High Speed Rail 2 questions

[LE Greys]

anyone who flies from leeds or manchester to london i cant see why the train as it is now is at least an hour quicker and city centre to city centre with no security checks or check in.....
Modern railways shows a ver interesting map comparing the current train time, aviation and HS2 inc leeds n manchester

From places like leeds to canary wharf... makes intresting read, leeds to canary wharf will beat aviation by at least 2 and a half hours when opened (thats a change at old oak common onto crossrail) and beats it by just under an hour already

Possibly 50% of the people on Leeds and Manchester flights are connecting from long-haul destinations. I'll admit that there is a place for connecting flights, but I believe that a codeshare system with railways would be better. Canary Wharf happens to be just down the road from City Airport, and I am not sure whether there are any flights from City to Leeds-Bradford. Personally, I would still go by train (from King's Cross, probably quicker even with HS2).

 

[moonrakerz]

Posted without comment !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...link-hasnt-worked-as-planned-say-critics.html

 

[LE Greys]

What is interesting is you ignore the main thrust of my argument and focus in on one small point. As it happens, your question is indicative of the fact that that London is the only starting point on a journey where rail can compete with air.

Like many people have pointed out, not all journeys are London centric, therefore distance is not the only factor. Journey time is far more relevant, hence an example like Plymouth to Newcastle.

That of course is the biggest flaw in HS2, it only covers one small axis of transport in the UK.

As to your original question... Let the market decide. Perhaps there will be less flights between London and Manchester, but it’s going to be a long time before travelling on a train between Bristol and Edinburgh is going to compete, not just on time, but price, convenience, efficiency, timing, I could go on.

But perhaps have another look at the overall point I am making.

OK, ignoring the fact that HS2 is probably going to lead to a whole series of additional lines, I agree that Cross-Country needs improvement. However, that's not the issue (in fact, that's probably worth a new thread).

Lets see what the market says when compared with other high-speed lines. I have no figures for domestic air travel in Japan, Germany or France, but I do know that it has a much lesser market share. If someone has actual figures please post them for comparison. Route-by-route, I would be interested in figures for London-Edinburgh and Paris-Lyon, again for comparison. On anecdotal evidence, air has lost a significant proportion of market share on London-Paris (although I still have no figures, I'm not an encyclopaedia).

Please, someone, give me some figures to work with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Posted without comment !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...link-hasnt-worked-as-planned-say-critics.html

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

This smacks of poor marketing rather than a fundamental error. Remove the premium fares from HS2, and you will undoubtedly get an improvement in passenger numbers. It's a simple error that many companies make when introducing a new service, forgetting that people think with their wallets.

Still, they seem to be ignoring Stratford International. The Central Line and DLR provide decent links from there to the City and Docklands respectively. The West End terminus is more about onward connections. Kent used to have very poor links to the rest of the country (from Hitchin, I could get to Newcastle faster than I could get to Ashford - twice the distance) and now that has changed.

OK, so there have been mistakes. We can learn from them.

 

[Rhydgaled]

So you'd have diesels running all that way under the wires? Waste of fuel?

On what route? In my plan diesels would not be running under the wires (except between Newbury and Paddington, which will happen anyway) for very long, probablly no more than 2 years (does anyone have expected timescales for GWML electrification?). As I said, as soon as the electricfication reaches the terminal point of each service that service gets replaced with an electric train. If you have bi-mode on Swansea and Cheltenham Spa you are dragging around all those diesel engines and all that fuel under the wires for 30 odd years. Waste of electricity?

The services beyond Oxford are less clear cut, I'm having doubts that it can be done without some sort of compromise. Perhaps 220s from XC, or some 180s, could be obtained and fitted with pantograph cars (better than building new bi-modes, as the life-expiry date of the stock, and therefore the next opertunity for electrification, is brought forward 10 years.)

Seeing as this is the HS2 topic, I'll also say that, if the money going into HS2 could be made available for GWML electrification instead the routes beyond Oxford and Newbury could be wired too, and those services would no longer need to be diesels under the wires. Newbury to Penzance (very roughly) is 250miles and Oxford to Hereford about 90 (60 if you stop at Worcester). At the £1.4million per mile rate quoted for Cardiff to Swansea 350 miles comes to £490m, I'll round that up to £500m for good measure, but it's still under the 700million paperwork for HS2. Granted, the rolling stock will mean that overall it'll cost more than just the paperwork for HS2, but it'll be much better for the enviroment, especially if you use tilting trains to speed up the route to Plymouth.

