High Speed Rail 2 questions

[Jwill]

Hi Everyone,

I'm a third year university undergraduate doing my geography dissertation research on people's attitudes to the proposed High Speed Rail link in the UK. Having used the Eurostar, TGV, and High Speed Rail in Spain I think it is a great idea but I realise the cost may not make it worth it. As such, I was wondering how everyone here feels about the proposed HSR in the UK, whether it will ease pressure on the current rail network...whether the potential economic&environmental benefits (less cars/greater accessibility) will be outweighed by costs (cost of putting in lines etc/damage to environmental in doing this)...or whether it will be a more sustainable form of transport. Also the plan is to include a link with Heathrow airport so do you think it will encourage yourself or commuters in general to use rail transport instead of air transport.....?

Any replies and opinions are greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
James

 

[island]

Well, my first suggestion would be to try to post in the right forum The infrastructure one might be a good idea. Perhaps the mods will be so kind as to move the thread?

 

[Jwill]

That would be great if possible. I had several of the subforums open and couldn't change/delete after posting.
Cheers

 

[umontu]

... do you think it will encourage yourself or commuters in general to use rail transport instead of air transport.....?

No, mostly because where I want to go isn't really easy to fly to.
As for the other questions... I think by the time they've built it, it will likely be more expensive than planned and after ten years in operation will probably be:
A. Not used enough to make enough money back

B. Overcrowded because it was marketed well but the people running it won't want to spend money upgrading the line to deal with the costs.

I also doubt it'll be used to connect to Europe in the end either.

These are my opinions though and not others.

Cheers.

 

[CosherB]

whether it will ease pressure on the current rail network...

This is probably the main reason for it - increased capacity. The current rail network is almost full, and it's cheaper to build a new line than to try to patch more tracks onto an existing ancient network originally built for small and very slow trains.

whether the potential economic&environmental benefits (less cars/greater accessibility) will be outweighed by costs (cost of putting in lines etc/damage to environmental in doing this)...or whether it will be a more sustainable form of transport.

It will be more sustainable, especially if the government gets its finger out over power and builds some nuclear power stations to replace those being retired, and the old polluting coal-fired ones. Windmills won't cut it for base power. The costs will be high, and the payback long term; most of the payback, as with TGV, will not come from the fare box. It will come in the form of economic growth for the nation, especially the connected cities.

Also the plan is to include a link with Heathrow airport so do you think it will encourage yourself or commuters in general to use rail transport instead of air transport.....?

I'm not convinced that a link to Heathrow will be worth the cost. First, it won't actually 'go to Heathrow' but to somewhere close by, from where you'll have to change to Tube, bus, or HEX to get to the actual terminals. You might as well make that connection in London.

Second, most people going to Heathrow from, say, Manchester or Glasgow are doing so to transfer to onward flights so will fly (assuming HS2 by then serves Glasgow and will have taken almost all the Glasgow to central London traffic).

 

[caliwag]

Jwill...hello and welcome to a fine forum, I will not be around to see or hear the HS line so I have no real view, other than the fact I do not believe it will happen...politics, cash, change in attitudes, blah blah...but, if you are putting together a serious, stand-back paper together, you do need to digest the attached, which no-one seems to comment on...seems to me it's bad news for typical now and again train travellers, the people that should be the bread and butter...commuters are another problem, and another solution!! Discuss, my friend, discuss.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rail-running-rapidly-right-off-the-rails.html

 

[wildcard]

I think the money can be better spent on the rest of the network.
1. The rationale is (mainly) political not economic - as a quid pro quo for the cancellation of the 3rd runway at Heathrow the Condems see this their green answer. Actually people will still want to fly from Heathrow - so HS2 will not solve Heathrow's problem.
2. Everyone is fixated on speed - cost or rather fares are the more important factor . I travel frequently between the Watford area and Birmingham . I choose the cheap London Midland option to the expensive Virgin service everytime. You only need to see the jam packed LM Crewe service or the Virgin queue at Euston post price watershed to see people want cheap - not expensive- when it comes to transport. The intercity expense account Business market is small in comparison.
3.To alleviate the pressure on the WCML - Reopen the old Great Central route as (conventional ) freight only to Rugby . Reopen Northampton-Market Harborough . Reopen Northampton-Bedford. Reopen Bicester-Bletchley. Reopen Bedford-Sandy (or Hitchin-Bedford) . These links will provide resiliance between the GWR Birmingham line,WCML, Midland mainline & ECML at far less cost.

