High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[corfield]

Thanks, I did actually manage to read the posts over this very long thread originally, and all by myself.
My observation was precisely that there is a lot of generalised enthusiasm, but not that much interest in the detailed numbers, or in how change may affect them.

That article does nothing to convince anyone that infrastructure spending whilst in debt is a solid answer - why say it does ?

It makes the specific point that it leads to unsuitable projects being given the go ahead ala Spain, without the checks and balances inherant when resources are tighter.

I think that article is dangerous as it gives the impression we just need to take one of, or several of, these magic pills and our economic problems - founded on demanding lifestyle we dont earn enough to pay for, will go away. Each option has however a high risk of a very damaging future downside, as historical and current examples of each option highlight.
As a responsible person who goes without, and built up savings in the hope of being able to buy a house for a family - it is incredibly frustrating to be labelled as the problem, and to have my hard worked for savings seen as collateral damage in solving all the problems for the worthless people who just want stuff and borrowed to much to get it yesterday. Let the housing market crash and screw the idiots who cant think for themselves is my view...


Errr, your GC option looks very much like a half hearted, but still very costly and disruptive version of HS2 Phase 1, without the travel benefits of "normal high speed" (as in the rest of Europe) and the capacity and ease of operation of an entirely seperate line. Your London end in particular looks very weak - and the only improvement would be to tunnel, at which point you are virtually at HS2 phase 1 anyway !

Given the sheer mass of the London/SE to Midlands&North transport corridor, Ox-Camb and the Peak district are less than irrelevent when considering use of resources - especially if it has in some way to pay for itself.

Let me reiterate, I think HS2 is a sensible project and the route/stations etc. are good (although personally I'd like a Chilterns interchange on EWRL !). I am concerned however about trends in what we are doing and whether the underlying numbers are good enough, and whether provding more capacity is really the right answer at all - given we have moved away from that on roads.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thanks, I did actually manage to read the posts over this very long thread originally, and all by myself.
My observation was precisely that there is a lot of generalised enthusiasm, but not that much interest in the detailed numbers, or in how change may affect them.

Sorry i didn't mean it like that.

That's because most of us are not economists, it is not because we are enthusiasts.

 

[NSEFAN]

Let me reiterate, I think HS2 is a sensible project and the route/stations etc. are good (although personally I'd like a Chilterns interchange on EWRL !). I am concerned however about trends in what we are doing and whether the underlying numbers are good enough, and whether provding more capacity is really the right answer at all - given we have moved away from that on roads.

As the UK becomes more heavily populated, it will become more efficient to move people by rail compared to car. Back in the 1960s, for example, the population was a lot smaller, so it was more feasible for everyone to have a shiny motorcar and use the motorway, rather than use those smell old steam trains. The exponential growth of the population means that any new motorways built will simply fill up much quicker than they would have 40 years ago.

There are of course other possible solutions to the capacity problem, such as making efforts to reduce the population, by birth control and/or cutting immigration and encouraging emigration. I don't think these would be as politically popular or straightforward compared to building new infrastructure. Another way to reduce the need for capacity would be to instead encourage more local jobs whereby people can simply walk to work, but I doubt this will happen in the age of large organisations and corporations.

Either way, doing nothing is certainly not an option in my eyes.

 

[LE Greys]

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.

That sounds like a zero-sum-game to me, change rather than improvement. Taking Welwyn as the capacity point, it is most likely that the Peterborough and Cambridge suburban service will increase. That changes priorities on the line from inter-city to London suburban, and is very useful for London commuters, but not for anyone travelling to anywhere else, Peterborough-Scotland being the most likely to lose out. London may be the capital, but it is not the centre of the universe and it just so happens that some people might want to travel northwards rather than southwards.

And please remember that 'a few slower trains with more stops' are also likely to lack buffets and have greatly reduced first class, and probably be formed of 5-car IEPs, running from stations with facilities pared to the minimum. The result of all this is that Peterborough will have a service similar to Basingstoke, commuter-dominated. Try Basingstoke-Plymouth without heading up to Reading one day.

