget we'll still have the old machine, and no one can say how many people will still be forced to use that one if they can't affford whatever prices are charged for the new one. Or if they don't like the taste of the new coffee. Or if it's too far away from their desk and the old machine is closer.

But, hey, let's get a new one anyway, as that lot across the road have got four already, and it makes us look bad.

 

[Geezertronic]

All this coffee analogy is making me thirsty, along with the **** in the posts which is making me fill my swear jar

I don't think anyone can argue that the WCML cannot be wholly upgraded much more without a similar or much more costly upgrade than that previously. Whilst the infill schemes along the line will help the individual sections, reducing journey times point to point cannot be achieved without significant investment and massive disruption.

The way I see it is you certainly won't get higher speeds south of Rugby without some quite considerable alignment changes regardless of whether ETRMS is installed or not or whether extra tilting stock is purchased or not. You certainly couldn't increase the 390s (for example) past 12 coaches without a rebuild of Euston (I don't see SDO as an option at a terminus). And I doubt the likes of MKC, WFJ and the Trent Valley stations would see many more stops as things currently stand.

 

[Greenback]

I accept that HS2 or similar is needed for additional capacity. I accept that it may well have additional benefits in terms of reduced journey times. I just think that until the structure of the industry, and the fares system, are overhauled, it will not be as beneficial to many people as it ought to be for the amount of moeny that will be spent. And that is surely to increase a great deal by the time the first train runs!

 

[coral reef]

^^ Well I'd agree with that. Hopefully this ticketing review and lengthening TOC concessions will go some way to rationalising the system.

 

[grey_man]

I think most people want the same things from the rail network. I know we may see different ways of getting there and identify different prorities but the real tension seems to stem from the people who can do actually something about it either not wanting to or having a separate agenda or being ignorant or indifferent to what most people's experience of the trains is.

 

[brianthegiant]

Sure there needs to be a debate about how to run the railways more efficiently, but suggesting/implying that long term planning & investment in the railways should be put on hold whilst that debate takes place is frankly playing into the hands of the road & air lobby.

Since HS2 is being developed by HS2 which is separate from NR, in the same way that HS1 was developed by London & continental railways. therefore HS2 should not be direclty affected by any NR restructuring.

Having lived through the eighties, I know not to be complacent that we have a government that is prepared to stick its neck out and invest major sums of public money on railway infastructure. Personally I feel that those of us with an interest in the railways (in whatever form) ought to present a united front and support this investment. After all if the HS2 project were to fail (which I dont think it will), the money allocated wouldn't be ringfenced for other rail projects it would end up being spent on roads and runways.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

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!

Now we're getting near the truth. It'll cost billions (forget the projected figures, they're waaaay too low). London - Birmingham? Forget it. It'll be no quicker than to-day's excellent Virgin service that takes you to the city centre, not a station on the outskirts leaving you to find a taxi to get in.
It's just a big posturing "we can do it" project. Still, it'll mean work for people and that's better than the dole, except most of the labourers will be from central Europe.

 

[Geezertronic]

Now we're getting near the truth. It'll cost billions (forget the projected figures, they're waaaay too low). London - Birmingham? Forget it. It'll be no quicker than to-day's excellent Virgin service that takes you to the city centre, not a station on the outskirts leaving you to find a taxi to get in.
It's just a big posturing "we can do it" project. Still, it'll mean work for people and that's better than the dole, except most of the labourers will be from central Europe.

Not too sure what you're on about here? The station in the centre of Birmingham looks to be in the position previously suggested which makes it 5 mins walk away from Moor Street/New Street. If they tie it in with the proposed Midland Metro extension (which they should) then that makes things even better. It's certainly not on the outskirts of Birmingham and definitely won't require a taxi? The station is next to the Pavilions for crying out loud?

And as for time savings, I'm yet to see them confirmed with this new alignment but if they are as previously proposed then the VT service will be arriving in Coventry (currently 59 mins) while the HS2 service would have already pulled into the Birmingham city centre station (49 mins expected)

 

[Metroland]

One of the latest excuses for not building the line is people won't travel because of the internet. Even though all the evidence is people are making freinds and business contacts well out of their normal areas and therefore travel more at some stage.

Question is, will the people that say people won't travel, actually travel less themselves? I doubt it.

 

[woodhead]

And as for time savings,..........will be arriving in Coventry (currently 59 mins) while the HS2 service would have already pulled into the Birmingham city centre station (49 mins expected)

If you add in the 10 minutes extra walking (much longer for families, OAPs and the disabled) to HS2 at Curzon Street, then the time saved will be just a few minutes - the time it would take to pack up my laptop. The things we could do for the railway infrastructure instead. HS2 is a tragic waste of an opportunity for the 'Railways'.

 

[rb311]

I think I may have made the point before, but it is worth repeating. Lest we forget, it was a group of politicians which took the decision to rip up a huge amount of the railway network in the 1960s. This was a typical political decision based on the combined evils of self interest, incorrect analysis and flawed projections.

