High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[L&Y Robert]

Phone-in now on this topic on "You and Yours", BBC R.4 at 12-05 today (Tuesday 27th Aug).

 

[yorksrob]

Also currently being discussed on Jeremy Vine on Radio 2, so you can have some musical light relief as well !

Including a rather angry sounding gentleman who would rather build a giant motorway around the coast !

 

[Bonemaster]

You see, this is not the first time that this Forum has treated dissent with such an gang-onslaught. I've said it before - if people didn't come here to express doubt or opposition, this thread would be an echo chamber. Maybe that's what you want?

I totally agree, and the pro's don't seem the have answers to some very simple questions, or actually know very much about what work that has been done on the alternatives and only have knowledge of the 51M proposal, like that 5 alternatives were considered in detail in 2010, 2 of those in addition to the 51M proposal had further work done on these in 2012.

There quiet simply are alternatives, we may not like the alternatives, they may not offer the capacity that some including many rail enthusiasts believe we need, or offer the improved journey times that some people believe are desirable. Some of the arguments for HS2 that have appeared in this thread are fanciful and uniformed at best, but so are many of the arguments against, it is only one of these two groups who is being challenged consistently which is not healthy debate.

There has to be a plan B, as HS2 can simply not have a blank cheque, there must be a point where the BCR or overall cost says "STOP". Public support is falling away falling from 42%-37% in favour in January 2012 to 34%-46% against at July 2013 (Source: YOUGOV). However on what is essentially a rail enthusiast forum, you would expect a majority in favour of such a scheme as this, and a substantial proportion of those in a "support at all costs" category, I will openly admit that in my youth I most likely would have found myself in that category.

There is no denying that HS2 will bring benefits to a substantial minority of the population, there is no denying that we have a capacity issue going forwards, and there is no denying that any amount of passenger growth forecasting is nothing short of educated guess work, with circa 70% variance between the lowest and highest growth projections.

I firmly believe what should have been a very simple; keep it green, keep the locals onside, spread the economic benefit as wide as possible, and increase capacity scheme; that I would have supported shouting from the rooftops, fails in the first 3 requirements and the blame for that falls on the shoulders of HS2 Ltd, for delivering such a shambles of a plan, which will in my opinion lead to the project being quietly shelved.

Any infrastructure plan on this scale is going to be hugely divisive by its very nature, as is UK energy strategy going forwards, or how we deal with housing shortages, and in all respects I do not believe there is a right solution, only a least worst solution, where the arguments are not black and white, but many shades of grey in between, and in which we trust our elected representatives at national level to progress the best plans, and our local representatives to represent and campaign on local elements of the these.

What we must do is step back, have a national transport strategy in England, like in Wales and Scotland, which has been delayed from September 2012, and establish what the best ways forwards is for railways and railway capacity are in the wider scheme of UK transport demand and future trends. If that considers HS2 in its current guise to be the way forwards in the overall strategy so be it.

 

[The Decapod]

Including a rather angry sounding gentleman who would rather build a giant motorway around the coast !

That would be even more of a white elephant than HS2

 

[yorksrob]

That would be even more of a white elephant than HS2

And a darn sight more environmentally destructive as well.

Been entertaining though, the programme has even included a suggestion for a monorail suspended from electricity pylons !

 

[tbtc]

Web conferencing has been around for years now, the internet has been widely available since the mid nineties, indeed the same period during which rail use doubled

Worth repeating this fact as a few people seem to have ignored it previously - if you'd told me twenty years ago that this newfangled internet would mean we could all work from home/ we'd have no more "rush hours"/ normal telephone conversations would all be replaced by video ones/ we could do all of our interactions online etc then I may have believed you.

Video conferencing seems a fairly mature market nowadays, yet we are still doing "9 to 5" jobs, we still have rush hours...

This topic has seemingly gone round in circles for the last 20 odd pages. So I have decided it is my time to weigh into the discussion as a pro-HS2.

