High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[swt_passenger]

As far as I know there is almost no 125mph running on the MML and will not be for the forseable future.

It starts this December, it's a CP4 enhancement project in progress now. Not a huge amount of 125, but also some 120 and 110.

Every little helps, as someone once said...

 

[jon0844]

Once HS2 is completed, there will be some scope to continue upgrades on the legacy/classic lines.. which will inevitably be needed within the next 100 years.

The population is bound to keep exploding, unless we close our borders, so it's not only stupid to say we can just upgrade the existing infrastructure, but to also think that HS2 will somehow decimate the existing lines. Far from it.

Long after we're gone, assuming we don't find some magical new energy source and we're not all flying around or something, I imagine our great great grandchildren will be arguing about four tracking HS2 and seeking to build a load of new lines for all the new towns and cities built on former green belt.

 

[brianthegiant]

The population is bound to keep exploding, unless we close our borders, so it's not only stupid to say we can just upgrade the existing infrastructure, but to also think that HS2 will somehow decimate the existing lines. Far from it.

irrespective of net migration there will also be also be population growth due to births, which makes about the same contribution in recent times.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I agree. IMHO the WCML, ECML, MML will be downgraded to 100mph as there would no longer be a need to run fast InterCity services on 'classic' lines anymore. Anyway the state is not going to subsidise 125mph services such as KGX - LDS or BHM - GLC if it competes with the new HS2.

Try telling that to people living in Leicester. Or for that matter, Milton Keynes and Peterborough. Why should they have a reduced level service because of HS2 from which they have no benefit?

 

[Geezertronic]

Try telling that to people living in Leicester. Or for that matter, Milton Keynes and Peterborough. Why should they have a reduced level service because of HS2 from which they have no benefit?

Given the fact that the existing lines continue to have a considerable amount of money spent on them, I suggest the poster you are responding to is incorrect and is scare-mongering

 

[RichmondCommu]

Given the fact that the existing lines continue to have a considerable amount of money spent on them, I suggest the poster you are responding to is incorrect and is scare-mongering

Well one would hope so but what’s happened to the once mighty SNCF gives cause for concern. The LGV's are fantastic but away from them the standard of service has seen a sharp decline. I don't understand why people are opposed to classic compatible HS2 stock.

 

[joeykins82]

NR have put together a series of posters for WCML stations dispelling some of the anti-HS2 myths

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/highspeedrail/ capacity benefits links on the right hand side

 

[Metrailway]

Again, why? if you have a 125mph railway, why suddenly stop making 125mph rated stock for it?

As always it would be a political and financial decision rather than a operating decision - why did BR underutilise infrastructure in the past? Because of political pressure to reduce costs.

Naturally, HS2 will take away a large % of premium farepayers away from the 'classic' IC lines. The operations left are likely to require a good amount of subsidy. Fast long distance 'classic' services particularly so.

On the WCML we have 125mph tilting pendolinos which probably will be replaced after HS2 is finished. What will replace them? You might predict 125mph tilting stock. I predict that the bean counters in HM Treasury will get their way and order non-tilting 100/110mph stock instead as it would cheaper to purchase, cheaper to operate, have more seats, so requiring less subsidy from the state.

I do not advocate such a proposal - It is just a prediction. Many on here may think my prediction is unduly pessimistic. In France, once the LGVs were built, the parallel 'classic' lines were systemically run down. I don't think we will take it to such extremes as the French have, but why should members rule out the possibility of a similar thing happening here? Especially considering the UK Govt. historic reticence to subsidise the railways.

Of course, the converse could happen - if ERTMS is installed on the ECML, we might be seeing 140mph 'classic' services as well as HS2 services. I would love that but I don't see it happening. Others may disagree.