As discussed by w1bbl3 these routes aren't getting IEP (as things stand)

I'm hearing contradictions on here regarding this, some, like you, say all those routes will stay as IC125s (good), others say bi-modes will go as far as Taunton or Exeter (bad). Surely the better fuel ecconomy of an IC125 on the over 115 miles from Exeter to Newbury outweighs a bi-mode's ability to use electricity (very inificently thanks to the extra weight) on the 52 miles from Newbury to Paddington (only 35miles Reading - PAD if you can only change from diesel to electric at a station stop).

We have some 37s, as you mentioned. Are you suggesting we have engines from 1960 hauling intercity trains in 2020? I know we are all attached to things like Mk3s and old diesels, but we can't use these as the basis for future services...

The new IEP electrics would run as far as the wires before the old locomotives get coupled on. It isn't like I expect the old locomotives to be able to run 125mph flagship express services, just get the shiny new electric trains the last little bit of the way. The southern region used to split an EMU from unpowered coaches and attach a diesel locomotive on an hourly basis when they partly electrified a line.

What is going to run the ECML services (if you take the 225s)? And see my point above about using 1960s engines to haul such services away from the wires...

IEP electrics of course. You could send the IEP electrics direct to the GWML though but this way gives East Coast a uniform fleet and saves the Pembroke Dock service (which I'm told isn't possible with stock with 26m coaches). You could try and find some spare 67s for most routes, but as far as I know the only diesels that can have TDM are class 47s, 57s and 43 power cars, so 47s or 57s are what's needed to save the Pembroke Dock service, and they might as well be used on the Carmarthen services.

 

[Philip Elliott]

I'd love to see it, since you've criticised HS2 for a lot of different things, I'd love to see a route which (from your comments about what HS2 won't do) I presume:

Connects all the Northamptonshire towns together
Relieves all pressure of Northern and TPE services
Has stops in council estates
Ensures that nowhere ends up with a worse service
Takes pressure of the WCML, MML and ECML
Can be done significantly cheaper
Links Corby to Glasgow
Has stops in each historic county is passes...

That comment is plain childish and shows you've not read a word I've said. There is no point me saying anything further when people resort to such silly sarcastic outbursts.



For your information, Birmingham is in the historic county of Warwickshire...

 

[tbtc]

That comment is plain childish and shows you've not read a word I've said. There is no point me saying anything further when people resort to such silly sarcastic outbursts.



For your information, Birmingham is in the historic county of Warwickshire...

So, you don't have an alternative then? Fine. Because if you were criticising HS2 for not tackling the problems I've listed then I assumed you had a version which would deal with those problems. Oh well...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is interesting is you ignore the main thrust of my argument and focus in on one small point. As it happens, your question is indicative of the fact that that London is the only starting point on a journey where rail can compete with air.

Like many people have pointed out, not all journeys are London centric, therefore distance is not the only factor. Journey time is far more relevant, hence an example like Plymouth to Newcastle

I ignored the main thrust of your argument? Okay, sorry. Because when I read this...

Regarding my position, since you choose to analyze it, it is based around two premises. One is that air travel in the UK over long distances is faster, more flexible, more easy to adapt to changing demands, and overall, far less costly to the tax payer than rail. The second is that rail is a mass transit system best suited to moving many people over short distances

...I thought that the two main premises of your argument were (1) that air is better for long distances and (2) rail was better for short distances.

Since we are talking about a proposed train line from London to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh/ Glasgow I thought I'd ask where on that route you thought was a "short" distance (where rail would be best suited to passenger demand) and where you thought was a "long" distance (where air would best suited to passenger demand).

Was that an unfair question?

Talking about "Plymouth to Newcastle" and "Bristol to Edinburgh" is irrelevant to a railway from London to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh/ Glasgow - the constant shifting of the goalposts doesn't help your argument.