Why am I pro-HS2
Capacity Concerns:

Currently the WCML is operating at near capacity (and will be by the time HS2 is built according to pretty much all estimations).
In addition to this both the MML and ECML (especially the latter) are also rather congested.
Currently off peak Virgin are operating 9tph from Euston and have already suggested that they wish to run more (I believe they want 4tph to Manchester).
Apart from the frankly token call at Watford Junction no services currently stop south of Milton Keynes (where 3tph are scheduled to stop). Other than this the first calls for several services are quite far up the country at Rugby, Stafford, Stoke, Crewe and Warrington Bank Quay. These 4tph don't provide any relief for Milton Keynes or stations further south as they are primarily targeting the Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow end to end market (as you would expect from an Intercity Operator).

So the question becomes what to do with this end to end demand in order to free up paths on the fast tracks on the WCML. Where you effectively have the following choices:

1. Upgrade the WCML, this would be a major project that would no doubt cause huge disruption on an already busy mainline, likely causing a reverse modal shift back to car as the reliablilty of the WCML sinks futher.
2. Upgrade the Chiltern Mainline, Similar to the WCML in terms of disruption but the other problem with this is simply that the Chiltern wasn't designed for fast running from Marylebone to Moor Street and I imagine platform capacity would be an issue at the former. This would also only really solve the London-Birmingham issues.
3. Finally, build a brand new line lets call it HS2 This would allow all ICWC services to be slowed down, allowing more station calls at places like Milton Keynes and Watford Junction (to name but a few) increasing capacity from those stations. It would also, depending on routing be able to provide relief for the MML and ECML long distance services, as that 3 birds with one stone I hear you say!

Rolling Stock:
Who dislikes Pendolinos, small windows, cramped interior is just some comments I have read on this forum. This is primarily due to the required tilt profile within the UK loading gauge. But what is that, HS2 will be built to European Standards, allowing bigger brighter trains for HS2 only routes (though I appreciate the classic compatible stock will need to fit within the traditional gauge).

Journey Times:
Even though on the shorter trips to Birmingham gaining 30 minutes isn't massive it is when you look at the effect for Manchester, Nottingham or Leeds where significant journey time improvements are made. Yes people might not commute these distances but I for one have to make occasional business trips to the capital and the idea of shaving an hour off sound very appealing. Journey times is by no means the main reason to build HS2 despite what the politicians say (what do they know anyway!) it is mainly about capacity.

I accept that fact the HS2 isn't perfect, but no large infrastructure project has been. But HS2 is simply far too important to be canned.

Anyway those are some of my thoughts, enjoy trying to rip them to shreds.

Very sensible points - the space that those nine fast Euston services take up each hour (with only a handful of stops at MK) could be given to local services that would provide Hertfordshire/ Buckinghamshire/ Northamptonshire etc with a much better service.

 

[The Decapod]

Been entertaining though, the programme has even included a suggestion for a monorail suspended from electricity pylons !

That's even more absurd than Hyperloop

 

[tbtc]

That's even more absurd than Hyperloop

It would cut fifteen minutes off a journey between Ogdenville and North Haverbrook though

 

[DarloRich]

I totally agree, and the pro's don't seem the have answers to some very simple questions, or actually know very much about what work that has been done on the alternatives and only have knowledge of the 51M proposal, like that 5 alternatives were considered in detail in 2010, 2 of those in addition to the 51M proposal had further work done on these in 2012.

There quiet simply are alternatives, we may not like the alternatives, they may not offer the capacity that some including many rail enthusiasts believe we need, or offer the improved journey times that some people believe are desirable. Some of the arguments for HS2 that have appeared in this thread are fanciful and uniformed at best, but so are many of the arguments against, it is only one of these two groups who is being challenged consistently which is not healthy debate.

There has to be a plan B, as HS2 can simply not have a blank cheque, there must be a point where the BCR or overall cost says "STOP". Public support is falling away falling from 42%-37% in favour in January 2012 to 34%-46% against at July 2013 (Source: YOUGOV). However on what is essentially a rail enthusiast forum, you would expect a majority in favour of such a scheme as this, and a substantial proportion of those in a "support at all costs" category, I will openly admit that in my youth I most likely would have found myself in that category.

There is no denying that HS2 will bring benefits to a substantial minority of the population, there is no denying that we have a capacity issue going forwards, and there is no denying that any amount of passenger growth forecasting is nothing short of educated guess work, with circa 70% variance between the lowest and highest growth projections.