A wise man once said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future". Very true

 

[YorkshireBear]

I really cannot see the lines being downgraded at all. The huge stretches between some stations on the main lines (even when trains stop at every single one) allows for significant 125mph running so why would they suddenly downgrade the main lines? I see your reasoning but i disagree entirely. The government has just announced a huge investment as well as pressing ahead with HS2... I really really cannot see it at all.
Premium fares like Leeds London might disapear but who is to say that other premium flows may not emerge? Who is to say that non London travel might one day be able to sustain itself.


On a side note the cynical side of me (mainly created by this forum and the love of railways) is going to see HS2 cancelled and everyone against claiming a great victory. Then in 20 years when the WCML is RAMMED the ECML is getting there the MML is struggling and the motorways are congested. The same people will come back and ask what the government are going to do about it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I really cannot see the lines being downgraded at all. The huge stretches between some stations on the main lines (even when trains stop at every single one) allows for significant 125mph running so why would they suddenly downgrade the main lines? I see your reasoning but i disagree entirely. The government has just announced a huge investment as well as pressing ahead with HS2... I really really cannot see it at all.
Premium fares like Leeds London might disapear but who is to say that other premium flows may not emerge? Who is to say that non London travel might one day be able to sustain itself.


On a side note the cynical side of me (mainly created by this forum and the love of railways) is going to see HS2 cancelled and everyone against claiming a great victory. Then in 20 years when the WCML is RAMMED the ECML is getting there the MML is struggling and the motorways are congested. The same people will come back and ask what the government are going to do about it!

 

[jon0844]

On a side note the cynical side of me (mainly created by this forum and the love of railways) is going to see HS2 cancelled and everyone against claiming a great victory. Then in 20 years when the WCML is RAMMED the ECML is getting there the MML is struggling and the motorways are congested. The same people will come back and ask what the government are going to do about it!

HS2 will be effectively like adding two new lines to the WCML, which is incredibly busy and growing in usage all the time. So, there's virtually no chance of services being degraded or the line being slowed down.

HS2 won't solve all the capacity problems, but it will buy people a lot of time. Even after HS2, there will probably be a need to consider building other new lines - especially if, as I said before, we see that in the next 30-40 years there are all new towns and cities built in what we currently thought were protected areas.

 

[NSEFAN]

As always it would be a political and financial decision rather than a operating decision - why did BR underutilise infrastructure in the past? Because of political pressure to reduce costs.

Naturally, HS2 will take away a large % of premium farepayers away from the 'classic' IC lines. The operations left are likely to require a good amount of subsidy. Fast long distance 'classic' services particularly so.

On the WCML we have 125mph tilting pendolinos which probably will be replaced after HS2 is finished. What will replace them? You might predict 125mph tilting stock. I predict that the bean counters in HM Treasury will get their way and order non-tilting 100/110mph stock instead as it would cheaper to purchase, cheaper to operate, have more seats, so requiring less subsidy from the state.

I do not advocate such a proposal - It is just a prediction. Many on here may think my prediction is unduly pessimistic. In France, once the LGVs were built, the parallel 'classic' lines were systemically run down. I don't think we will take it to such extremes as the French have, but why should members rule out the possibility of a similar thing happening here? Especially considering the UK Govt. historic reticence to subsidise the railways.

Of course, the converse could happen - if ERTMS is installed on the ECML, we might be seeing 140mph 'classic' services as well as HS2 services. I would love that but I don't see it happening. Others may disagree.

A wise man once said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future". Very true

I understand your concerns, but don't forget that the classical network is already heavily used and is set to keep on getting busier. I would imagine that by the time HS2 opens, there will still be plenty of commuting traffic from intermediate WCML stations to justify at least 110mph (Desiro) running.

In the case of the WCML and ECML, economies could possibly be made by reducing the line speed to 110mph, but ordering stock which will never be capable of higher speeds than this is somewhat short sighted, given how long trains are expected to last. Yes, the government is famous for penny-pinching, but there is only so much you can get away with before you actually start costing yourself more money than you save.