 

[Christopher125]

These links will provide resiliance between the GWR Birmingham line,WCML, Midland mainline & ECML at far less cost.

...and far less economic benefit, blowing the business case out of the water. Everyone wants cheap fares, but you wont get them by restricting growth even further, or spending less money than HS2 but for a fraction of the benefits.

Chris

 

[142094]

When thinking about sustainability, it depends if you are doing the whole lifecycle of the product or simply what level of emissions are produced say per mile/km. I haven't read anything such as a strategic environmental assessment yet but I wonder what process it will use.

 

[j0hn0]

I think the money can be better spent on the rest of the network.
1. The rationale is (mainly) political not economic - as a quid pro quo for the cancellation of the 3rd runway at Heathrow the Condems see this their green answer. Actually people will still want to fly from Heathrow - so HS2 will not solve Heathrow's problem.
2. Everyone is fixated on speed - cost or rather fares are the more important factor . I travel frequently between the Watford area and Birmingham . I choose the cheap London Midland option to the expensive Virgin service everytime. You only need to see the jam packed LM Crewe service or the Virgin queue at Euston post price watershed to see people want cheap - not expensive- when it comes to transport. The intercity expense account Business market is small in comparison.
3.To alleviate the pressure on the WCML - Reopen the old Great Central route as (conventional ) freight only to Rugby . Reopen Northampton-Market Harborough . Reopen Northampton-Bedford. Reopen Bicester-Bletchley. Reopen Bedford-Sandy (or Hitchin-Bedford) . These links will provide resiliance between the GWR Birmingham line,WCML, Midland mainline & ECML at far less cost.

So you say 'spend money on the existing network' and then go on to say that you should reopen the the great central, which is as good as building a new line!

Sadly these opinions are all to prevalent within the anti brigade.

Have you not seen the investment in electrifying to cardiff? Or the hst replacement? Or the ic225 replacement? Or crossrail? Or the thameslink new stock? Or the northern hub? Or new street refurb? Leeds south entrance? And many many more schemes.

You make do and mend brigade really make no sense to me. Its just so british and you have to live outside of the country to appreciate just how frustrating that parochial attitude can be.

 

[gordonthemoron]

well said j0hn0, although all main lines in the UK do need electrification in a rolling program

 

[LE Greys]

Well, from my point of view, it could be done better, but what they are offering is a good place to start from. I would have made HS2 part of a series of lines built at roughly five year intervals to augment the existing rail system. Birmingham would have been a lower priority destination, I would have concentrated on the East Midlands (served by a 110 mph diesel-worked line hardly changed since the 1980s) continuing to Scotland (longest distance so most time saving) followed by Western Region (125/110 diesel-worked lines also hardly changed since the 1980s, but with ATP in places). That's chiefly because I've seen all the investment poured into the WCML in the last fourteen years, some of which was abstracted from the ECML, and believe that the West Coast has had it's turn, now it's somebody else's. Not very impartial, but consider that there would be far greater benefits by augmenting the MML and extending to Scotland. My original idea was to use the GCR as a basis for the first (HS2), but not the actual route. There would be slow lines on top of the former trackbed ("slow" as in 125 mph for XC services from Banbury to Leeds) whilst the fast lines would use a parallel route, ideally separated by ten feet, but possibly swinging away near stations. Stations at Rugby, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds would deliver faster journey times, and all would be on loop lines, with the fasts running around or under built-up areas. A branch to Manchester via Woodford would abstract traffic and reduce pressure on the WCML (temporarily) whilst the Leeds station would do something similar for the ECML. Electrification from Leeds to York would allow some services to continue along the ECML, whilst Manchester-Preston would do the same for the WCML as a temporary measure. The second stage would extend the line to Newcastle, parallel with the ECML and integrating with it at Northallerton. The third stage (completion around 2020) would see the line all the way to Edinburgh via an inland route. Meanwhile, a parallel line (HS3) would start from Glasgow and head south via Manchester and Birmingham. Once HS2 was completed, the contractors would move to Bristol and start heading east with HS4. Then the HS3 team would start working on a short-cut from York to Stratford, relieving pressure on HS2. HS4 would expand to take in Plymouth and Cardiff. And so on.