I firmly believe what should have been a very simple; keep it green, keep the locals onside, spread the economic benefit as wide as possible, and increase capacity scheme; that I would have supported shouting from the rooftops, fails in the first 3 requirements and the blame for that falls on the shoulders of HS2 Ltd, for delivering such a shambles of a plan, which will in my opinion lead to the project being quietly shelved.

Any infrastructure plan on this scale is going to be hugely divisive by its very nature, as is UK energy strategy going forwards, or how we deal with housing shortages, and in all respects I do not believe there is a right solution, only a least worst solution, where the arguments are not black and white, but many shades of grey in between, and in which we trust our elected representatives at national level to progress the best plans, and our local representatives to represent and campaign on local elements of the these.

What we must do is step back, have a national transport strategy in England, like in Wales and Scotland, which has been delayed from September 2012, and establish what the best ways forwards is for railways and railway capacity are in the wider scheme of UK transport demand and future trends. If that considers HS2 in its current guise to be the way forwards in the overall strategy so be it.

Nice words. Lets be practical. What is your plan to increase capacity to the level required?

How do you propse to force even more trains onto the already full, almost to bursting point, southern WCML?

 

[TheGrew]

Very sensible points - the space that those nine fast Euston services take up each hour (with only a handful of stops at MK) could be given to local services that would provide Hertfordshire/ Buckinghamshire/ Northamptonshire etc with a much better service.

Thanks, I also didn't even mention the (two I think) fast London Midland paths. It wouldn't surprise me if London Midland want to double their service provision on the Trent Valley especially, but personally I would like to see more Fast Virgin Services calling their. Imagine the following post HS2 Virgin Timetable assuming the 11 fast paths (including London Midland's) are kept and no service extensions (to Blackpool, Shrewsbury etc).

3x Birmingham (and Wolverhampton) Services as is, maybe with more Wolverhampton extensions depending on stock/paths.

4x Manchester Services with the following calling patterns

• Milton Keynes, Rugby, Lichfield TV, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc
• Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc
• Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Picc
• Watford Junction (Pick up/Set Down), Tamworth, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Picc

1x Chester (with some continuing to Holyhead)

• Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Crewe and Chester

1x Liverpool

• Milton Keynes, Stafford, Crewe, Hartford, Runcorn and Liverpool LS

1x Preston (Former Glasgow)

• Milton Keynes, Tamworth, Crewe and Chester

So I have used 10 theoretical paths in total, from the current 11. (One of the paths taken from fast LM Euston-Crewe that I would run as a stopper Northampton-Crewe and use the spare units on the slow services south of Northampton).

Now lets look at this as a service increase from intermediate stations.

Milton Keynes:
Current Fast London Services: 4 (Including LM)
Theoretical Fast Services Post HS2 using my timetable: 7
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 75%

Rugby
Current Fast London Services: 2
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
No change in service level but more seats as 390 is longer than 350.

Nuneaton
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 3
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 200%

Tamworth
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 100%

Lichfield TV
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 1
No change in service level but more seats as 390 is longer than 350, and service is also faster for omitting Rugby, Nuneaton and Tamworth.

Stafford
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 100%

Other interesting things of note are that places like Tamworth and Lichfield all of a sudden gain faster connections to places like Manchester (where at the moment it would involve a change at Stafford or Stoke).

This timetable also doesn't include any NEW HS2 services to those destinations, so imagine the possibilities!

So I guess what I am trying to point out is that HS2 could have benefits for the stations other than it's destinations. No doubt I could carry out a similar exercise for the MML and ECML with the Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and services north of York.

 

[LexyBoy]

That article in the Grauniad raised my heckles when I read it, rolling together a few of the claims often bandied about by those opposed to HS2.

The fact is, it's already quick enough for Londoners to get to Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds, or vice versa

Without saying as much, the author implies that speed is the focus. In any case, a shorter journey will make many more journeys feasible between north and south.

I've lived in the north-west on and off for several years, eventually settling in Liverpool last year. The daily experience of getting into the city, or of getting from one northern town to another, is to be reminded of how much better, and how much more urgently, that £42bn or £50bn or £80bn cost of HS2 can be spent. We have ancient, mucky trains; frequent breakdowns; no possibility of a direct train to Glasgow or Bristol.