 

[Metrailway]

I really cannot see the lines being downgraded at all. The huge stretches between some stations on the main lines (even when trains stop at every single one) allows for significant 125mph running so why would they suddenly downgrade the main lines? I see your reasoning but i disagree entirely. The government has just announced a huge investment as well as pressing ahead with HS2... I really really cannot see it at all.
Premium fares like Leeds London might disapear but who is to say that other premium flows may not emerge? Who is to say that non London travel might one day be able to sustain itself.

We are witnessing a rail renaissance in this country at the moment and it is great to see the state investing in the railways. I just don't think this level of investment and pro-rail consensus in Westminster will be sustained in 30 years time, but then you and others here seem to disagree. That is fair enough.

On a side note the cynical side of me (mainly created by this forum and the love of railways) is going to see HS2 cancelled and everyone against claiming a great victory. Then in 20 years when the WCML is RAMMED the ECML is getting there the MML is struggling and the motorways are congested. The same people will come back and ask what the government are going to do about it!

Yes I can see the anti-HS2 mob moaning about this in the future.

Despite what some posters (not directed at you YorkshireBear) may think or have suggested, I am not 'anti-HS2'.

I am sceptical of the purported economic and environmental benefits claimed by the Government. I am also disappointed, but not surprised that Coventry will be missed out.

However, I do believe a new railway is needed and this can be solely justified on capacity grounds.

====

I posted earlier an article that stated that the judicial reviews on HS2 will be handed down this Friday. What were the reasons for these 5 judicial reviews?

 

[Engineer]

BBC Countryfile comment yesterday on green HS2 mentioned freight trains using electricity nightime. Maybe they do not realise most freight goes diesel under the wires. I have the opinion that most green comments are spin. Drax will convert from coal to wood chip, importing American timber, is this really green? Slough power station is green, using waste chipped wood from coucil tips and tree surgeons. Heating water on rooftops looks green to me in summer, windmills generating electricty for HS2 will never be economic, as the true cost has not been considered and amortised in planning.

 

[HowardGWR]

What I find surprising about this thread is why it exists. Which political party, likely to be involved in forming a government, has stated anything other than unbridled enthusiasm for the schemes? Added to that, what factors are evident that would change their minds? Only finance being in short supply is what I can envisage but that would only impose delay.

So what is this debate for?

 

[Rational Plan]

There's a good summary of demand in this post - factor in passengers transferring onto other flights and there just isn't enough demand to fill a couple of trains per day at the very best.

Even if there was demand for more, HS2 doesn't have the paths for regular international services however good the link line was. Besides, why wait for an occasional through service (and perhaps pay more for the priviledge) when you can get on a regular xtph Euston service and have the full choice of International services at St Pancras?


I can't see how that's practical - even if that was acceptable from a security point of view, the time taken while trains sit about in platforms may well require building more of both, at not inconsiderable cost while extending journey times significantly.

Chris

I disagree that there is not enough demand. I think currently there is enough demand for 3 trains a day to Paris and Brussels/Amsterdam from Manchester and Birmingham. It would have to be with trains dividing at Birmingham or Lille.

Then take into consideration almost 20 years growth before the line opens then you could see 5/6 trains a day with various additional long distance leisure services, You could easily one train path an hour through the HS1 to HS2 link.

 

[jon0844]

What I find surprising about this thread is why it exists. Which political party, likely to be involved in forming a government, has stated anything other than unbridled enthusiasm for the schemes? Added to that, what factors are evident that would change their minds? Only finance being in short supply is what I can envisage but that would only impose delay.

So what is this debate for?

Labour was all for it (in fact, came up with most of the idea I think), but because it must attack everything the current Government does, it still hasn't been able to come out and fully support the coalition in trying to push forward.

Instead, it has been making snide remarks - presumably to try and gain support from the many people who are against HS2 purely because they see it as a) a Tory idea b) taking money from other projects during a time of austerity, when they don't appreciate this money will be raised separately and isn't sitting in a bank account currently designated as being used for nurses, police officers and teachers.