One possibility is using Toton to absorb traffic from Grantham and Newark, but that adds half an hour to journeys and nullifies any time gains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Errr, your GC option looks very much like a half hearted, but still very costly and disruptive version of HS2 Phase 1, without the travel benefits of "normal high speed" (as in the rest of Europe) and the capacity and ease of operation of an entirely seperate line. Your London end in particular looks very weak - and the only improvement would be to tunnel, at which point you are virtually at HS2 phase 1 anyway!

One advantage that the GCML shares with HS2 is that much of the route can be taken at 'clean sheet' status. About 80% of the route is still there, but with many structures missing. Others are heavily blocked by new housing, the Victoria Centre, missing viaducts and the preserved GCR, not to mention Chiltern, so a new route would be required for the fast lines south of Quainton Road anyway. I put several years of effort into this, and eventually came to the conclusion that is would probably be easier to build any new lines on a parallell double-track alignment if they needed to go faster than 125mph.

Of course, there are several disadvantages. The route avoids Birmingham (which might be an advantage if, like me, you consider anything above 10tph to be unworkable in the real world). It would also kill the MML stone dead north of Leicester, so I can't see it being very popular in Derby. To reach Manchester and the WCML for a Glasgow service, one has to reopen the Woodhead Tunnel, which pushes up costs, although it gives Trans-Pennine South and Liverpool-Norwich a new route. It would also cause massive disruption when former LNER lines reroute into the two Victorias. As usual, there would be losses and gains, but ultimately I think it was a slightly better option for a public-service, mixed-traffic railway, but completely unaffordable.

 

[Rational Plan]

That sounds like a zero-sum-game to me, change rather than improvement. Taking Welwyn as the capacity point, it is most likely that the Peterborough and Cambridge suburban service will increase. That changes priorities on the line from inter-city to London suburban, and is very useful for London commuters, but not for anyone travelling to anywhere else, Peterborough-Scotland being the most likely to lose out. London may be the capital, but it is not the centre of the universe and it just so happens that some people might want to travel northwards rather than southwards.

And please remember that 'a few slower trains with more stops' are also likely to lack buffets and have greatly reduced first class, and probably be formed of 5-car IEPs, running from stations with facilities pared to the minimum. The result of all this is that Peterborough will have a service similar to Basingstoke, commuter-dominated. Try Basingstoke-Plymouth without heading up to Reading one day.


One possibility is using Toton to absorb traffic from Grantham and Newark, but that adds half an hour to journeys and nullifies any time gains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


One advantage that the GCML shares with HS2 is that much of the route can be taken at 'clean sheet' status. About 80% of the route is still there, but with many structures missing. Others are heavily blocked by new housing, the Victoria Centre, missing viaducts and the preserved GCR, not to mention Chiltern, so a new route would be required for the fast lines south of Quainton Road anyway. I put several years of effort into this, and eventually came to the conclusion that is would probably be easier to build any new lines on a parallell double-track alignment if they needed to go faster than 125mph.

Of course, there are several disadvantages. The route avoids Birmingham (which might be an advantage if, like me, you consider anything above 10tph to be unworkable in the real world). It would also kill the MML stone dead north of Leicester, so I can't see it being very popular in Derby. To reach Manchester and the WCML for a Glasgow service, one has to reopen the Woodhead Tunnel, which pushes up costs, although it gives Trans-Pennine South and Liverpool-Norwich a new route. It would also cause massive disruption when former LNER lines reroute into the two Victorias. As usual, there would be losses and gains, but ultimately I think it was a slightly better option for a public-service, mixed-traffic railway, but completely unaffordable.

But how many people actually travel from Peterborough to Scotland, compared to London? I doubt it exceeds 5% of the London figure.

 

[tbtc]

get the Pendos up to their design speed of 140mph

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?

I agree with YorkshireBear - we've recently managed to find space for an extra WCML path by fitting two 110mph LM 350 services into the path previously taken by one 100mph LM 350 service (because there's a lot less difference between 110-125 than between 100-125, so more paths can be found at a smaller speed differential).