 

[ACE1888]

Hmmm HS2? Other new lines(Scotland aside it seems), obviously needed seeing we're using 19th century routes in general still, sooner the better...just the 'fudging of funding it' still seems to be 'achillies heel', loved to be proved wrong of course!
Take the restoration from Bere Alston to Tavistock, some 6 miles, been 'on the cards' since around 1989...still waiting

 

[Trog]

Birmingham would have been a lower priority destination, I would have concentrated on the East Midlands.

FFS the planned HS2 route goes to Birmingham because London - Birmingham is the journey people want to make. To the extent that despite a recent upgrade we are already running out of capacity.

There is no point building a line except as a result of passenger demand. Otherwise you would reduce nimby problems and pander to the Scots by building a circular line in Caithness.

 

[Philip Elliott]

So, you don't have an alternative then? Fine. Because if you were criticising HS2 for not tackling the problems I've listed then I assumed you had a version which would deal with those problems. Oh well...

You really do have difficulty with comprehension don't you? I've never suggested HS2 should deal with these problems, but the money used on HS2 could be used on lots of individual projects that could tackle them.

My criticisms on the route of HS2 is that it won't provided the much vaunted capacity release without a severe reduction in service quality for many key flows.

I've not seen the latest Modern Railways in the local newsagents but I certainly try to have a read of it. However, if the article is just a re-hash of the greengauge21 report then it is fatally flawed. (It misses out the required WCML trains required to make the HS service works such as the second Glasgow train that stops in Lancashire/ Cumbria)

 

[w1bbl3]

Lets see what the market says when compared with other high-speed lines. I have no figures for domestic air travel in Japan, Germany or France, but I do know that it has a much lesser market share. If someone has actual figures please post them for comparison.

Airfrance claim a 19% market share against TGV routes. http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/alliances/competition/tgv-high-speed-train/

The commission for integrated transport claim TGV services to account for 91% of all Paris > Lyon rail/air journeys dropping down to 60% for Paris > Bordeaux, Paris > Marseille.
http://cfit.independent.gov.uk/pubs/2004/hsr/research/ab.htm

Still, they seem to be ignoring Stratford International. The Central Line and DLR provide decent links from there to the City and Docklands respectively.

IHMO the 5 minute bus ride or 10 minute walk probably puts off many commuters that would prefer a more direct service in hindsight I think Stratford international should have been directly interconnected with Stratford regional.

 

[LE Greys]

FFS the planned HS2 route goes to Birmingham because London - Birmingham is the journey people want to make. To the extent that despite a recent upgrade we are already running out of capacity.

There is no point building a line except as a result of passenger demand. Otherwise you would reduce nimby problems and pander to the Scots by building a circular line in Caithness.

I will admit to some bias, in that I have Yorkshire ancestry and I have lived in various places along the ECML for most of my life, so my thinking tends to be Eastern-biased. I am looking at providing a route that relieves congestion on both ECML and WCML by essentially running up the middle of the country and then splitting into two rather than running up the west and kinking eastwards. Birmingham has had its turn, subsidised partly by the premiums paid by GNER that ended up breaking the best TOC of the century.

The West Riding (or West Yorkshire and part of South Yorkshire for those brought up on modern counties) has a population of three-million and is served by two railways, also both overcrowded. The ECML, with its eighties-spec electrification and capacity constraints at Welwyn and Hitchin, not to mention the slow sections of the Wakefield Line, and the MML, diesel for most of its length and severely limited in speed. Then we have the East Midlands, or more precisely Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire, with another three-million also dependent on the MML. Factor in the M1 and Leeds-Bradford Airport as well. This is where a line is needed, where it can provide improvements over the current service.

Reaching Nottingham in 40 minutes, Sheffield in 60 minutes and Leeds in 80 minutes is a key target. It also allows services to be diverted from Leeds to other destinations off the ECML. The Woodhead Line, connecting the route to Manchester, would hopefully allow one Manchester service in the WCML to divert to Birmingham, whilst taking over the Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh route (Manchester Airport presents a problem here). When we actually get around to Birmingham, I'm assuming that technology will permit 245 mph (400 km/h) running. Here, we would have a demonstrable improvement over the WCML, even on such a short route.