OK, we're not getting all that. I suppose the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Clydeside are judged as "more important" than the East Midlands, Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear and Lothian. That annoys me, since we don't have shiny new tilting trains here in the East (tilting MkIVs are possible, but that's another story). However, in terms of distance per number of people served, Birmingham is a nice nearby target. And it's probably cheaper to get to. I can live with it.

Basically, not perfect, but better than nothing.

 

[wildcard]

So you say 'spend money on the existing network' Have you not seen the investment in electrifying to cardiff? Or the hst replacement? Or the ic225 replacement? Or crossrail? Or the thameslink new stock? Or the northern hub? Or new street refurb? Leeds south entrance? And many many more schemes.

.

You are making my point for me - I said spend the money on the existing network . I would include all of the above and more in that . HS2 is daft prestige project - a Cambridge guided bus route on a vast scale. The economic case is built on the spending of the money - not on the specific infrastructure delivered. Provided the money is spend/invested then the benefit will follow -and without HS2 , more widely distributed across the country. I just don't buy the notion that millions of pounds of GDP flow from business people saving 20 minutes here and there.

 

[Jwill]

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far.
I've got to say a step by step approach would probably be better than going straight in with the whole development. I went to Spain last year and it's what they are doing, and it seems to be successful. They are now in a second stage of construction and I believe have a third stage planned too.....
Arguably Spain branches outwards from Madrid and the land use/topography is very different to here but it has done a great job at spreading development and has massively decreased the amount of air traffic between Madrid and Barcelona......
This is obviously hypothetical but surely if the HSR reached to Newcastle/Scotland.... and had a spur at Heathrow, people would be more likely to use the train to travel between the two, freeing up capacity at Heathrow and regional airports?

 

[LE Greys]

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far.
I've got to say a step by step approach would probably be better than going straight in with the whole development. I went to Spain last year and it's what they are doing, and it seems to be successful. They are now in a second stage of construction and I believe have a third stage planned too.....
Arguably Spain branches outwards from Madrid and the land use/topography is very different to here but it has done a great job at spreading development and has massively decreased the amount of air traffic between Madrid and Barcelona......
This is obviously hypothetical but surely if the HSR reached to Newcastle/Scotland.... and had a spur at Heathrow, people would be more likely to use the train to travel between the two, freeing up capacity at Heathrow and regional airports?

I'm sure that it will. It might take time, but it will. It seems to me that we are making a very great fuss over what is a very small project, but clearly only stage 1 of a bigger one. There is already passive provision for a link to the North-East, and presumably an extension from the current junction on the Trent Valley onwards towards Manchester. Maybe that will be HS2b, with Manchester reached by a spur off a triangular junction, similar to Birmingham, and HS2c continuing to Carlisle and Glasgow. For the moment, services will simply continue onto the Trent Valley and up the WCML as they do today. Maybe the service north of Crewe will increase to two per hour, one an express via HS2, the other a semi-fast via Milton Keynes. I certainly expect one Manchester service to divert via HS2, and the extra capacity south from Rugby to fill up with additional suburbans during the peaks, left as it is off-peak (apart from an extension of the Southern service to Northampton perhaps).

As for the North-East connection. HS3 anyone?

 

[jon0844]

How can you compare a new, fast and extremely high capacity rail route with the Cambridge guided bus way?

May as well compare HS2 with a tea bag or a packet of crisps for all the relevance it has!

If you're suggesting upgrading existing lines (which would probably cost more, both in cost of doing the work with restricted hours and over a longer period of time, plus the loss to the economy of the disruption) then why are you against a brand new line?

Shouldn't we build new roads and improve junctions, flyovers and so on too? Or just keep resurfacing the old roads every now and then?

The population is increasing and we need to keep investing in new infrastructure, from roads to railways, to new schools, hospitals, housing, utilities and so on. We don't have a choice!

 

[tbtc]

Shouldn't we build new roads and improve junctions, flyovers and so on too? Or just keep resurfacing the old roads every now and then?