Since we botched the WCML upgrade (which is the problem you find when trying to upgrade busy existing lines...) we don't have space to fully segregate 390s to run as fast as they want, they have to be integrated amongst the LM services.

However, if you take some of the 125mph stuff off the southern end of the WCML (the stuff that doesn't stop at those stations anyway) then you've got space for a lot more 100/110mph services. Hence why Milton Keynes - London will become a "turn up and go" equivalent of what Reading - London is.

 

[Philip Elliott]

However, if you take some of the 125mph stuff off the southern end of the WCML (the stuff that doesn't stop at those stations anyway) then you've got space for a lot more 100/110mph services. Hence why Milton Keynes - London will become a "turn up and go" equivalent of what Reading - London is.

Or you make the LM expresses 125mph...

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.

Hmm let's see, in steam days there were direct trains from Marylebone to:

Leicester, Nottingham, Derby Friargate, Sheffield Victoria, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester London Road [Piccadilly], Liverpool Lime Street. There are plenty of closed routes between south and west Yorkshire that trains can run.

Anyone who thinks there is a lack of capacity between Nottingham and Sheffield needs their head examining....!

 

[LE Greys]

But how many people actually travel from Peterborough to Scotland, compared to London? I doubt it exceeds 5% of the London figure.

I take it you mean comparing Peterbrough-Scotland with King's Cross-Scotland. I don't think EC publishes the exact figures. If you include people changing at Peterborough, the catchment area goes as far as Norwich and Stansted and includes all the local stations on the ECML. From anecdotal evidence, it's about 10-25% depending on service and time of day.

If you mean Peterborough-King's Cross vs Peterborough-Northward, the 5% figure only applies at the peaks. Off-peak, it's closer to 50/50.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or you make the LM expresses 125mph...

That's what I was thinking, with cascaded Pendolinos, doubtlessly refitted for their new commuter role.

 

[HSTEd]

Hmm let's see, in steam days there were direct trains from Marylebone to:

Leicester, Nottingham, Derby Friargate, Sheffield Victoria, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester London Road [Piccadilly], Liverpool Lime Street. There are plenty of closed routes between south and west Yorkshire that trains can run.

Anyone who thinks there is a lack of capacity between Nottingham and Sheffield needs their head examining....!

No Platform space at Marylebone.

And regards all these routes, they are all going to be far too slow.
You spend all the money that would have got your High Speed route and you don't get a High Speed route.

 

[tbtc]

Or you make the LM expresses 125mph...

I'm sure that HS2 will allow some of the current LM services to be upgraded to 125mph operation, giving Northampton a frequent service non-stop/ one-stop to London etc

HS2 could finally give Northampton the service it ought to have (but will never get in the current set up because it's too much of a diversion from the main line).

Anyone who thinks there is a lack of capacity between Nottingham and Sheffield needs their head examining....!

Well, the two track line from Chesterfield to Sheffield has six passenger trains an hour (plus freight), the two track section north of Dore has nine passenger trains an hour (plus more freight) - from 125mph stock to humble Pacers...

 

[YorkshireBear]

Or you make the LM expresses 125mph...

Yes you could. But these 125mph trains still have to stop. Which includes long periods of acceleration and deceleration. Also re-gearing for 125mph reduces acceleration and deceleration so could potentially have negative effects rather than positive.

Hmm let's see, in steam days there were direct trains from Marylebone to:

Leicester, Nottingham, Derby Friargate, Sheffield Victoria, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester London Road [Piccadilly], Liverpool Lime Street. There are plenty of closed routes between south and west Yorkshire that trains can run.

Anyone who thinks there is a lack of capacity between Nottingham and Sheffield needs their head examining....!

Okay then. How many platforms are there at Marylebone? How many spare platforms at Euston and Paddington? These are still going to cost huge sums yet benefits are far less.

Yes that is not what i said though is it?

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.