If Labour gets back in and HS2 hasn't already been approved, I am sure it will press ahead... so it will happen even if it's delayed by many years.

 

[tbtc]

What I find surprising about this thread is why it exists. Which political party, likely to be involved in forming a government, has stated anything other than unbridled enthusiasm for the schemes? Added to that, what factors are evident that would change their minds? Only finance being in short supply is what I can envisage but that would only impose delay.

So what is this debate for?

Have a look at the couple of thousand posts on here and you'll see a lot of healthy debate about the options for HS2, the alternatives to HS2 etc - remember at the last election the Conservatives wanted a different railway (Leeds via Manchester), nothing's built yet!

 

[Chris125]

I disagree that there is not enough demand. I think currently there is enough demand for 3 trains a day to Paris and Brussels/Amsterdam from Manchester and Birmingham. It would have to be with trains dividing at Birmingham or Lille.

Then take into consideration almost 20 years growth before the line opens then you could see 5/6 trains a day with various additional long distance leisure services, You could easily one train path an hour through the HS1 to HS2 link.

Perhaps, but that's not many trains to pay for the overheads involved. As for 20 years growth, what we've seen and are predicting domestically doesn't necessarily apply to international rail services as Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel have shown.

With that in mind, and limited spare paths on HS2, i'd be surprised if international services could be justified beyond Old Oak Common during the peaks, though i can see services being extended to Birmingham or Manchester off-peak.

...that said, their viability may be much improved if passengers could change between international services at Stratford and/or Ebbsfleet which i've yet to see suggested anywhere.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

International Services will probably arrive with a more extensive national network.
Especially if we get a HS2 relief route either via Oxford or Nottingham.

Then we start to get into the "more the merrier" territory that used to typify our railways when they weren't running to capacity, and such services will only have to cover marginal costs.

 

[jon0844]

We can worry about HS2 linking to HS1 and mainland Europe nearer the time. Who knows, we might be part of the Schengen agreement by 2030-2040.

 

[HowardGWR]

Have a look at the couple of thousand posts on here and you'll see a lot of healthy debate about the options for HS2, the alternatives to HS2 etc - remember at the last election the Conservatives wanted a different railway (Leeds via Manchester), nothing's built yet!

I can see there could be debate about routings and so on, but there are people here debating about the need for an extra spine railway and it is this I find totally unrealistic. Incidentally (no, not even incidentally) all HS2 plus HS1 is, is reinstating the Great Central Railway with the same aims as Sir Edward Watkin pursued 120 years ago. Think of that!

And here we are, stuck with being worried about invading Roumanians, so that you can't just get on a train at Brum and go to Paris - pathetic!

 

[Kettledrum]

Try telling that to people living in Leicester. Or for that matter, Milton Keynes and Peterborough. Why should they have a reduced level service because of HS2 from which they have no benefit?

Depends where they want to travel to. One way of looking at it is they'll have an increased level of service as more destinations are available.

Some X Country trains that currently go via Birmingham will probably be re-routed via Leicester, so Leicester will gain that way.

Both Leicester and Milton Leynes could also beenfit from new services using the new East-West rail line.

Not sure about Peterborogh though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We are witnessing a rail renaissance in this country at the moment and it is great to see the state investing in the railways. I just don't think this level of investment and pro-rail consensus in Westminster will be sustained in 30 years time

A lot can happen in 30 years. There are a number of reasons for the current rail investment, but it's basically because the Government has to invest. Petrol and Diesel is now very expensive for the motorist. Some roads are simply too busy, so people are wanting to travel by train. The system can't cope with this unprecedented demand because of previous under-investment. If the Government doesn't invest now, it would actually be harmful to the economy.

 

[LE Greys]

Depends where they want to travel to. One way of looking at it is they'll have an increased level of service as more destinations are available.

Some X Country trains that currently go via Birmingham will probably be re-routed via Leicester, so Leicester will gain that way.