Yes, you have inadequate rolling stock (not as old as a lot of intercity stock mind). In the foreseeable future this will be replaced. Millions are being spent on electrification and improvements already - there's no reason these won't continue if HS2 goes ahead.

The difference in quality between existing intercity travel from south to north, and the vital daily branch-line travel between northern towns and cities, is a reflection of central government's priorities. It sees growth as an exclusively south-eastern engine which, in its great munificence, powers the rest of the country – which must make do with a sliver of London's transport spending and find ways to milk the capital rather than build itself up.

Whilst I agree that the Government does focus economic development on London, could this be because London is in fact the main economic driver and it's seen as safer to promote this than dabble with other regions?

The Channel tunnel link, which he cites as an example of infrastructural investment that was put off for too long, still carries far fewer passengers than were predicted upon its opening in 1994. By the same token, HS2 trains may end up carting hordes of bumless seats from London to Manchester in double-quick time.

The costings for HS2 are much more realistic than those for the Chunnel, which was forced to make overoptimistic predictions in order to justify overspend IIRC.

Comparisons with Europe are flawed. France and Spain need high-speed rail because they are enormous countries: the only really beneficial British equivalent would be from, say, London to Glasgow or Penzance without stopping. Our country is small enough to cross in a day without any particular need for greater speed.

It's not just about speed. In any case, Paris-Lyon, the first LGV, was hugely successful. The distance is only slightly more than London-Leeds. Paris-Lille and Paris-Brussels are important TGV routes and equivalent to Leeds-Birmingham and London-Manchester.

The densely populated urban corridor lying between Liverpool and Hull has the potential to make London, or at least its self-aggrandising role as national benefactor, seem irrelevant.

Erm...

A fraction of the investment proposed for HS2 would transform connections between towns and cities that have effectively been written off as producers of their own jobs and wealth.

Here it is again - £50bn is loads of money, so anything else I can think up must cost "a fraction" of that. As someone else pointed out, the Reading area redevelopment is a good example: in order to increase capacity at one, admittedly large, station, and to allow an improved frequency/reliability at one major junction, is costing nearly £1bn. And that's with out any land-grab. A handful of similar projects across the north and replacing all of Northern's clapped out fleet and you're not going to be costing "a fraction" of HS2.


The North needs investment and improvements of course, but if there's a good economic case for it then there's no reason it can't happen at the same time as HS2. Indeed, the case for HS2 is based on the economic benefits of it, so even if investment in the North wasn't viable on these grounds (as the author clearly believes it to be) then there could still be a case for state funding on social grounds.

Research by the Centre for Cities showed that upgrading the line between Bradford and Manchester and improving the trans-Pennine rail route would, among other transport improvements, produce economic benefits to the Leeds region in the hundreds of millions.

...Which is why the route is going to be electrified and benefit from longer, more frequent trains, no? If similar studies can show direct economic advantages on other routes, then these may be upgraded too.

If Britain does need a high-speed route from north to south, it's so we can make space on the existing mainlines for stopping trains and freight.

Bingo! It's a strange point to (nearly) end the article on - this is exactly the reason why we need HS2. Is the point that the Government should stop trying to promote HS2 on the basis of benefits to the North, when other investments would be better for this?

 

[D365]

Nice words. Lets be practical. What is your plan to increase capacity to the level required?

How do you propse to force even more trains onto the already full, almost to bursting point, southern WCML?

This is what Network Rail have proposed as 'RP2', after having analysed the plans devised by 51m. Note that by the time any upgrades are in place, services will be at capacity again, notwithstanding the disruption that will ensue, again.

Now, if we all read this report, the anti-HS2 can't complain that those 'for' HS2 don't know of the alternatives - and how insufficient these are!

LexyBoy, what The Guardian writers don't seem to understand is that speed is not the emphasis. Speed is merely one of the numerous benefits of building a brand-new, LDHS railway from scratch. Reduced journey times and good fares (prices will have to be reasonable in order to fill seats and pay off construction, as I and others have explained...) will attract passengers. The funding which is being made available for HS2 will, contrary to expectation, not be released for use elsewhere. And in any case, as you and others have pointed out, infrastructure programmes are progressing across the country.