Its all well and good the route used to serve these places but the route no longer exists, city centre stations are now developed and the routes built on in most of the cases. So you would have to build a parkway station.... so your basically building a smaller curvier slower version of HS2?

You explain to me where the capacity on the existing network is going to come from to run 28tph from London to the North of England. (28tph = 2 x 14tph as the trains on HS2 can take twice the amount of passengers as an 11 car pendilino) Because by reopening the GCML it will have to share parts of the network the GCML was not completely segregated from what we have now.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Well, the two track line from Chesterfield to Sheffield has six passenger trains an hour (plus freight), the two track section north of Dore has nine passenger trains an hour (plus more freight) - from 125mph stock to humble Pacers...

There are an additional two tracks via Renishaw plus Dore - Sheffield used to be 4-track. The Erewash is operating way way below capacity.

Its all well and good the route used to serve these places but the route no longer exists, city centre stations are now developed and the routes built on in most of the cases. So you would have to build a parkway station.... so your basically building a smaller curvier slower version of HS2?

You explain to me where the capacity on the existing network is going to come from to run 28tph from London to the North of England. (28tph = 2 x 14tph as the trains on HS2 can take twice the amount of passengers as an 11 car pendilino) Because by reopening the GCML it will have to share parts of the network the GCML was not completely segregated from what we have now.

I was just providing a history lesson as your post suggested you were quite ignorant of the GC network (for a start there is no "GCML", it is the London Extension you are referring to).

We do need additional capacity from central London to about 40 miles north but that in itself is not an argument for a high speed line.

Leicester Central had 1200' platforms...or 360m - you don't need a high speed line just to run longer trains.

 

[LE Greys]

Yes you could. But these 125mph trains still have to stop. Which includes long periods of acceleration and deceleration. Also re-gearing for 125mph reduces acceleration and deceleration so could potentially have negative effects rather than positive.

Assuming that Pendolinos are still around, they can reach 100 mph in 100 seconds and have regenerative braking. I can see them carrying on until 2050 or so on secondary main line duties, many of which are currently worked by LM 350s, especially the Trent Valley, Birmingham and Northampton routes. It's also a reasonable assumption that the current West Midlands and ICWC franchises will merge, allowing more flexibility in stock allocation.

Its all well and good the route used to serve these places but the route no longer exists, city centre stations are now developed and the routes built on in most of the cases. So you would have to build a parkway station.... so your basically building a smaller curvier slower version of HS2?

You explain to me where the capacity on the existing network is going to come from to run 28tph from London to the North of England. (28tph = 2 x 14tph as the trains on HS2 can take twice the amount of passengers as an 11 car pendilino) Because by reopening the GCML it will have to share parts of the network the GCML was not completely segregated from what we have now.

You would just have to accept that all stock would have to be classic-compatible. I naturally accepted that immediately, since it would avoid having captive stock, and even worked on a concept design called Inter-City 325 for a number of years, intended to work both on and off HS2. The idea is to use existing stations as much as possible to save on infrastructure and actually save time somewhat. If the route filled up, there would be a need for a second, and then a third. That means more route mileage, but more people served by the multiple routes. We could still keep that concept with HS2, since for instance the Birmingham services could extend to Wolverhampton on a regular basis, although that would require Birmingham Grand Central to be built, meaning a lot of disruption, but a bigger gain once it's finished.

Taking it on a city-by-city basis, Sheffield Victoria is probably just about useable as a site, although anything heading for Leeds (via Tinsley) would have to reverse. Nottingham Victoria would require the sacrifice of the Victoria Centre car park, possibly the entire Victoria Centre. That's expensive, but provides a very convenient location, while reconnecting the line through Weekday Cross Junction allows services from Grantham to connect. You would need a totally new alignment south of there, I looked at running via Syston and alongside the Midland to an expanded Leicester Midland, then rejoining the route south of there. Rugby is just about OK, and most of the route to Quainton Road is still there, but I would use that for the slow lines while running the fasts on a new alignment. A new alignment is clearly needed south of Quainton Road, but I planned to follow the line roughly as far as North Harrow, pass under Harrow in a tunnel, then emerge somewhere around Neasden, cut out a slice of the six-track MML through Cricklewood and run directly into St Pancras so that trains could reverse for Paris. That requires an additional bore to Belsize Tunnel. HS2's route is probably cheaper, and OOC may be worth the additional tunnelling needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was just providing a history lesson as your post suggested you were quite ignorant of the GC network (for a start there is no "GCML", it is the London Extension you are referring to).

