High Speed 2

[ianbartlett]

Would you like to sign a Number 10 petition arguing for the HS2 route to be built asap? If so, the petition is available here:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Fast-trains/

Please spread the word if you agree.

I'm nnterested to know what others think of the High Speed 2 route proposals. I live in the Chilterns and the local press and forum groups are, predictably, loudly opposed to it. Whether or not that means they are in the majority is another matter, but they are certainly vocal.

Personally, I'm all for it and think many of the concerns raised are just born out of fear of change, ignorant of facts. However, I'd be interested to know what others with an interest in railways think.

Look forward to reading people's comments.

Ian

 

[MCR247]

I don't want HS2 to be built. Surely, with the amount of money it will cost for HS2, new stock and new stations, you could upgrade existing rail lines. Whereas HS2 is one line, the money could be used to upgrade the MML,WCML (again!) and the ECML to something like 150mph or maybe even upto 180mph. Money could be kept safe for the GWML once it has been electrified. You could also spend it on getting rid of 14x & 150s.

 

[ianbartlett]

I don't want HS2 to be built. Surely, with the amount of money it will cost for HS2, new stock and new stations, you could upgrade existing rail lines. Whereas HS2 is one line, the money could be used to upgrade the MML,WCML (again!) and the ECML to something like 150mph or maybe even upto 180mph. Money could be kept safe for the GWML once it has been electrified. You could also spend it on getting rid of 14x & 150s.

I see your point, but do you not think that High Speed rail might serve to change the wider perception of rail travel in the UK? At present, the bulk of people jump into their cars without a second thought but that's because transport policy since at least the 1950s has been car-focused.

I believe that a shift in attitude from government will eventually lead to a shift in attitude amongst the wider population...and greater demand for investment in all railways.

 

[MCR247]

I see your point, but do you not think that High Speed rail might serve to change the wider perception of rail travel in the UK? At present, the bulk of people jump into their cars without a second thought but that's because transport policy since at least the 1950s has been car-focused.

I believe that a shift in attitude from government will eventually lead to a shift in attitude amongst the wider population...and greater demand for investment in all railways.

But what good is HS2 to anyone who does not live on the line?

 

[bluebottle]

But what good is an electrified GWML to anyone who does not live on the line?

 

[MCR247]

But, if you read my post, you could use the money to improve multiple lines

 

[Geezertronic]

How many more upgrades can you do to the WCML (for example) before it becomes uneconomically viable to upgrade further because the benefits are not worth the expenditure? The recent "upgrade" of the WCML should have taught us that? Plus the hassle it would cause to have multiple line closures etc... to perform the work...

A new South-North line is a must in my opinion, the powers that be just need to get on with it and build the thing. The proposals for HS2 is a start (although they should 4 track between London and the proposed "Y" split), they just need to build the thing and carry it on North as soon as possible

 

[bluebottle]

But, if you read my post, you could use the money to improve multiple lines

I read your post. Where does it say in all the information released about HS2 that money is being taken from the rail budget to build it? It doesn't say that antwhere because it won't happen. The network will continue to be upgraded and HS2 will be built. A side effect of the existence of HS2 will be to free capacity on the WCML. My point still stands however, saying HS2 is no use for people who don't live near the route is pretty much the same as saying that electrifying the GWML is no use to anyone who doesn't live on its route. It's not an argument for not doing the work.

 

[Bill EWS]

I'd sign it if it was going all the way to Scotland but it looks as if it will be like the WCML electrification and take another 10-15 years to get over the border. Likewise, as this work is many years off before even starting, if it ever does, then it will be nearer 50 years before it reaches Glasgow and/or Edinburgh. It would make more sense if it was a rolling programme, starting at both ends until completed. With Birmingham being less than 200 miles from London, they would probably still benefit first.

 

[tbtc]

I'd sign it if it was going all the way to Scotland but it looks as if it will be like the WCML electrification and take another 10-15 years to get over the border. Likewise, as this work is many years off before even starting, if it ever does, then it will be nearer 50 years before it reaches Glasgow and/or Edinburgh. It would make more sense if it was a rolling programme, starting at both ends until completed. With Birmingham being less than 200 miles from London, they would probably still benefit first.

The further you get from London, the less justification for new lines (especially north of York/ Preston)

You'd be better building two lines from Greater London to the M62 than building one line from Greater London to the M8 (and I say that living in Yorkshire)

 

[bengley]

They either use it to build HS2 or nothing. They're not going to upgrade existing lines, because to be fair, there's nothing wrong with them.

The GWML electrification is also going to happen whether HS2 goes ahead or not, so being opposed to this new route because you think the government need to fund other routes is just stupid.

 

[jon0844]

I see your point, but do you not think that High Speed rail might serve to change the wider perception of rail travel in the UK? At present, the bulk of people jump into their cars without a second thought but that's because transport policy since at least the 1950s has been car-focused.

Excluding Eurostar, HS1 has trains timetabled to run at 125mph. The only advantage there is that they can run at 140mph if they're running late. But, the fact it's called HS1 must make people think the trains are amazingly quick and like nothing else in the UK.

Well, I happen to know that trains on the ECML have run at 140mph when late - albeit not legally! I was on the train, so it's not a 'friend told me' story.

If the signalling was changed to in-cab signalling, the ECML, MML and WCML could all be able to run faster trains - and presumably have more trains running on them too. It wouldn't be cheap, but the key infrastructure is already there.

I'm not against HS2 though; but there are plenty of things that could be done to improve the existing lines.

Timetabling can also fix lots of things, as can having a maintenance setup that would allow something approaching 24 hour running. If every track could allow bi-directional running, you could shut down for maintenance and still run through trains at night. Then, you could have later services leaving London and Scotland. Given that the Intercity trains can serve food and drink, there's no harm having a train arriving at 3-4am.