Long-term high capacity is why we are moving forwards for a brand-new, modern, LDHS railway.

 

[tbtc]

Thanks, I also didn't even mention the (two I think) fast London Midland paths. It wouldn't surprise me if London Midland want to double their service provision on the Trent Valley especially, but personally I would like to see more Fast Virgin Services calling their. Imagine the following post HS2 Virgin Timetable assuming the 11 fast paths (including London Midland's) are kept and no service extensions (to Blackpool, Shrewsbury etc)

It may even be better than that - since the space taken up by 9x125mph paths plus 2x110mph paths may give you a dozen paths at a consistant speed.

At the moment we have a number of lines where we are trying to fit 125mph services and 75mph services, which leads to a lot of wasted capacity. Put the fastest services on a dedicated line for "high speed" trains and you have a lot more capacity for other trains.

We can't keep on trying to squeeze the fastest and the slowest through the same routes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thanks, I also didn't even mention the (two I think) fast London Midland paths. It wouldn't surprise me if London Midland want to double their service provision on the Trent Valley especially, but personally I would like to see more Fast Virgin Services calling their. Imagine the following post HS2 Virgin Timetable assuming the 11 fast paths (including London Midland's) are kept and no service extensions (to Blackpool, Shrewsbury etc).

3x Birmingham (and Wolverhampton) Services as is, maybe with more Wolverhampton extensions depending on stock/paths.

4x Manchester Services with the following calling patterns

• Milton Keynes, Rugby, Lichfield TV, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc
• Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc
• Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Picc
• Watford Junction (Pick up/Set Down), Tamworth, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Picc

1x Chester (with some continuing to Holyhead)

• Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Crewe and Chester

1x Liverpool

• Milton Keynes, Stafford, Crewe, Hartford, Runcorn and Liverpool LS

1x Preston (Former Glasgow)

• Milton Keynes, Tamworth, Crewe and Chester

So I have used 10 theoretical paths in total, from the current 11. (One of the paths taken from fast LM Euston-Crewe that I would run as a stopper Northampton-Crewe and use the spare units on the slow services south of Northampton).

Now lets look at this as a service increase from intermediate stations.

Milton Keynes:
Current Fast London Services: 4 (Including LM)
Theoretical Fast Services Post HS2 using my timetable: 7
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 75%

Rugby
Current Fast London Services: 2
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
No change in service level but more seats as 390 is longer than 350.

Nuneaton
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 3
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 300%

Tamworth
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 200%

Lichfield TV
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 1
No change in service level but more seats as 390 is longer than 350, and service is also faster for omitting Rugby, Nuneaton and Tamworth.

Stafford
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 200%

Other interesting things of note are that places like Tamworth and Lichfield all of a sudden gain faster connections to places like Manchester (where at the moment it would involve a change at Stafford or Stoke).

This timetable also doesn't include any NEW HS2 services to those destinations, so imagine the possibilities!

So I guess what I am trying to point out is that HS2 could have benefits for the stations other than it's destinations. No doubt I could carry out a similar exercise for the MML and ECML with the Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and services north of York.

I would lower the fast services even further than that! I wouldn't run three service to Manchester only two one semi fast one almost a stopping service (principle stations only) More XC out of Manchester also allow more local services south of Manchester too. Birmingham will have no need for service that don't stop almost everywhere! And remove some so again local services can be boosted!

 

[Deerfold]

Now lets look at this as a service increase from intermediate stations.

Milton Keynes:
Current Fast London Services: 4 (Including LM)
Theoretical Fast Services Post HS2 using my timetable: 7
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 75%

Rugby
Current Fast London Services: 2
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
No change in service level but more seats as 390 is longer than 350.

Nuneaton
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 3
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 300%

Tamworth
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 200%

Lichfield TV
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 1
No change in service level but more seats as 390 is longer than 350, and service is also faster for omitting Rugby, Nuneaton and Tamworth.

Stafford
Current Fast London Services: 1
Theoretical Fast Service Post HS2 using my timetable: 2
Percentage Increase in Service Levels: 200%

I'm broadly in agreement with what you're saying - but all your percentage increases (apart form the 75% one) are 100% too high - 1 to 3 trains is an increase of 200% to give 300% of the current service level.