Afraid I use that neoligism as well, sorry.

 

[tbtc]

Anyone who thinks there is a lack of capacity between Nottingham and Sheffield needs their head examining....!

Well, the two track line from Chesterfield to Sheffield has six passenger trains an hour (plus freight), the two track section north of Dore has nine passenger trains an hour (plus more freight) - from 125mph stock to humble Pacers...

There are an additional two tracks via Renishaw plus Dore - Sheffield used to be 4-track

Well, if you add extra tracks to double capacity then there isn't a lack of capacity, true, but then you could say that about any line.

There's the route through Beighton but then that means using the northern end of Sheffield Midland which has a dozen passenger services an hour (plus freight), just pushing things into an even bigger bottleneck.

 

[LE Greys]

Well, if you add extra tracks to double capacity then there isn't a lack of capacity, true, but then you could say that about any line.

There's the route through Beighton but then that means using the northern end of Sheffield Midland which has a dozen passenger services an hour (plus freight), just pushing things into an even bigger bottleneck.

The only way to sort out Sheffield Midland, which is the usual BR quart-in-a-pint-pot rationalisation job, is to split traffic all the way up at Aldwarke Junction, meaning reopen Rotherham Masborough, Tinsley and Sheffield Victoria. I have no idea what state that line is in, let alone whether Victoria would be any good for handling that sort of traffic. One big advantage of a Great Central-based scheme is that it makes such things possible, one big disadvantage is the sheer cost of all this.

Even then, it would still face problems on the other side of the Pennines. Getting from Hadfield to Hyde Junction would probably be OK, although you'd have to close the Hadfield Branch for a year or so to upgrade and re-wire it, but Hyde Junction to Manchester Piccadilly would require serious work to cram more trains through.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There are an additional two tracks via Renishaw plus Dore - Sheffield used to be 4-track. The Erewash is operating way way below capacity.



I was just providing a history lesson as your post suggested you were quite ignorant of the GC network (for a start there is no "GCML", it is the London Extension you are referring to).

We do need additional capacity from central London to about 40 miles north but that in itself is not an argument for a high speed line.

Leicester Central had 1200' platforms...or 360m - you don't need a high speed line just to run longer trains.

People earlier in the thread referred to it as GCML i presumed this was right. I am not big on railway history in terms of exact names. But like i said i know where the London Extension used to go. But it does not anymore, so it would have to interfere with current railways and one of the points of HS2 is to not go through another WCML upgrade c***.

 

[HSTEd]

Running all captive compatible trains destroys one of the primary benefits of HS2.

It allows us to escape the tiny Victorian loading gauge we have been trapped in since the railways started.
It allows 50% more capacity per unit train length.
Which means to match 400m Captive trains you would need 600m platforms.
I can only think of one place where platforms that long exist anywhere in Britain, and I believe there is only one (Gloucester?).

Reopening the GCML (and it is commonly known as that, especially since Grouping) is not a viable option simply because it is not fit for purpose and huge sections of it have been built on.
And demolishing the Victoria Centre is not worth it really, its just too valuable as it is (and what about the hundreds of homes you destroy to demolish it? That probably significantly increases the number of people that the anti brigade can hold up as loosing everything).

 

[The Ham]

I've been looking again at growth rates for levels of passengers, assuming a growth rate of 4% year on year from now till 2038 (more than HS2 growth rate but close to what the railways have been seeing year on year since 2002) which is also assuming that HS2 is delayed by 5 years.