I like that example. Instead of building the M1 from London to Leeds we should have expected the existing roads to deal with increased traffic, and dug them up dozens of times (needing contraflows/ diversions etc)...

 

[Geezertronic]

You are making my point for me - I said spend the money on the existing network . I would include all of the above and more in that . HS2 is daft prestige project - a Cambridge guided bus route on a vast scale. The economic case is built on the spending of the money - not on the specific infrastructure delivered. Provided the money is spend/invested then the benefit will follow -and without HS2 , more widely distributed across the country. I just don't buy the notion that millions of pounds of GDP flow from business people saving 20 minutes here and there.

A Cambridge guilded bus route on a vast scale? Are you mad? A daft prestige project? Why? How would you increase the capacity on the WCML South then? And how would you accomodate the existing services in amongst all of the required possessions that would be needed to do so?

HS2 might not be every ones cuppa tea but the extra capacity it would provide to South-North services would be vastly more than any upgrade of the WCML & ECML and the massive disruption to services that would cause.

 

[jon0844]

People who think a straight railway line, designed for speed and capacity, is a waste of time must have a very odd view about the existing railway network. That must surely be a waste of time too?

 

[Philip Elliott]

Jon that is a very dismissive and quite insulting post.

If you read the article by Andrew Gilligan, you will see that Birmingham accounts for less than half of the EBW traffic to London (never mind all the "local" traffic).

Currently there are roughly 1300 seats per hour on the EBW route which will be cut to about 600 (1x 11-car 390) - so less than 50% capacity for greater than 50% of the current patronage. Meanwhile Birmingham - London will increase to up to 4400 seats per hour.

The plan for HS2 has categorically not been based on increasing network capacity - it has purely been based on speed. If it was based on capacity which it should then it would serve far more places including all those cities that it bypasses such as Stoke & Coventry. Any two track railway can handle upto 20 trains an hour with the correct signalling - but a station south of Birmingham was rejected because there was insufficient capacity to allow trains to stop because it is only 2-tracks. It is worth pointing out that Coventry is the 12th largest in the UK behind Nottingham at 11, Leicester at 10 and Manchester at 9. The Greater Manchester area includes Stockport & Wigan so will you argue that HS2 shouldn't serve them because Manchester is already served? Similarly the 'West Midlands' includes Coventry and Wolverhampton.
I am against building new lines on principal when so many hundreds of towns (some very large) have no rail service at all and others have very poor service - such Worcester to Bristol which is an inter-city journey. However I can see that are clear benefits to building a new line / adding capacity on a London - NorthWest alignment but the current plans are diabolical..

Under the plans, train path capacity will only be released if the likes of Stoke and Coventry get a far worse service - there are no regular non-stop runs to Euston from Birmingham and Manchester. To provide a same or similar service, all 9 paths per hour will need to be retained if Stafford is not served once the Manchester leg is built - the Glasgow service needs to be retained as the 'classic' compatible sets will have less seats than an 11-car Pendo and will not call at most stations. We're supposed to be improving the network yet HS2 will see £34bn spent for a worse service!

To get maximum benefit we need to be looking at a 'London to Wigan' route with a connection near Rugby for EBW services which would run along a 4-tracked route, a branch to Manchester (with through route capability) and loops to include Stoke & Milton Keynes. Then we *could* release the WCML from Intercity traffic.

By building a 'high speed' route you block the ability to improve long distance Crosscountry routes and it is these routes that compete poorly against the airlines - how is HS2 going to abtract custom from Plymouth, Aberdeen, Humberside, Jersey, Belfast? It is insane to suggest we could eliminate or even massively reduce domestic air travel.

However if we are intent on speed you can still have both by making it 4 tracks (or more) and utilising 'fast' and 'slow' lines (sound familiar?) People claim that the WCML is a 4-track mixed use railway - it isn't it is 2x twin track railways. The fast lines are alost exclusively 125mph (9-12 x 125mph + 2x100mph). Under the proposals, the fast lines will see more 100mph trains reducing capacity not increasing it.

Jon, you need to look up the definition of straight - plot London and Leeds on a map and then put on the HS2 route, London - Birmingham - Toton - Beighton - Leeds - it is more windy than a country lane! It is even worse to Edinburgh.