If what you mean is "Service level compared to now" you need to increase the first to 175% and reword.

 

[Bonemaster]

This is what Network Rail have proposed as 'RP2', after having analysed the plans devised by 51m. Note that by the time any upgrades are in place, services will be at capacity again, notwithstanding the disruption that will ensue, again.

Now, if we all read this report, the anti-HS2 can't complain that those 'for' HS2 don't know of the alternatives - and how insufficient these are!

No that is not a Network Rail proposal at all, that is the response to this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...4/hs2-strategic-alternatives-study-update.pdf proposal which is an update from this one http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf

 

[TheGrew]

I'm broadly in agreement with what you're saying - but all your percentage increases (apart form the 75% one) are 100% too high - 1 to 3 trains is an increase of 200% to give 300% of the current service level.

If what you mean is "Service level compared to now" you need to increase the first to 175% and reword.

Corrected

 

[Bonemaster]

How do you propse to force even more trains onto the already full, almost to bursting point, southern WCML?

My preferred solution has never changed from my original stance and my response to the consultation. HS2 is too fast, 140-150 mph would be more than sufficient and greener and £4bn cheaper, somewhere in the region of an additional 5-6 stations, over the 2 phases. Slowing the railway down would give more routing flexibility to avoid contentious sites, adding in stations brings benefits to more regions impacted by its construction. Unfortunately the debate has gone down to do you support or oppose HS2, and I believe those alternatives that have been examined for all the flaws are less worse than HS2 as it stands.

 

[Geezertronic]

No that is not a Network Rail proposal at all, that is the response to this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...4/hs2-strategic-alternatives-study-update.pdf proposal which is an update from this one http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf

And a very interesting read it is too. While the proposal and answer contains some good food for thought, they should be considered alongside HS2 not instead of HS2

 

[D365]

No that is not a Network Rail proposal at all, that is the response to this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...4/hs2-strategic-alternatives-study-update.pdf proposal which is an update from this one http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf

OK, 'RP2' was set out and evaluated by Network Rail in response to these linked proposals, or so you say. Happy?

My preferred solution has never changed from my original stance and my response to the consultation. HS2 is too fast, 140-150 mph would be more than sufficient and greener and £4bn cheaper, somewhere in the region of an additional 5-6 stations, over the 2 phases. Slowing the railway down would give more routing flexibility to avoid contentious sites, adding in stations brings benefits to more regions impacted by its construction. Unfortunately the debate has gone down to do you support or oppose HS2, and I believe those alternatives that have been examined for all the flaws are less worse than HS2 as it stands.

More regions are going to be impacted by HS2 than is obvious, even if indirect, because the capacity freed up by running express services on a different line will go towards serving those conurbations in between... As many have explained before. If you go down the new-build LDHS route, go down the >155mph route to get the most out of it and not just build another WCML that merely duplicates the function. HS2 will serve an overlapping but ultimately 'higher' market.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And a very interesting read it is too. While the proposal and answer contains some good food for thought, they should be considered alongside HS2 not instead of HS2

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[DarloRich]

My preferred solution has never changed from my original stance and my response to the consultation. HS2 is too fast, 140-150 mph would be more than sufficient and greener and £4bn cheaper, somewhere in the region of an additional 5-6 stations, over the 2 phases. Slowing the railway down would give more routing flexibility to avoid contentious sites, adding in stations brings benefits to more regions impacted by its construction. Unfortunately the debate has gone down to do you support or oppose HS2, and I believe those alternatives that have been examined for all the flaws are less worse than HS2 as it stands.

Alternatively the government could stop pandering to all the antis and force the line through on the route they chose, cutting down on the number of tunnels, diversions etc to ensure the most direct route is taken. They would do that if it was in the north of England, strange how they won’t in leafy Buckinghamshire.

Would you have interoperability with existing High Speed lines to allow existing stock to be used or would you seek an entirely separate system.

My personal view is that this line needs to be built asap. The government should stop appeasement and start the bulldozers rolling. The WCML is full. It cant take any more traffic, however more to the point the bloody French have high speed lines and we don’t. This insult can not be allowed to stand.