By focusing all our attention on such a short flow, I believe we are getting our priorities wrong. The WCML can cope for a decade or two with modified timetables and longer trains. Sheffield has been waiting for a fast service to London for a lot longer than Birmingham, and it's about time they got it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Airfrance claim a 19% market share against TGV routes. http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/alliances/competition/tgv-high-speed-train/

The commission for integrated transport claim TGV services to account for 91% of all Paris > Lyon rail/air journeys dropping down to 60% for Paris > Bordeaux, Paris > Marseille.
http://cfit.independent.gov.uk/pubs/2004/hsr/research/ab.htm

I believe we have a case. A comparable flow (London-Manchester is about the same distance as Paris-Lyon) would be interesting. I know I've already argued against the route, but the HS2 route is a fait acompli, so let's stick to it. If these figures are accurate and can be achieved in this country, then we certainly have a case.

IHMO the 5 minute bus ride or 10 minute walk probably puts off many commuters that would prefer a more direct service in hindsight I think Stratford international should have been directly interconnected with Stratford regional.

That is a problem, and it does need a resolution. Hopefully, the DLR extension should help, but having to take so long to get to the Central Line must be a right pain in the backside.

 

[Geezertronic]

For your information, Birmingham is in the historic county of Warwickshire...

You need a geography lesson

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/maps/uktowns.gif

 

[LE Greys]

You need a geography lesson

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/maps/uktowns.gif

He did say the historic counties. I presume this is what he meant.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/5/54/Gbcounties.png

It's worth noting that Warwickshire County Cricket Club is based at Edgbaston, which is clearly Birmingham.

 

[Geezertronic]

He did say the historic counties. I presume this is what he meant.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/5/54/Gbcounties.png

It's worth noting that Warwickshire County Cricket Club is based at Edgbaston, which is clearly Birmingham.

Well I've learnt something new and received a geography lesson... why it is relevant to HS2 I don't know (unless London Midland is renaming itself to London Warwickshire (Historic) ).

[DIGRESS]Warwickshire CCC is apparently the only CCC to play its home games outside the county of its name... as Edgbaston is in the county of the West Midlands?[/DIGRESS]

 

[jon0844]

Let modern air travel, with its associated flexibility, adaptability and connectivity serve the long distance market, between places like Plymouth and Newcastle, Southampton and Glasgow etc etc, in aircraft, which per seat, emit no more CO2 than the most efficient car available in the market today, and for that fact, tomorrow.

But in any case HS2 won’t be built anyway...

I am not suggesting getting rid of planes, and in many cases like you suggest they will continue to serve a need - but they don't move that many people around in comparison to rail. As a result, you surely accept you need to build more railway lines and roads for the majority, while air travel adapts to meet the demand (and cost).

At least with most rail and bus services, generally speaking a timetable is run that can't change (I say generally as it can change with buses as has happened this year due to cuts in subsidies). It gives people an element of security, while airlines can and do cherry pick and may stop serving you tomorrow if it's not financially sound to do so. Yes, a railway line or station MIGHT close but it's not likely given the current growth.

From the furthest points of the UK, flying will always be quicker but the number of people traveling that way is much lower.

To be honest, I really can't see the need to consider air travel as competing with rail. Airlines can re-use their fleet to do routes that rail can't do at all, which is the advantage it has - all you need are airports and slots. And you can even charter planes, which is somewhat harder on the railway, if you have the money.

In the 1990s, most of my flights were on private planes or helicopters. Much nicer than rail travel and ordinary flights!

I think HS2 will not simply take away all the people who used to fly, but get more people to travel who didn't before. Now, that does raise a very good issue about people now moving further away from cities and commuting - but as long as house prices continue to rise, people will see that as the only way of keeping a good, well-paid job and living in a nice house with some land and nice surroundings.

I moved out of London and wouldn't want to return, at least not unless I became super rich and could afford to live in a nice part of town.

 

[LE Greys]

Well I've learnt something new and received a geography lesson... why it is relevant to HS2 I don't know (unless London Midland is renaming itself to London Warwickshire (Historic) ).