As far as wildcard suggested he is right to say you can release a lot of capacity by re-opening cross country routes. Oxford and Cambridge are our top university cities and despite the rivalry and faux suggestions of 'we don't deal with them' there is a key need for travel between the two but how do you get there? At the moment it has to be done via either London or Birmingham (unless you really to go via the slow route via Bedworth) which means a lot of traffic is going through London, clogging capacity unnessarily when people don't actually want to go there!

Jon, look at your own position - is it Hertford or Welwyn or around there you live? If you wanted to travel to say Flitwick do you a) take the train via London or b) drive ? Almost all would drive – if they have that option. However 10m households in the UK do not have access to a car and the current UK network just not make moving about easy, take Northamptonshire as an example...

Northamptonshire is a wealthy county put possibly has the worst access to the railways than any other county with just 6 stations - Northampton & Long Buckby on the LNWR Northampton loop, Wellingborough, Kettering & Corby on the MML and Kings Sutton on the Oxford - Birmingham line. People moan on here that Corby is not well used but it is not surprising when the some of the key destinations for Corby folk - Northampton, Peterborough & Glasgow are not accessibile or require long out of the way and expensive diversions. Northamptonshire is one of the five counties that make up the East Midlands yet the county town, Northampton has no links to the other four counties or their respective cities - a change at Nuneaton or Tamworth is required and before the Trent Valley service (which is still not comprehensive) the journey was Birmingham or London! It is no wonder that the county has a very high car ownership - far higher than average. If you look at the massive road building that happened in the 90s such as the A14, A43 widening and upgrading the A45/A605 you will see they are mainly east/west or 'avoiding London' routes (the A43 alongwith the A34 are used as north - south avoiding London journeys). There is no rail equivalent of that route but there was - via the GCR to Banbury. Acutally those road improvements used former rail alignments - the A14 uses the Kettering - Huntingdon line from Kettering to Thrapston, the A605 uses the Northampton - Peterborough (Nene Valley) line in the Oundle area and the A43 uses the original line into Northampton from Blisworth to Briar Hill. Clearly the alignments were in the right place for the traffic!

There is a lot assumption that if you build a line from the largest city from to the second largest then by definition it must get well used but that isn't necessarily true. Greater Manchester & Merseyside are both very large conurbations but the the traffic between them is very small - why? Because most people living in Greater Manchester want to travel to...the city of Manchester and most in Merseyside want to go to Liverpool. One only travels to a 'foreign' area when you can't get what you need from the local environ. London has a large demand because it does have a lot of unique features, most importantly the stock exchange. If we are to 'balance' the economy we need reasons for people from the south to come to the north - simply being able to get there fast won't help. Coventry has 3 60-minutes trains an hour to London but is a hovel whilst Harrogate has no regular service and is very wealthy - the fortunes of an area do not rely on London links. Clearly it can help which is why it is ridiculous to remove the number of links - why move to Coventry when it is quicker to Birmingham.

The motorway comparison is not a valid one for two key reasons : -

1. The growth in motor traffic was exponentially greater than any rail growth could ever be and increased the amount we travel rather than just modal shift.

2. Whilst the motorways might be 'express' roads they are several local/regional links. The M1 finishes at something like junction 46 - far far more places benefitted from quick links than HS2 will. How many places advertise themselves as easy access to the motorway network? Lutterworth for one a.k.a Jn 20 of the M1. The motorways themselves are merely trunk corridors - it is high quality upgraded branches that make them so succesful such as the A52, A610, A617. HS2 is not connecting with the existing network - we might aswell have gone down the MAGLEV route!

Here are some statistics to make you think:

1.3 billion - the number of national rail journeys
120 million - the number of journeys on Intercity operators (of which many are short journeys)
1.1 billion - the number on LUL
100 million - the number on tram schemes (which total only about 100 miles and receive no government subsidy)
8 billion - the number of UK bus journeys
28 million - the West Coast franchise
2.5 million - the number of Birmingham - London journeys on West Coast
90% - modal share of the car
80% - journeys under 5 miles
50% - journeys under 2 miles.