 

[Bonemaster]

OK, 'RP2' was set out and evaluated by Network Rail in response to these linked proposals, or so you say. Happy?

I'm happy its factual

More regions are going to be impacted by HS2 than is obvious, even if indirect, because the capacity freed up by running express services on a different line will go towards serving those conurbations in between... As many have explained before. If you go down the new-build LDHS route, go down the >155mph route to get the most out of it and not just build another WCML that merely duplicates the function. HS2 will serve an overlapping but ultimately 'higher' market.

I disagree to an extent, I could live with 155mph it would still present time savings, but at a lower cost to the design speed, and with a negative carbon position. Better integration of HS2 into the current rail network would bring about even further capacity release from classic lines and additional stations, in strategic locations could attract this overlapping market, and use the fact that HS2 does not with the exception of Birmingham (which I still maintain is a horrific locational decision), Leeds and Manchester serve city centres, to attract people who are put off travelling by rail because of the city centre location of local stations, in addition to spreading the economic benefits more widely.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Alternatively the government could stop pandering to all the antis and force the line through on the route they chose, cutting down on the number of tunnels, diversions etc to ensure the most direct route is taken. They would do that if it was in the north of England, strange how they won’t in leafy Buckinghamshire.

In all fairness HS2 isn't built through the Peak District or the Yorkshire Dales, in which case there would have been lots of tunnels. The fact that the lovely Chilterns are in Bucks has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm happy its factual



I disagree to an extent, I could live with 155mph it would still present time savings, but at a lower cost to the design speed, and with a negative carbon position. Better integration of HS2 into the current rail network would bring about even further capacity release from classic lines and additional stations, in strategic locations could attract this overlapping market, and use the fact that HS2 does not with the exception of Birmingham (which I still maintain is a horrific locational decision), Leeds and Manchester serve city centres, to attract people who are put off travelling by rail because of the city centre location of local stations, in addition to spreading the economic benefits more widely.

So your main opposition is the speed of the line not actual line itself?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In all fairness HS2 isn't built through the Peak District or the Yorkshire Dales, in which case there would have been lots of tunnels. The fact that the lovely Chilterns are in Bucks has nothing to do with it.

The chilterns are no different any other large "green" space. A railway line will not "spoil" the view, and what would you rather have, a 6 lane motorway or a 2 track railway?? You seem perfectly happy with the M40.

 

[D365]

...Better integration of HS2 into the current rail network would bring about even further capacity release from classic lines and additional stations, in strategic locations could attract this overlapping market...

What do you suggest then, to "better integrate" HS2 with the classic network? Aside from connections at Lichfield, Crewe and numerous other locations for 200m (x2) classic-compatible trains to split and serve further locations, with integrated station interchange en-route.

 

[Bonemaster]

So your main opposition is the speed of the line not actual line itself?

I have four principle objections and two large concerns, if you was to ask which of them was the largest I would say the first one, however the speed is a principle driver in its own right for the main objections. The last one is a side issue, and if the project principles are correct and the economics stack up, I accept that some things have to give.

Objections

Too few stations served and failing to spread economic benefits
Speed of the line, raising costs and lowering green credentials
Lack of joined up thinking in transport strategy (How does HS2 fit into the big picture)
Specific routing objections in the Warwickshire area, some are due to the speed of the line necessitating the routing.

Major Concerns

Cost of the project
Location of Birmingham Central Station
Will average people be priced off HS2

 

[YorkshireBear]

I have four principle objections and two large concerns, if you was to ask which of them was the largest I would say the first one, however the speed is a principle driver in its own right for the main objections. The last one is a side issue, and if the project principles are correct and the economics stack up, I accept that some things have to give.

Objections

Too few stations served and failing to spread economic benefits
Speed of the line, raising costs and lowering green credentials
Lack of joined up thinking in transport strategy (How does HS2 fit into the big picture)
Specific routing objections in the Warwickshire area, some are due to the speed of the line necessitating the routing.

Major Concerns

Cost of the project
Location of Birmingham Central Station
Will average people be priced off HS2

Finally. After all that over the last few days, some actual real concerns thank you!