[DIGRESS]Warwickshire CCC is apparently the only CCC to play its home games outside the county of its name... as Edgbaston is in the county of the West Midlands?[/DIGRESS]

To keep digressing, Lancs CCC plays its home games in Greater Manchester (Old Trafford), Gloucestershire CCC plays its home games at Nevil Road in Bristol (Avon or whatever it's called now), Middlesex CCC plays in a county that no longer exists, and Hereford & Worcester has two separate county cricket clubs. Funny old world, isn't it?

 

[jon0844]

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

This smacks of poor marketing rather than a fundamental error. Remove the premium fares from HS2, and you will undoubtedly get an improvement in passenger numbers. It's a simple error that many companies make when introducing a new service, forgetting that people think with their wallets.

Still, they seem to be ignoring Stratford International. The Central Line and DLR provide decent links from there to the City and Docklands respectively. The West End terminus is more about onward connections. Kent used to have very poor links to the rest of the country (from Hitchin, I could get to Newcastle faster than I could get to Ashford - twice the distance) and now that has changed.

Until Stratford International is properly finished (as in the surroundings), it's hardly going to be used - but imagine when Westfield opens and it's all linked easily to Stratford? That will get a lot more people on the line - and not just coming from Kent but those coming from St Pancras to get to a HUGE shopping centre in around 7 minutes.

The premium is what is killing the service as commuters can't afford around £800-1000 more a year for what would be like me paying for a first class season ticket. People will upgrade every now and then, but they hate to do so. Passengers feel conned that they have a slower/less frequent service on the old route to try and force them to switch.

But the author of the article is the same person who has been writing other anti-HS2 stuff. It's not impartial in any way. He should also be told that it isn't news being written in April 2011 - given people have known about this since it started and talked about it in numerous threads on this forum and others.

Seeing as this is the HS2 topic, I'll also say that, if the money going into HS2 could be made available for GWML electrification instead the routes beyond Oxford and Newbury could be wired too, and those services would no longer need to be diesels under the wires.

So you axe HS2 just to put wires up on an existing line? Yes, the line is now able to run newer, cleaner, trains but where's the infrastructure improvement?

Maybe the rest of the HS2 money could be used to build new station buildings and repaint lamp posts on platforms, and put in new seats. Nice, but not really good for the needs of people in 20, 30 or 40 years time.

I'd hope that we keep HS2 on track and then seek to continue wiring up other lines, using MORE investment. It would be nice to have a few Government terms where people start to invest in our future, rather than the short-termism we've had to contend with for ages.

 

[w1bbl3]

I believe we have a case. A comparable flow (London-Manchester is about the same distance as Paris-Lyon) would be interesting. I know I've already argued against the route, but the HS2 route is a fait acompli, so let's stick to it. If these figures are accurate and can be achieved in this country, then we certainly have a case.

Quite, however the one key facet of the French TGV network is to directly interconnect with local and regional services at key interchanges and focus on medium distance flows of 300km to 500km. IMHO HS2 doesn't as proposed deliver on this, Birmingham is quite frankly to near to London.
Birmingham Interchange whilst ideal as a parkway station is not an interchange for regional Warwickshire traffic and Curzon St will require a complex people mover wrapped around or underneath the Bullring to reach New St.

Personally I wouldn't build a Y shaped split at all but focus London > Manchester via Birmingham with Newcastle > London via Leeds, Sheffield and Leicester forming the backbone of a HS3 route north to be built after HS2 stage 1. The Y split whilst useful could and should be built after the core HS2/3 routes much akin the French constructing LGV Interconnexion Est after LGV Sud-Est and LGV Nord.

Regarding my position, since you choose to analyze it, it is based around two premises. One is that air travel in the UK over long distances is faster, more flexible, more easy to adapt to changing demands, and overall, far less costly to the tax payer than rail.

Let modern air travel, with its associated flexibility, adaptability and connectivity serve the long distance market, between places like Plymouth and Newcastle, Southampton and Glasgow etc etc

Actually HS2 stage 2 would reduce journey times from greater Bristol to Glasgow / Edinburgh down below 4 hours against 2h 35m flying from Bristol international airport but with an hourly service. I've calculated the flight time as 1h check in time, + 1h 15m flight time to Glasgow + 20m taxi to the centre = 2hr 35m which sounds about right having done the route many times.