Even then allowing for a 70% reduction on the MML/ECML in 2028 they would be back to 2010 passenger numbers by 2038 (under the above the first year of HS2 being fully open). Whilst the WCML would take until 2048 (allowing for an 80% reduction in passenger number) to be back to 2010 passenger numbers.

Now I understand that the above is highly unlikely as it is unsustainable to keep that level of growth going for that long because we would run out of spare capacity on the network. It should also be noted that the passenger numbers would also be concentrated over short lengths rather than being long distance travel.

Also if passenger numbers predicted for 2026 were reached in 2018 (which they would be under the above) then HS2 would probably be fast tracked and even if it wasn't then it would be in 2023 when the 2033 passenger numbers were reached.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It is scary. The growth suggested by HS2 was exceeded in its first few years, meaning average growth for the remainder to 2026 does not have to be as high as they predicted and we will still need HS2...

I fear for what the railway will look like in 2050, i suggest we may need HS7 by then. Although id rather any other lines from North to South included slightly more stops.

 

[HSTEd]

Total passenger km travelled (across all non pedestrian transport modes) is not increasing anywhere near as fast though.

So at some point we hit the hard limit, likely long before reaching the Japanese level (~40% rail share).

 

[tbtc]

The only way to sort out Sheffield Midland, which is the usual BR quart-in-a-pint-pot rationalisation job, is to split traffic all the way up at Aldwarke Junction, meaning reopen Rotherham Masborough, Tinsley and Sheffield Victoria. I have no idea what state that line is in, let alone whether Victoria would be any good for handling that sort of traffic. One big advantage of a Great Central-based scheme is that it makes such things possible, one big disadvantage is the sheer cost of all this.

Even then, it would still face problems on the other side of the Pennines. Getting from Hadfield to Hyde Junction would probably be OK, although you'd have to close the Hadfield Branch for a year or so to upgrade and re-wire it, but Hyde Junction to Manchester Piccadilly would require serious work to cram more trains through.

Putting all of the Doncaster/ Retford bound services into Sheffield Victoria (so that Midland was only used for Barnsley and Dearne Valley services) would free up a lot of capacity.

But anything needs a lot of money thrown at it. To be selfish, it'd be better for Sheffield to have a re-opened Victoria and a link to Manchester via Woodhead, but to be pragmatic I think HS2 would be better for the UK.

 

[The Ham]

Total passenger km travelled (across all non pedestrian transport modes) is not increasing anywhere near as fast though.

So at some point we hit the hard limit, likely long before reaching the Japanese level (~40% rail share).

Quite, road traffic rose from 2002 but has fallen again. Basicly between 2002 and 2012 has seen level road traffic, whilst rail travel has risen by nearly 50%.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think the capacity argument is beginning to dawn on many. Incidentally, I don't eschew the use of 'GC' because essentially its that capacity that is being reinstated. I can easily see that the HS2 dog leg to Brum will be cut across eventually by another joining line through or near Rugby and Leicester. I can also see the Woodhead route being opened as a fast line from Meadowhall. All eventually.

My reasoning is that we forget that since the motorway age dawned, overall inter urban traffic has increased such that, were the motorways no longer available because we ran out of petrol, we would have great difficulty in squeezing the freight traffic back on rail; in fact we couldn't. So we need new lines just for that, let alone to handle pax. It all hangs on whether we can continue as we have done till now with road transport. This may be seen as a separate subject but it isn't because rail is the only alternative. I think the motorways will continue to be useful for White Van Man and distributor activity, but pax will be needed to be transported middle distance, long distance and local city centre commute by rail.

I wonder if someone is doing the sums? One holds one's breath if it's the DfT.

 

[Haydn1971]

Quite, road traffic rose from 2002 but has fallen again. Basicly between 2002 and 2012 has seen level road traffic, whilst rail travel has risen by nearly 50%.

Traffic has only dropped in the last couple of years - it's a blip in my opinion and will get back on track once we are past the worst of the current economic crisis.

 

[jon0844]

Or indeed we get people buying far more fuel efficient cars, electric vehicles become more affordable and viable (faster charging, more charging points, lower cost to replace batteries etc) or we have another energy source that is cheaper than either petrol or diesel.