Both Leicester and Milton Leynes could also beenfit from new services using the new East-West rail line.

Not sure about Peterborogh though.

Well, if they want to go to Edinburgh...

Leicester and Milton Keynes will have interchanges at Birmingham International, Crewe, (hopefully) EMP/Toton and Sheffield to work with, where they will be able to change without having to get an all-shacks service for over 100 miles, whether it hits 125 or not. I expect a few people will double back all the way to London, no matter what the expense. Stansted and Luton might well retain a service to Edinburgh, even though Heathrow and Gatwick probably will not.

 

[jon0844]

People in Peterborough or Cambridge won't suffer a loss in service as the new Thameslink franchise (or whatever it will be by 2030 onwards) will be able to run more trains if there are a few less Intercity services running - and some of those can then run semi fast or fast, so no loss at all - in fact, a likely gain for those people to get to London.

And in the other direction, I am sure there will be more capacity there so you might get a few slower trains with more stops, but that will actually benefit a lot of people along the route - and with a more turn up and go service frequency, no real loss in the long run.

 

[Chris125]

Some interesting thoughts about infrastructure spending in a new BBC Magazine article, the section relevant to HS2 is quoted below - Budget 2013: Radical options for the UK economy

...The chancellor's commitment is to cut the structural deficit within five years.

But infrastructure spending counts as "capital expenditure", and as such is not part of the structural deficit. That is because building useful things creates a tangible new asset that belongs to the government.

The distinction between capital spending and the structural deficit is important.

It is a bit like the difference between your mortgage and your credit card. Generally speaking, you can always repay your mortgage by selling your house. But if your credit card balance is snowballing, then you have a serious overspending problem to deal with.

For the same reason, the financial markets should be reasonably comfortable with lending the government the money it needs to build, say, a new high-speed rail link. The government can always privatise the railway line to repay the debt.

In fact, it is even better than that. A lot of the benefit of new infrastructure is not captured directly by the owner.

That is because the value to the economy of connecting two cities together is far greater than the amount any private company could make from a toll road.

But the government does ultimately see most of the benefit, because a more productive economy is one that produces more tax revenues. So, in the long-run, the new road - if it is genuinely useful - should more than pay for itself.

In fact, as Vince Cable points out, the government may even recoup a large part of the cost right away.

Hiring unemployed construction workers and engineers to build a new line from Euston to Birmingham creates wages and profits on which taxes can be levied. And when those construction workers and engineers go out and spend their wages, that creates even more economic activity and even more tax revenues...

Chris

 

[corfield]

The flip side is that infrastructure spending consumes capital now with most of the benefit dependent on the future.

The problem we have is that our finances cannot wait. And we dont actually have capital but must take on debt - worsening the risk, as consumed capital is merely lost, consumed debt must still be repaid.

Using the analogy above, the house, when you come to sell it, will take some time to sell before the debt is repaid, and you may be forced to make significant reductions in the price acheived. Hence prudence being advisable before taking it on in the first place. Something the last decade should really have told us.

Spending on infrastructure is only a good thing if it is genuinely useful. The whole "bridges to nowhere" argument (which surely many of the reopening and HSn schemes proposed here are !). And in that lies the rub. Regardless of what we say about WCML capacity and congestion, do the numbers for constructing the line really add up?
The Beeching topic (I think on London Reconnections site) refers to the fact that very few lines, including high capacity intercity lines, actually made/make a profit. So are we just upping future subsidy?
Is that subsidy worth the realistic expected benefits ? How much sensitivity to events is there in the numbers? The railways are already ferociously expensive to support (and via privatisation we have seen how much more expensive they are to provide a more modern safer network etc.), so regardless of the peoples desire for more to travel - should they ?

We seem to be in a "predict and provide" mentality on the railways now - seemingly good, yet we ditched that attutude with roads (for a mixture of cost, green and encouraging further congestion/consumption reasons) some time ago which makes me wonder about whether we are just making the same mistake.