Flights from Plymouth to Edinburgh don't exist so I'll ignore that route and Plymouth > Glasgow is 3h 45m (air southwest) one flight per day. HS2 Birmingham to Glasgow is 2h 50m, Birmingham > Plymouth is 3h 30m so 6h 20m for an hourly service.

Flying in both cases is quicker but with a far more limited choice of times, however a third stage of HS2 extending to Glasgow & Edinburgh should make train travel from Bristol quicker overall.

It is quite possible that high speed rail will much as motorways in the 70's & 80's did drive increased demand for travel on served routes rather than just create a modal shift. Certainly increased frequencies on WCML and XC routes has increased demand resulting in overcrowding and/or further stock orders.
High speed rail in France and Germany shifts many more people per day than air routes ever did before introduction.

 

[Rhydgaled]

So you axe HS2 just to put wires up on an existing line? Yes, the line is now able to run newer, cleaner, trains but where's the infrastructure improvement?

Maybe the rest of the HS2 money could be used to build new station buildings and repaint lamp posts on platforms, and put in new seats. Nice, but not really good for the needs of people in 20, 30 or 40 years time.

I'd hope that we keep HS2 on track and then seek to continue wiring up other lines, using MORE investment. It would be nice to have a few Government terms where people start to invest in our future, rather than the short-termism we've had to contend with for ages.

It would, as you say, be nice to have investment in both new lines and existing, but where's the money going to come from? I can't imagine how they are finding £700 million for HS2's paperwork at a time of cuts! Also you can't make HSR green in the UK without attracting much more modal shift from aviation or building a heck of alot of tidal stream and wave turbines to power it. The only argument for HS2 as it stands, a London - Birmingham line, is capacity. The fact is we're going to need to do somthing to reduce the global population sooner rather than later. We'll also need to continue to strive for modal shift to public transport for the remaining population, and reduce the need to travel in the first place. Only one of those things results in an increase of rail useage and this rasies the question, how much capacity will we actually need between London and Birmingham?

Extra coaches (the question of why aren't all the Pendos being lengthened mentioned by another poster is a good one) on the WCML will deliver some increase in capacity. Other than that, there's probablly not much you can do to improve the WCML's capacity. So you say, we need a new line... Hang on a sec, what about the Chiltern line. That's London to Birmingham as well, and that isn't even electrified. Remember the GWML electrification I mentioned earlier doesn't really dent the actual construction cost of HS2, so there's money for work on the Chiltern line too.

If we find that after all this we really are stuck for capacity then we can build new lines, by that time we might have the renewables to make HSR green. There is probablly an ecconomic case for HS2, the question is can we take the necessary measure to stop climate change and still have a large enough population to support three lines from London to Birmingham?

 

[Metroland]

It would, as you say, be nice to have investment in both new lines and existing, but where's the money going to come from? I can't imagine how they are finding £700 million for HS2's paperwork at a time of cuts!

The spending budget, if and when it's built, per year is 1/600th of public expenditure or about the same as free pensioner bus travel. It's a drop in the ocean and not many government projects produce much return, nor are required to.

Also you can't make HSR green in the UK without attracting much more modal shift from aviation or building a heck of alot of tidal stream and wave turbines to power it. The only argument for HS2 as it stands, a London - Birmingham line, is capacity.

And bridging the N-S divide, regeneration, attracting business away from the overheated SE. The alternatives are less green. Some argue people should not travel, good luck evoking a rationing programme.

The fact is we're going to need to do somthing to reduce the global population sooner rather than later. We'll also need to continue to strive for modal shift to public transport for the remaining population, and reduce the need to travel in the first place. Only one of those things results in an increase of rail useage and this rasies the question, how much capacity will we actually need between London and Birmingham?

It's not just about between London-Birmingham, and don't forget freight. Shifting large amounts of freight to rail and water, would reduce the UK's carbon footprint significantly. The only way to do this is to build new segregated lines, more mixed traffic railway is less cost effective.

Global population is a red herring, there is no political way to reduce the population any time soon, indeed, it's virtually politically impossible to get people out of cars and planes. The only way to do so is to construct attractive alternatives.