 

[Chafford1]

If the signalling was changed to in-cab signalling, the ECML, MML and WCML could all be able to run faster trains - and presumably have more trains running on them too. It wouldn't be cheap, but the key infrastructure is already there.

Possible but too expensive - PUG2 140mph running on WCML was abandoned due to cost.

 

[jon0844]

What was the cost compared to building a brand new line, including all the public inquiries and other things that have to be done before you go ahead?

And if we're working towards a new fleet of trains now anyway, wouldn't the cost of in-cab signalling be lower now, relatively speaking?

 

[Bill EWS]

TBTC: I thought the idea was to get as many people out of their cars and less internal long distance flghts. Just have London to Birmingham high speed will do next to nothing for that. As already mentioned, the WCML, and even the ECML could be raised to 140-150 and that would make a brand new 200 mph railway only marginally faster, only gaining on present main routes because they will be running none-stop, with little or no speed restrictions for longer (hopefully)! The whole of the UK should be able to share in these speeds and sod the distance from London agument that you give. If it's for the good of the whole of the U.K. then it should be done properly.

 

[Mojo]

The cost of upgrading the WCML to 225km/h was almost identical for the cost of a >300km/h brand new high speed line; so you might as well go with the latter and get more capacity and higher speeds to boot rather than cause massive disruption on the existing route and get less out of it.

 

[Geezertronic]

The cost of upgrading the WCML to 225km/h was almost identical for the cost of a >300km/h brand new high speed line; so you might as well go with the latter and get more capacity and higher speeds to boot rather than cause massive disruption on the existing route and get less out of it.

And that probably excludes the disruption to services and therefore passengers which would occur during the work including posessions

 

[TGV]

I'd sign it. I've already written to various people on this subject, and got a response from NR.

Trouble with constantly upgrading existing lines is the compromise. High speed rail is infamously NOT a compromise. You can't just upgrade the ECML to 300Km/h or even 150mph. There are too many restrictions, new rolling stock would be just as expensive - or arguably MORE so than a design based on an existing train such as a TGV.

Or to put it simply - there's no point in polishing a turd... If you're gonna do high speed - do it properly or not at all. Think of the freight capacity freed up on the ECML/WCML when all those passengers are taken off the very busy stretches and on to high speed.

 

[Fincra5]

I'd sign it too. I mean the WCML upgrades were a good idea but they havent really seemed to make too much differences to travel times. It would be far simpler building a new route.

 

[thegrich37423]

The delusions of these posters, and the signatories, amuses me..

 

[Metroland]

As opposed from yours. which have highly amused me over the last few days?

 

[Bill EWS]

It's still a lot of money and for many years will mean passengers changing at Birmingham, and possibly even between different stations, just to travel further north. That doesn't look like much of an improvement to overall speeds, to me!

 

[bluebottle]

It's still a lot of money and for many years will mean passengers changing at Birmingham, and possibly even between different stations, just to travel further north. That doesn't look like much of an improvement to overall speeds, to me!

It's a start though.

 

[Bill EWS]

Indeed Bluebottle, the start of a lot of very disappointed travellers. Except of course, those who just want to travel between these two cities, which the present railway manages reasonably well!

 

[Mojo]

It will not mean changing trains at Birmingham, there will be through trains connecting to the classic lines north of Birmingham.

 

[tbtc]

TBTC: I thought the idea was to get as many people out of their cars and less internal long distance flghts. Just have London to Birmingham high speed will do next to nothing for that. As already mentioned, the WCML, and even the ECML could be raised to 140-150 and that would make a brand new 200 mph railway only marginally faster, only gaining on present main routes because they will be running none-stop, with little or no speed restrictions for longer (hopefully)! The whole of the UK should be able to share in these speeds and sod the distance from London agument that you give. If it's for the good of the whole of the U.K. then it should be done properly.

This isn't just about "high speed", its about capacity/ frequency etc

Building a new line from London to Birmingham, with onward services to Manchester/ Sheffield/ Newcastle etc has a much better cost/ benefit ratio than brand new lines everywhere

Put it another way; the WCML between Preston and Carstairs has two or three trains an hour using it - do we really need to build a brand new "fast" line alongside it?

The further you get from London, the less the need for a new line (barring a couple of new junctions/ platforms to give better capacity at places like Manchester/ Leeds)

 

[gordonthemoron]

Aren't the TGVs obsolete (i.e. not built) now? Aren't they being replaced by AGVs?

 

[bluebottle]

Indeed Bluebottle, the start of a lot of very disappointed travellers. Except of course, those who just want to travel between these two cities, which the present railway manages reasonably well!

I think a rather better service than "reasonably well" might be in order. That's what HS2 is about. We aren't going to agree on that though so I'll leave it there.

 

[jopsuk]

Rather than new passenger lines, would perhaps a freight network be a better investment? Dedicated lines, designed to go further if it means a flatter route, all built to large loading guage, connecting the major freight locations? Running around twons, not through them. Approximate ideas for a network:

London ring- at about the M25.
Radial main lines from this-
Felixstowe and Harwich
Dover/Channel Tunnel
Southampton
West Country/Wales
Approx WCML (to Glasgow), MML and ECML (as far as Newcastle)

Also

Ipswich and Hull to Liverpool
Peterborough to Birmingham
Birmingham - South Wales


Don't take freight entirely off the main network, but take it off the busy and/or fast network. Create more intermodal and piggyback facilities to encorage haulage to take the train, using roads for local distribution.

That way, speed upgrades of the passenger mainlines could be meaningful.

 

[thegrich37423]

The reason why I said that there are a lot of delusional people is that they are wanting a railway to be built quicker than is practically possible.

Well there's a Hornby kit, build it if you're so impatient.....