The green side I agree is dubious - and I think we've already done huge damage to our lives and economy on "green" grounds that come from ideological dogma not practical analysis (and driven by people with no interest in, or understanding of realities).

The "employing loads of people" argument is reasonable - yet not really any different from expanding the public payroll (which if employed on publically funded projects they are) anywhere else, usually taken as a very bad thing.

I support HS2 in principle, I am not convinced that the support on this forum comes from a good understanding of the numbers rather than just a general "railways are great - upgrade/build new/reopen everything". An enthusiasts response not dissimilar to many green activists support for wind power etc. perhaps.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I support HS2 in principle, I am not convinced that the support on this forum comes from a good understanding of the numbers rather than just a general "railways are great - upgrade/build new/reopen everything". An enthusiasts response not dissimilar to many green activists support for wind power etc. perhaps.

Please read through the posts. There is some very varied opinions on the project and most on here have a good understanding of the business (even if they dont agree) case no one on this thread has gone 'Oo new shiny big trains yeah lets build em all'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some interesting thoughts about infrastructure spending in a new BBC Magazine article, the section relevant to HS2 is quoted below - Budget 2013: Radical options for the UK economy



Chris

To my eyes that is, Game. Set. Match. Against the people who say we cant spend it while in debt.

 

[tbtc]

I'm always nervous about making the link between household budgets and government budgets - first noticed it when Mrs Thatcher tried to apply it - it can distort an argument as the two are very different

very few lines, including high capacity intercity lines, actually made/make a profit. So are we just upping future subsidy?

The simple answer is that I don't know (though once the construction costs are paid, the operation of HS2 should be very efficient compared to existing trains due to the limited amount of stations/ larger number of passengers per member of staff, simple infrastructure etc).

The complicated answer is that the economic benefits (getting people to work, creating economic growth, taking cars off the road and freeing up some of the problems on motorways etc) may be worth any increase in rail subsidy - even if the Government have to spend money on HS2 this may be offset by the tax revenues (etc) that HS2 creates.

 

[stanley T]

I am not convinced that the support on this forum comes from a good understanding of the numbers rather than just a general "railways are great - upgrade/build new/reopen everything". An enthusiasts response not dissimilar to many green activists support for wind power etc. perhaps.

Indeed, and a close examination of the options and cost/benefits for investing in the railways has left me a resolute opponent of HS2, given where we are starting from (which is the huge upgrade investment in the WCML, and the economic state of the country). Here is what I hope is a considered case against from rail supporter, not a Chiltern living NIMBY:

- the extra revenue generated from faster travel times may be illusory, Rail is already competitive from London to W Midlands/Lancashire/W.Yorkshire, the issue here is capacity and cost. And no way is HS2 going to be extended to Scotland, sometime or even ever. So what then - tilting TGVs? Alstom showed that this was technically demanding, and certainly expensive. The cheap way to add speed is to overlay ETRMS on the WCML and get the Pendos up to their design speed of 140mph.
- the issue is capacity on WCML, especially south of Rugby. So, reopen the GCML. No, that is not romanticism, it is genuine cost effective solution for freight or even, given the good curvature, 140mph Pendos. Electrification and top notch signalling would be easy and at low incremental cost with a rebuild - the clearances are great. The trackbed is virtually intact, as are the bridges/tunnels. The question is how do you get into London at the southern end. Well, TfL have virtually abandoned use of the Metropolitan fast lines from Wembley Park to Rickmansworth except in the peaks, you would just need a flyover to rejoin the WCML at Kenton. Add in a secondary route from Ashchurch Jn to the Chiltern Line with passing loops on latter and the underused Ruislip -Paddington line.

- the ECML does not have such capacity issues except for certain well known bottlenecks (Yes, even new tunnels/viaduct at Welwyn are cheaper than HS2), especially with the alternative freight route through Lincoln being developed.