Extra coaches (the question of why aren't all the Pendos being lengthened mentioned by another poster is a good one) on the WCML will deliver some increase in capacity. Other than that, there's probablly not much you can do to improve the WCML's capacity. So you say, we need a new line... Hang on a sec, what about the Chiltern line. That's London to Birmingham as well, and that isn't even electrified. Remember the GWML electrification I mentioned earlier doesn't really dent the actual construction cost of HS2, so there's money for work on the Chiltern line too.

If we find that after all this we really are stuck for capacity then we can build new lines, by that time we might have the renewables to make HSR green. There is probablly an ecconomic case for HS2, the question is can we take the necessary measure to stop climate change and still have a large enough population to support three lines from London to Birmingham?

Upgrading the Chiltern line only provides a minimal stop-gap. 20 years down the road with oil prices and the need to reduce carbon, travel may have changed beyond all recognition, and a simple upgrade might not be enough. A lot of young people now are just not buying cars, such is the cost/price of housing/education etc.

 

[Geezertronic]

The Chiltern Line is another red herring which gets mentioned every so often. How could London-North trains be diverted off the WCML onto the Chiltern Line and progress north of Birmingham to Manchester, Scotland etc... when the Chiltern Line only goes as far as Birmingham? And this would presumably be to the detriment of the existing localised services on the Chiltern Line which offer their own valuable service to users of that particular line.

 

[tbtc]

where's the money going to come from? I can't imagine how they are finding £700 million for HS2's paperwork at a time of cuts!

Its an investment in the future, providing capacity on a number of existing lines by taking the "fast" services onto a segregated line. It sounds like a lot of money, but you could argue that doing nothing will cost a lot more in the long run.

For every 125MPH Edinburgh service you divert off the ECML onto HS2 you are potentially creating a couple of paths for freight (due to the speed differentials and the way that one *fast* path can eat up several slow ones)

The fact is we're going to need to do somthing to reduce the global population sooner rather than later

Possibly, but not really within the scope of a discussion about building a new railway line
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Chiltern Line is another red herring which gets mentioned every so often. How could London-North trains be diverted off the WCML onto the Chiltern Line and progress north of Birmingham to Manchester, Scotland etc... when the Chiltern Line only goes as far as Birmingham? And this would presumably be to the detriment of the existing localised services on the Chiltern Line which offer their own valuable service to users of that particular line.

I support electrification of the Chiltern line (and the Snow Hill ones) - its basically one long self-contained line from London to Worcester, with branches to Aylesbury and Stratford, a perfect candidate for electrification.

However, its not an alternative to HS2, its a slower line from London to Birmingham (despite being more direct than the route via Rugby) and you'd still need a northern connection (for HS2). As you say, a red herring.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It's not just about between London-Birmingham, and don't forget freight. Shifting large amounts of freight to rail and water, would reduce the UK's carbon footprint significantly. The only way to do this is to build new segregated lines, more mixed traffic railway is less cost effective.

Freight doesn't need 400kph lines, neither does an express passenger network unless your going all the way from Exeter to Glasgow via London to tackle most domestic aviation that doesn't cross water. As I said in my previous post, there's a need to reduce the need to travel in the first place and reduce the population. There's also a need to shift more of the remaining travel, both of passengers and freight, onto rail, so perhaps the extra capacity of new lines are needed. I'm not against new lines, just that HighSpeed isn't going to be very enviromentally friendly to start with unless the government seriously get their act together over tidal stream and wave power, so for that reason I'd rather see a cap on the speed of the first batch of rolling stock for these new routes, or a delay of a few years in their construction.

Global population is a red herring, there is no political way to reduce the population any time soon.

There is, put a 1 child per person limit in place. China did it, now the rest of the world needs to do the same. Food security is also an issue related to this. This point is only relevent to this disscusion in that, if you do this, you might not need the extra capacity. If you do need the extra capacity, that means a high amount of modal shift is being generated so all we need is a bit more renewable electricity generation capacity and by all means, go ahead with a HSR network. If we had the renewable energy generation, or plans for it to be built before HS2, in place we might not be having this discussion.

Its an investment in the future, providing capacity on a number of existing lines by taking the "fast" services onto a segregated line. It sounds like a lot of money, but you could argue that doing nothing will cost a lot more in the long run.