 

[Dave1987]

I have four principle objections and two large concerns, if you was to ask which of them was the largest I would say the first one, however the speed is a principle driver in its own right for the main objections. The last one is a side issue, and if the project principles are correct and the economics stack up, I accept that some things have to give.

Objections

Too few stations served and failing to spread economic benefits
Speed of the line, raising costs and lowering green credentials
Lack of joined up thinking in transport strategy (How does HS2 fit into the big picture)
Specific routing objections in the Warwickshire area, some are due to the speed of the line necessitating the routing.

Major Concerns

Cost of the project
Location of Birmingham Central Station
Will average people be priced off HS2

I used to live in Warwickshire so I can't see why you have objections to the routing but never mind.

On the location of the central Birmingham station, Curzon street is currently a Brownfield site what objections can you have with building the station on it?

 

[TheGrew]

Curzen Street is only twice as far from New Street as Moor Street (so what 10 minutes tops). In some ways it is a shame that HS2 wasn't declared earlier as I wonder if you could build a new 'Super Station' at Curzon Street because of the Adjacent access lines to New Street and Moor Street the other side of that. Birmingham would finally then have a completely unified (or be it with a bit of walking) central rail station. This of course would all be excruciatingly expensive and probably somewhat impractical, but hey we can dream

 

[The Ham]

You can free up paths by focusing resources at the worst places on the WCML, rather than building an entirely new London-centric network. For less money. And with results in a handful of years rather than 20/30+.

There are a few problems with that thinking:

Firstly, the growth rate that has been used has been based on 2.5% growth rate, which is much lower than it has been in every year since privitisation exect one when there was a small drop. Now if this growth rate is wrong and it is a bit lower (but it is unlikely to be much lower de to population growth) then HS2 will not be needed for when it is being planned for, rather it will be needed a few years later. However it will still bring a lot of benefits to the WCML as the lines will not be running at near capacity.

However if (as the recent growth rates have been showing) growth is a lot higher then all the other proposals being put forward will not be able to cope with passenger number and in fact we may end up seeing both HS2 and a some of the proposals being undertaken as well.

Take for example if growth runs at the predicted 2.5% growth by 2035 there will be 205 passengers for every 100 passengers now. Drop that to 1% and you'll still be looking at 145 passengers, but raise it 3% and it rises to 229 passengers. Whislt at 4.3% and you are looking at 305 passengers! It therefore doesn't take much for passenger numbers to grow by more than is predicted and there could be really big capacity problems on the network. Compare those figuers to the 165 (ish) passengers (compared with the current 100 passengers) which could be cattered for by lengthening the 390's to 12 coaches and doing away with first class and it starts to look a bit pathatic.

Secondaly BECAUSE of the money being spent (other than HS2) over the rest of the decade it is highlighly likely that passenger number will continue to grow (electric efect, more seats, etc.) and is highly unlikely to fall (regardless of what happens with regards to new technology).

Thirdly, like it or not there are a lot of passengers who want to get to/from London. As such most projects will have some form of Londan bias. Take for example the remodeliing of Reading station to allow more trains to/from London, however it allows (for example) the possibility of more services through Cornwall which without it wouldn't be viable.

I love your suggestion of building more stations to provide more relief to the WCML, as all building stations does is attract more people to the railways. If anything we need to be closing stations on the WCML to get round the capacity problems. As my first suggestion I propose Milton Keynes, as that should remove a good several million passenger a year from the network. It's OK as they will be able to use the new east west rail link once it's open to still be able to get to where they need to by train.

Also it should be noted that HS2 (once Phase 2 is open) will provide capacity enhancements to the ECML and MML as well as WCML.

Also as has been pointed out there is already a lot of work under way or planned to make the improvemetns you have suggested. EC will see IEP's being deployed which will provide an increase in seats over the existing trains.

It should be noted that no extra growth has been alowed for in the attraction of passengers post HS2 beyond the base rate which is highly unlikely.

In conclussion there is a risk that HS2 will be not that useful, however there is (at least an equale if not much greater) risk that HS2 will be too late and will require other schemes to be undertaken anyway. The risk of passengers falling below where they are now post opening of HS2 is very small.