Now fast forward 45 years and the same decision making process is being re-activated to justify the construction of High Speed 2. Of course the case for HS2 taps into the zeitgeists of the day, mainly the environment. As the UK is currently suffering from the effects of Global Warming, the argument goes that tearing up and forever spoiling great swathes of the English Countryside is actually an environmentally friendly thing to do, because, allegedly, rail is the most green mode of transport.

If indeed it is the most green mode of transport, what would further enhance rail’s green credentials would be to use the redundant track beds that remain in place since the last piece of political railway vandalism.

In past responses to my posts it has oft been pointed out to me that the majority of rail journeys is under 40 miles and in addition, that rail is primarily a mass transit system, and so airline security measures cannot apply. So taking that on as fact, surely the best way to invest in rail is to secure £17,000,000,000 on improving, enhancing and re-introducing rail lines that enable more journeys of commuter length to be taken into and between local towns and cities.

In addition, by improving the freight carrying capacity of the rail network, mainly by creating a multi modal system whereby road vehicles can drive on and off trains between strategic points, such as DIRFT and the Channel Tunnel, the motorway network could breathe out and relax...

However, these are decisions which make no headlines, create no big self satisfied puffed up egos and actually create real, realistic and practical benefits, and so will never been made.

 

[Geezertronic]

If you add in the 10 minutes extra walking (much longer for families, OAPs and the disabled) to HS2 at Curzon Street, then the time saved will be just a few minutes - the time it would take to pack up my laptop. The things we could do for the railway infrastructure instead. HS2 is a tragic waste of an opportunity for the 'Railways'.

What do you base that on? 49 minutes for HS2 to get from Euston to HS2 at Curzon Street plus 10 minutes walking to New Street still equals the time it would take a VT service to get from Euston to Coventry?

One of the latest excuses for not building the line is people won't travel because of the internet. Even though all the evidence is people are making freinds and business contacts well out of their normal areas and therefore travel more at some stage.

Question is, will the people that say people won't travel, actually travel less themselves? I doubt it.

I work from home 2/3 times a week and commute the other 2/3. I find that more gets achieved with face to face meetings than telephone conferences etc... Other colleagues agree also. Plus my boss would not let me work from home 5 days a week anyway.

However, these are decisions which make no headlines, create no big self satisfied puffed up egos and actually create real, realistic and practical benefits, and so will never been made.

Quite an emotive post, not worth quoting in it's entirety but well written from a journalistic point of view. Information for and against is out there for anyone who cares to read it and digest both sides to form a non emotive point of view.

 

[vtiman]

to greenback - there isnt any confusion, hs2 is needed to provide extra capacity and provide modal shift.

barlow boy - what evidence do you have that the line will cost more than projected - hs1 was completed on time and on budget. and hs2 will be likely built in a time when contractors will be looking for work so there will be less reason for it to go overbudget.

also and as has been pointed out by geezertronic, the Birmingham trains will terminate in Curzon street not outside the city centre. also not many people would then want to go to New Street - if they wanted to go further north they would use the direct trains that wo oill use hs2 as far as Birmingham and then use the classic lines.

rb311 - if the government was doing this for self interest, they certainly wouldnt pick a route with conservative supporters who are rebelling. and what eveidence can you provide that the analysis is incorrect or that the projections are flawed. also, part of the route for hs2 will be on the trackbed pf the old great central railway which you rightly say should never have closed in the sixties. it is a bit of a strange argument that you were against closures but now are against reopenings !!!!.....

and you have used words lik "tearing up" and I am not sure where these great swathes of countryside are going to be either.

I cant see how a new fast railway that adds capacity and quiker journey times whilst using less resources then the alternative airplanes and cars can be not worth doing or is in some way politically disingenuous or corrupt. where is the evidence of this ???? also the £17 billion (easier then writing all those zeros dont you think !) may not be available as the govt might pull the plug on the funding if hs2 doesnt go ahead. and "upgrading" is another way of saying more lines - where are these going to go without massive upheaval and environmental damage of some kind. and if you dont build more railways you will need more runways and planes or more motorways and cars too. there isnt a zero cost to not building hs2.

 

[grey_man]

A few points.

£17 billion is the start up cost of course. It will be way more than that when finished. Let's be honest and double it.

Nobody is talking about passengers in all of this. I read something by a lobbyist called greengauge21 yesterday. In page after page of one sided but convincing and clearly well informed text, passengers are hardly mentioned. Which is surely the point. I am not as well informed on the subject as the pro lobbyists but I do know what it's like beinga passenger in Britain.

So what will it mean for passengers? Looks to me like even more expensive and overcomplicated ticketing and a time saving for many, if they fancy an obligatory walk to the station first.

...people won't want to walk for ten minutes between stations. Brush this off all you like. They won't like it and many won't do it.

Governments do big projects all the time. That makes headlines. Sweating the small stuff doesn't.

Great swathes of countryside is emotive talk for sure. Let's assume though that it's 'only' 22m wide and several hundred miles long. That's still a lot of countryside and you need to be sure that this is the right thing to do before you dig it up. This case has not been made although of course it willl go ahead.

 

[Invincibles]

To me the Birmingham site is actually better than the current New Street location as it will be integrate it into the main shopping developments and, with clever design, remove many of the problems with encountering traffic that you get walking out of New Street.