So you can see, long distance intercity journeys make up a tiny tiny amount of our travels patterns yet receive humungous subsidies. To fill those 4400 seats an hour to Birmingham will require prices so slow that they will have to heavily subsidised and how will the infrastucture at each end cope? What the WCML - without the high yield tickets the amount of subsidy will shoot up.

Meanwhile elsewhere, people will still be forced long journeys standing or not even get on the train, a rancid pacer or sprinter because there is 'no money' to improve the service...that is what the Green Party mean by 'social justice'.

Before anyone jumps proclaiming the 'classic' network (what a horrible term) won't be affected and will still be heavily invested mentioning Thameslink etc...there is a link to all the projects cited - they finish before or just shortly after HS2 is due to start construction. Where is the planning for Crossrail 2? What about the MerseyTram? Rolling programme of Electrification? 4-tracking Water Orton. With the cost of the West Coast upgrade and HS2 no money will get near to the West Midlands for decades afterwards but the Coventry corridor and Dorridge badly need 4-tracking regardless of whether HS2 is built or not but HS2 will be used as an excuse not to. Dorridge has the trackbed there - it is just track and signals required!

Under the Rail Package 2 proposal, Manchester & Birmingham would both go to 4 trains an hour (2,400 seats) whereas under HS2 Manchester will be 3 and Birmingham 4 in the peak only. HS2 will not be able to offer more because it will have run out of paths by virtue of trying to run to the whole of the north on 2 tracks:roll:

In summary, HS2 is not the answer for providing capacity and encouraging rail use. It won't work, it cannot work and should not be built.

 

[Yew]

From what I see its simple. Railways are like the west country. sure there is a motorway down there, but once you hit devon, it all country lanes.

I think increasing the average speed of the railways would be better than increasing the top speed. if we could get 80-100(+) mph on some smaller, but well used lines (Lincoln-Adwick and Lincoln Leicster spring to mind, just ones ive used) Because lets face it. London => Edinburgh times are all good, but nobody regularly commutes it, But if medium length lines between cities where increased in speed, and comfort, as this would need new rolling stock and possibly signaling, then more people would use the railways.

 

[j0hn0]

So its more make do and mend for Phillip and Yew.

Taking hours to write a load of hypothetical rhetoric wastes everyone elses time who take the time to read it. I wont get those minutes back thanks

 

[jon0844]

Jon that is a very dismissive and quite insulting post.

Sorry if you found it insulting, but I can't see how building a new line is bad - but existing lines (or upgrading existing lines) are/is good.

I would fight to build new railway lines, open new stations while also building new roads. As populations increase, and not everyone wants to live/work in London and other big cities, we will have to accept expansion throughout the country. And, HS2 isn't only going to go to Birmingham!

When open, you then have the scope to do some upgrades to the older lines and improve the service to the smaller towns, perhaps with some new stations and branch lines, as the fastest (and busiest) trains use another line to bypass them.

Are people against bypasses to take traffic away from towns and villages? Usually bypasses are demanded and loved by everyone except those affected by the building work! A very similar situation, it seems, to the arguments against HS2.

I agree that HS2 won't necessarily be that busy when it opens as the first section, but when it continues on then I can't see how it won't be - given how the WCML, MML and ECML are all so incredibly busy today. Isn't it acceptable to do something that may give us loads of spare capacity, for growth in the future, than have things at near full capacity with no scope to cope with it?

I remember when the first bit of the M25 opened, from Enfield to Potters Bar (in fact, at first it wasn't even called the M25), it was like a very exclusive private road. As new bits were built, they were much the same until it all joined up.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

well i support it and have a bit technical experience in the area and all the agruments about upgrading existing lines does my nut in. I have already said my five pennies worth in another post. heres the link here

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=600041&postcount=109

the reason why we need to go step by step is a number of reasons
1) planning, out planning systems is laborious and costly, to go for consultation and planning for the whole route and expect to start of site by 2015 is unfeasible.
2) capacity of the construction industry. THe industry just can start on a £33 bill project at the drop of a hat. there is not the capacity to deliver it. trying to do it too fast will end up costing more. hence staging is better. secondly a lot of people working on crossrail will probably transfer to HS2 when it starts.
3) cost- spreading the cost over 20 years helps balance the books rather than a huge cost impact over a short timescale.