Then why isn't the much smaller amount of money needed to electrify from Cardiff to Swansea and Oxford to Hereford being found, that's an investment in a greener, less oil dependant, future. Perhaps the money is going somwhere else, like paperwork for HS2 or incentives to use cars rather than public transport (rail fares going up even faster from next year, Cardiff to Swansea electrification under threat, road widening schemes going ahead, bus funding slashed, fuel tax going down). If fuel tax went up as well as rail fares, and buses were protected from the tax rise, that would be better. The government's failure to do this, electrify the lines mentioned and change the HS2 plans to reduce emmisions seem to suggest they are intent on enviromental suicide. Introducing a per plane tax on aviation to tax cargo flights, as well as passenger ones migt pay for electrification, and would be a good idea too, but the inital phase of HS2 would still only be carbon neutral at best.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its 15 years before the first train would run, even longer for beyond Birmingham, how much of a delay do you want?

 

[trainosaurus]

..and Hereford & Worcester has two separate county cricket clubs. Funny old world, isn't it?

Not that funny, given that Herefordshire and Worcestershire are two seperate counties. The County of Hereford and Worcester only existed between 1974 and 1998 (although, perhaps interestingly perhaps not, the Hereford and Worcester Fire Service does still exist)

 

[LE Greys]

Not that funny, given that Herefordshire and Worcestershire are two seperate counties. The County of Hereford and Worcester only existed between 1974 and 1998 (although, perhaps interestingly perhaps not, the Hereford and Worcester Fire Service does still exist)

Now I'm the one who's learnt something.

 

[w1bbl3]

I'm not against new lines, just that HighSpeed isn't going to be very enviromentally friendly to start with unless the government seriously get their act together over tidal stream and wave power, so for that reason I'd rather see a cap on the speed of the first batch of rolling stock for these new routes, or a delay of a few years in their construction.

Renewables are not a base load producer and by their very nature unless a major technological breakthrough is made never will be. Base load for at least the next 50 years will be either A) coal, B) gas C) nuclear fission or a combination of the three.

Then why isn't the much smaller amount of money needed to electrify from Cardiff to Swansea and Oxford to Hereford being found, that's an investment in a greener, less oil dependant, future.

The economic return does not currently exceed the cost by an acceptable margin to justify these extensions, anyway MML should logically follow GWML core to generate maximum value per electrified route km.
MML electrification is a similar route mileage to Cardiff > Swansea and Oxford > Hereford yet moves yastly more people per annum so would represent a far greener investment.

Perhaps the money is going somwhere else, like paperwork for HS2 or incentives to use cars rather than public transport (rail fares going up even faster from next year, Cardiff to Swansea electrification under threat, road widening schemes going ahead, bus funding slashed, fuel tax going down). If fuel tax went up as well as rail fares, and buses were protected from the tax rise, that would be better.

Road transport is a major source of government revenue unlike rail and public transport, without road transport there would not be the budget to fund rail and bus subsidies. Transport watch figures from 1999 showed the treasury netting £38bn in revenue from road transport against £4.8bn in costs leaving a £33bn profit or £180,000 per km of trunk route. Rail on the other hand consumes £5bn in subsidy or £155,000 per route km.
http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-13.htm

Seeing as road capital works spending has reduced whilst revenue has increased the profit is larger if 2010 figures where used.

 

[WatcherZero]

I see two problems with those figures, they have included Rail fuel duty with road profits and not included that local councils pay for the upkeep of roads. In GM alone its estimated that theirs a £26m annual underspend to maintain roads to the same standard and Sussex says it needs £400m to repair its roads.

 

[Zoe]

Hereford & Worcester has two separate county cricket clubs.

Herefordshire and Worcestershire are separate counties.

 

[tbtc]

Freight doesn't need 400kph lines

It's not about putting freight onto the fast lines, its about putting the fast trains onto the fast lines which frees up space for freight on existing lines.

Take Cardiff - Swansea (as a local example to you). Each FGW HST runs significantly faster than all the heady freight. Instead of having a fast HST catching up with the trains in front of it, it'd be more efficient to have more trains running at the same speed. So, by putting the fastest trains onto a separate line, you create a load of space for slow services (stopping passenger services, freight etc)