High speed railways are going to be a very imporant part of the medium term future and I do believe that it is important for the UK to be a part of that. It would be lovely to think we will be at the forefront of the next change (not doing this for puffed up egos) but for now we can not simply ignore a set of developments.

I actually think that the commuter market and local flexibility are going to be one of the major forces in the next wave of development. If we can steal a march in that area then maybe there is a good future for British engineers and manufacturers. To me though there is not a simple solution out there, simply reopening lines is regressive. The way they are reopened and integrated is going to be very important.

Rapid connectivity between trains would seem a very good idea if it can be achieved. Joining slower units (limited power to serve "branches") together quickly with faster "engines" to power them at HS type speed would offer some really interesting possibilities. OK it is a very vague suggestion but it is a possible direction.

For now I would like to see the main arteries of the high speed network put into place. The branches should follow when the technology is there.

In the mean time where it is sensible lines can be reinstated or services reintroduced.

 

[rb311]

rb311 - if the government was doing this for self interest, they certainly wouldnt pick a route with conservative supporters who are rebelling. and what eveidence can you provide that the analysis is incorrect or that the projections are flawed. also, part of the route for hs2 will be on the trackbed pf the old great central railway which you rightly say should never have closed in the sixties. it is a bit of a strange argument that you were against closures but now are against reopenings !!!!.....

You show enormous faith in politicians.... As to self interest, conservatives picking on safe conservative seats is actually the easiest thing to do. The chances of such consituencies voting anything other than Tory are next to zero, so actually they are the softest targets.

As to projections being flawed, what makes you think, given the mass of evidence before us that government projections have suddenly become accurate? Is it not a case of turning a blind eye to reality?

The cost of 17 billion pounds will be a low water mark in the actual cost. The protests, legal fights and delay tactics in the Chilterns alone will increase the bill hugely.

And, I did not, nor do not advocate not building new railways , instead, I suggest that new lines/capacity are introduced to cope with the most acute needs, ie, mass transit for short distance commuters, as this is the majority of journeys undertaken and for multi modal quick transfer freight transport. Now, that would be cutting edge....

High speed rail is yesterday's story, old hat, passe...

 

[jon0844]

You really do see this only as a political issue don't you - and a chance to knock the Tories.

Well, HS2 (or any future high speed lines built to a modern standard) are favoured by all parties (indeed much of the plan was formed under Labour and Lord Adonis) and we must have construction of new lines, and the reinstatement of old lines. Rail has to be a better future than just constructing loads of new roads (although they are going to be needed too).

I am not proposing any consequent attack on airlines, but they'll have their own issues - and increased cost will have a lot of people seeking other forms of travel, not any political influence.

In the next 50 years, I can see trains replacing planes for short-medium haul flights, leaving the expensive flights for distances that trains can't match.

We all want to be able to continue flying don't we? Well, something will have to give. And given HS2 is going to take ten years to build, we have to make decisions quickly or end up with massively late projects like Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail. Do we want to make these mistakes again?

Let's look at what we need in 2020+, not now. HS2 isn't going to be ready for ages, and in ten years do you think the WCML and ECML will be able to run smoothly given the problems they have already got?

 

[Striker]

If you add in the 10 minutes extra walking (much longer for families, OAPs and the disabled) to HS2 at Curzon Street, then the time saved will be just a few minutes - the time it would take to pack up my laptop. The things we could do for the railway infrastructure instead. HS2 is a tragic waste of an opportunity for the 'Railways'.

10 mins extra walking? To where? Who's to say that somebody doesn't want to go to the Pavillions shopping centre, in which case it's more convenient than New Street! The new HS2 station is clearly in a central location.

 

[tripleseis]

The capacity arguement is a good one. I challenge anyone to go and spend half an hour during the rush hour in the Tesco Extra car park next to the WCML and then tell us it's not a busy line.

 

[tbtc]

You show enormous faith in politicians....

As to projections being flawed, what makes you think, given the mass of evidence before us that government projections have suddenly become accurate? Is it not a case of turning a blind eye to reality?

The cost of 17 billion pounds will be a low water mark in the actual cost. The protests, legal fights and delay tactics in the Chilterns alone will increase the bill hugely

Presumably you are against things like another runway at Heathrow for the same reasons (Politicians involved, using unproven estimates, bound to be legal challenges from locals, bound to be delay tactics, bound to cost at least twice as much as planned for...) :roll:

The same can be said of any Government plan to improve infrstructure, from a new motorway/ bypass to a "New Town"

 

[rb311]

Of course it is a political decision. I am knocking all politicians not just conservatives. Making a choice like this is the sort of decision that politicians find easy and love. It makes good headlines and the subsequent effects will be felt long after the decision makers have shuffled off to their consultancies and seats in the Lords.

Building HS2 is like painting go faster stripes on a clapped out car. It looks good, but unfortunately the basic mechanics of the engine arn’t up to it. Sort out the existing railway first.

In the case of Heathrow’s 3rd runway, a private business was asking the government to expand in order to compete on an international level. How many private railway companies have been lobbying the government to build high speed rail links because they see it as good business? I would like to know the answer.