 

[Geezertronic]

I don't know how anyone could state that it cannot work, will not work and should not be built. Smacks of ignorance to me...

 

[tbtc]

I'm getting tired of several threads with the same arguments about HS2, shame we can't combine them all, so I don't need to do the "If High Speed Rail is such a terrible idea then whey are all the other big economies doing it" argument...

 

[LE Greys]

Let's look at the normal service patterns for the WCML

• Euston-Stoke on Trent-Macclesfield-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS
• Euston-Stafford-Runcorn-Liverpool LS
• Euston-Milton Keynes-Crewe-Chester-etc
• Euston-Milton Keynes-Stoke on Trent-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Watford Jcn-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS-Wolverhampton HL
• Euston-Warrington BQ-Wigan NW-Preston-Lancaster-Oxenholme-Penrith-Carlisle-Glasgow Ctl
• Euston-Crewe-Wilmslow-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS

Note that many of them miss out various places en route. By some logic that is not an efficient way to link up those communities. In fact, someone going from Oxenholme to Rugby will probably be rather annoyed by it. However, it does get people from the main destination (London) to various other places.

HS2 will make a lot of difference. The classic WCML can add stops at places such as Rugby to avoid this, and the people going to London will be able to get there faster. It's as simple as that. Even the somewhat neglected Trent Valley stations might see some benefit.

It would be great if HS2 could reopen Brackley Central by using a loop line. There is still infrastructure there. Even without high-speed services, the Javelin service has more than proven its worth. However, it is probably impossible.

 

[Philip Elliott]

So its more make do and mend for Phillip and Yew.

Taking hours to write a load of hypothetical rhetoric wastes everyone elses time who take the time to read it. I wont get those minutes back thanks

Quite frankly John I shall have to consider you a Troll because you clearly don't believe in reasoned debate - you refuse to read opposing views or support your own views.

Sorry if you found it insulting, but I can't see how building a new line is bad - but existing lines (or upgrading existing lines) are/is good.

I would fight to build new railway lines, open new stations while also building new roads. As populations increase, and not everyone wants to live/work in London and other big cities, we will have to accept expansion throughout the country. And, HS2 isn't only going to go to Birmingham!

Jon, you've clearly not read what I've said nor does your comment make any sense whatsoever - you say not everyone wants to work in London or big cities but support (correct) but support an inter-city only railway in favour of intra-regional and intra-county links. That's a contradiction

As far as bypasses go, they are short deviations with the original route intact - it is a form of upgrade not a whole new route and a win-win situation - the Stafford bypass is a rail equivalent. The only long distance relief road to a motorway - the M6 toll is a miserable failure - fewer people use it now than when it opened and the 'classic' M6 is busier than ever!

People clearly haven't read this part of my previous post:

However I can see that are clear benefits to building a new line / adding capacity on a London - NorthWest alignment but the current plans are diabolical..

To get maximum benefit we need to be looking at a 'London to Wigan' route with a connection near Rugby for EBW services which would run along a 4-tracked route, a branch to Manchester (with through route capability) and loops to include Stoke & Milton Keynes. Then we *could* release the WCML from Intercity traffic.

given how the WCML, MML and ECML are all so incredibly busy today. Isn't it acceptable to do something that may give us loads of spare capacity, for growth in the future, than have things at near full capacity with no scope to cope with it?

Read my comment above Jon. You've not grasped the concept that Birmingham is less than 50% of the EBW traffic (with a similar situation on the Manchester route) and that under the plans the busier parts are getting less capacity. HS2 is targeting capacity in the wrong place. If you put too much capacity on a route then you will end up with a cut in services - that was the rationale being Beeching!

If the government really will spend this kind of money then we have a golden oppurtunity to make a massive difference, the current plans will squander that money.

I don't know how anyone could state that it cannot work, will not work and should not be built. Smacks of ignorance to me...

Geezertronic you have said yourself the project would be a waste if it wasn't built as 4-tracks. I've drawn on a lot of information and working in the planning department of the intercity west coast operator I have the facts. It is you that is ignorant to make judgements without having the info to draw on.

On many routes, growth is inhibited by overcrowding - something that can't be said for the majority of intercity services. The GWML has the least spare capacity, the WCML the most!