As any glance at the threads on this forum indicate, there are large numbers of small or medium scale potential investments in the railway which have far better cost/benefits than HS2 (my favourites are Oxford-Cambridge and reopening Matlock-Buxton, others will have theirs). So why are all political parties in favour of this extravagant scheme in a period of austerity, and insufficient investment in infrastructure:

- they love big projects, especially if they can attach their names to it, just as the Olympics were a great party, but for the cost, so they should have been. Steady incremental stuff is boring and doesn't make the headlines
- it's jam tomorrow anyway, after the next election.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am not convinced that the support on this forum comes from a good understanding of the numbers rather than just a general "railways are great - upgrade/build new/reopen everything". An enthusiasts response not dissimilar to many green activists support for wind power etc. perhaps.

Indeed, and a close examination of the options and cost/benefits for investing in the railways has left me a resolute opponent of HS2, given where we are starting from (which is the huge upgrade investment in the WCML, and the economic state of the country). Here is what I hope is a considered case against from rail supporter, not a Chiltern living NIMBY:

- the extra revenue generated from faster travel times may be illusory, Rail is already competitive from London to W Midlands/Lancashire/W.Yorkshire, the issue here is capacity and cost. And no way is HS2 going to be extended to Scotland, sometime or even ever. So what then - tilting TGVs? Alstom showed that this was technically demanding, and certainly expensive. The cheap way to add speed is to overlay ETRMS on the WCML and get the Pendos up to their design speed of 140mph.
- the issue is capacity on WCML, especially south of Rugby. So, reopen the GCML. No, that is not romanticism, it is genuine cost effective solution for freight or even, given the good curvature, 140mph Pendos. Electrification and top notch signalling would be easy and at low incremental cost with a rebuild - the clearances are great. The trackbed is virtually intact, as are the bridges/tunnels. The question is how do you get into London at the southern end. Well, TfL have virtually abandoned use of the Metropolitan fast lines from Wembley Park to Rickmansworth except in the peaks, you would just need a flyover to rejoin the WCML at Kenton. Add in a secondary route from Ashchurch Jn to the Chiltern Line with passing loops on latter and the underused Ruislip -Paddington line.

- the ECML does not have such capacity issues except for certain well known bottlenecks (Yes, even new tunnels/viaduct at Welwyn are cheaper than HS2), especially with the alternative freight route through Lincoln being developed.

As any glance at the threads on this forum indicate, there are large numbers of small or medium scale potential investments in the railway which have far better cost/benefits than HS2 (my favourites are Oxford-Cambridge and reopening Matlock-Buxton, others will have theirs). So why are all political parties in favour of this extravagant scheme in a period of austerity, and insufficient investment in infrastructure:

- they love big projects, especially if they can attach their names to it, just as the Olympics were a great party, but for the cost, so they should have been. Steady incremental stuff is boring and doesn't make the headlines
- it's jam tomorrow anyway, after the next election.

Yes but how exactly is Matlock-Buxton going to tackle overcrowding? And i strongly doubt its CBR is very good. Insufficient investment in infrastructure.... are you living in the clouds??

-MML, TPE, GWML, Bromsgrove, Walsall-Ruegely and Electric spine electrification
-Reopening and full electrification of the Oxford to Bedford line.
-ECML Upgrades.
-Northern Hub.

(i could go in if you wish me to but i don't really want to...)


Reopening the GCML... hmm.. Does it go to Manchester? Does it go to Leeds? without sharing other lines that otherwise would see huge benefits from HS2 in the freeing up of capacity by removal of expresses? No it doesn't.

What happens to intermediate stations on the chiltern route when you destroy capacity for local stations? We going to build a new stopping route for them?

Pendos at 140mph. No No No. That would actually make the problem worse... It would decrease capacity as the pendos would catch up the LM and freight services quicker and leave a larger gap behind it that the following train could not fill. The whole point of HS2 is to take the capacity greedy expresses off of our main lines, how is introducing faster ones going to help?