 

[The Ham]

Traffic has only dropped in the last couple of years - it's a blip in my opinion and will get back on track once we are past the worst of the current economic crisis.

It is likely that it will start to grow again in due course, however it is likely that it will only grow at such a rate that the decade of lost growth will take quite some time before it is regained before we start to see extra growth.

 

[nerd]

Traffic has only dropped in the last couple of years - it's a blip in my opinion and will get back on track once we are past the worst of the current economic crisis.

There appears to be a long-term decline in car usage per head, since at least the early noughties; and no sign of this recovering. Business car usage (commuting and business travelling) in particular, is dropping rapidly. Where there is continued growth in car usage, it is in leisure and family use.

There is not much sign of the recession playing a part in this; the key factors seem to be:

- later learning to drive, the median age is now around 30;
- more expensive running costs, especially insurance;
- development of smart comms, many younger people are unwilling to be unconnected for the time taken to drive;
- technological standstill, cars nowadays offer little better speed or comfort than they did 30 years ago;
- deteriorating road experience due to increasing congestion and restricted capacity.

The latter is probably the key issue. Although car usage per head is dropping, overall traffic volumes the road is still increasing; partly because populations are increasing; partly because changing retail technology (metro shops, just-in-time restocking, internet shopping) has vastly increased the volume of delivery vehicles on the roads; partly because dropping average speeds result in the same number of trips occupying an increasing volume of road space.

It is possible that automatic cars could address the first four bullet points above (allowing connection while travelling, reducing insurance, increasing comfort). The problem is the final bullet point; unless cars become radically different from current configurations, automatic vehicles are likely to reduce road capacity rather than increase it (maintaining longer vehicle spacing, keeping to speed limits).

Which in turn, implies for the present, that unfulfilled demand for travel (especially longer distance business travel and commuter travel) is likely to transfer across to rail and light rail.

 

[brianthegiant]

Given the limited capacity on the proposed HS1-HS2 link,
does anyone have a view on which HS2 stations are likely to get customs/immigration/security facilities?
the HS2 Ltd docs I've read don't seem to spec anything at present. I suppose it depends what E* & DBs business plans are in 10 years time. But given both have plans to go further south the other side of the tunnel, presumably they would also be interested in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield? Certainly Centro are pushing for an international terminal at Curzon St, which certainly implies it's not a done deal at present.

I can't quite see all the HS2 stations getting customs & immigration, maybe there might be some 'connecting services' using OOC as E* are doing at Lille now? Not ideal, but an improvement on dragging luggage along Euston Road....

(see: www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72647 re E* plans further south/west)

 

[swt_passenger]

Good number of points about car usage above, and I'd add that road use is naturally capped anyway, the total number of driving licences issued determines the maximum number of vehicles that can be on the road. There are many millions below the age for getting a licence, some no longer eligible, and those that cannot ever pass the test in the first place, and that predicts a max number of licences - let's say only 50% of the population.

Simplisticly the 'total numbers of vehicles' could follow a different path, but a driver can only drive one at a time...

On the other hand nearly 100% of the population could use trains, but the number actually doing so is a small fraction of the population. Far more room for growth there...

 

[joeykins82]

Given the limited capacity on the proposed HS1-HS2 link,
does anyone have a view on which HS2 stations are likely to get customs/immigration/security facilities?

None. We'll only see direct services to the continent if/when we become part of the Schengen Area; the operational costs of maintaining border controls and segregated platforms at all of the HS2 stations is too high. There'll likely be through ticketing available but no direct passenger services.

The rebuild of Euston will almost certainly add step free access to the Northern and Victoria lines, and Crossrail 2 plans talk of a linked Euston St Pancras station which will be step free and if anyone has sense will include moving walkways in both directions.

It's possible that the HS2 franchise holder or an open access operator will run Ashford to Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds providing easy Eurostar connections at Ebbsfleet or Ashford, but I can't see direct services featuring in anyone's plans while the border controls exist.