HS2 will make a lot of difference. The classic WCML can add stops at places such as Rugby to avoid this, and the people going to London will be able to get there faster. It's as simple as that. Even the somewhat neglected Trent Valley stations might see some benefit

You've not read what I said about Stoke and Coventry - you can only improve other links by destroying the services to these two key cities. Greengauge21 is suggesting that Stoke should have 1 an hour that is 40 minutes longer! The Trent Valley has the best service it has ever had for local traffic and for longer traffic it can be pretty much done now - there is still spare capacity but the biggest problem is some bottlenecks that will still exist in a post HS2 world such as Brinklow - Attleborough. HS2 will stop the money to these badly needed schemes.

"If High Speed Rail is such a terrible idea then whey are all the other big economies doing it" argument...

Presumbably you missed the news that the Florida high speed project has been CANCELLED - the THIRD state in the US to refuse federal money (not even their own money!) because the business case does not add up. China, Poland and other countries never had a comprehensive network - they are simply new railway lines serving new communities not some high speed replacement. France has the most developed HS network and also a diabolical 'classic' network - the two are most definitely linked. High speed is massively over-hyped. Also the CTRL (HS1) has HALF the projected passengers whilst Alloa (a local link) has THREE times the projected numbers.

 

[rb311]

Philip, firstly let me say that I agree with what you say. Sadly there are a number of people who post regularly on this site whose motives are nothing more than “rail is good, everything else is bad”. Often they use the unproven, and further still, unresearched “green argument”. Moreover most “informed” comment on here is based on pure rail enthusiasm; apparently, by simply travelling on all sorts of different trains, this makes someone one an expert in all matters rail these days, if not all things transport.

I have often said on here that the obsession with a new high speed rail network is simply a way for rail enthusiasts to try and herald a new golden era. This blind enthusiasm removes from these exponents any sense of proportion or serious examination of today’s politicians who want to cover up their hideous naked bodies of ridiculous policies with the fig leaf of a so called green transport project that won’t even be finished, let alone assessed on it’s success, before the majority of the current policy makers are dead.

Let’s get one thing straight, building HS2 is not some modern day cathedral project that will leave the human race with a thing of sublime beauty in generations to come. By the time this cure all of the current leftist leaning world’s ills is finished, this country will be left with yet another hideous, modernist scar across our green and pleasant land. At least Victorians knew how to build bridges.

The fact remains that one proposed high speed rail link between London and Birmingham will do nothing to relieve the traffic/transport problems of the UK. Nothing at all... plus the reality that virtually zero private business is interested in investing in the project speaks volumes.

I have said this before but it is worth repeating again, that rail transport in the UK is a short distance mass transit transport system. Moving commuters in and out of big cities, from surrounding towns and cities has to be the way forward. Putting back some of the train set that Beeching removed in the 60s would also help, and remember, it was politicians who sanctioned that project too. Why oh why do rail enthusiasts suddenly trust politicians now??????

And one more thing, people on this site also say some ridiculous things about domestic air travel, from “banning it” to “taxing it out of existence”.. Even if the white elephant, named HS2, ever goes to full term it will not alleviate any of the transport issues that happen to cross the axis of London to Birmingham.

As we are all taxpayers, we should rejoice in the use of airlines to move people across the UK. They are net tax contributors, mainly through corporation tax returns from the airlines’ profits, but increasingly from the vindictive and ridiculously short sighted policy of ADT. In fact ADT makes CND look like a sensible organisation to be a member of.

This argument needs to be more grown up, more realistic, and ultimately, less romantically motivated. Rail is fine for moving people in and out of cities, the London underground is perfect at that. Let’s develop that and examples like it and leave long distance to the specialists.....

At the end of the day the pro HS2 supporters are and will continue to get more hysterical because the argument is being lost.

I suppose I could have simply written “HS2 will never happen”, because it won’t, I am afraid.

 

[tbtc]

Also the CTRL (HS1) has HALF the projected passengers whilst Alloa (a local link) has THREE times the projected numbers.

Funny how keen people are to boast of the "higher than expected" figures on lines like Alloa yet strangely silent about openings like Airdrie - Bathgate... still, everyone can pick figures to suit their argument.