High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[hs2critic]

Leicester, Rugby and other towns are in the way now.

When was the last time you went through the CUTTING as it traverses north-south through Rugby?

True, it is a nature reserve, true, it is used by some joggers and cyclists, but as a keen member of the latter group, even I would accept the return of a RAILWAY to its original use, as long as there was a suitable compensation package for the loss of what is there now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Chiltern run less regularly with shorter diesel trains. Electric traction attracts more customers. Chiltern have barely made a dent in Virgin. Its almost a rounding error.

What exactly is your evidence for this "rounding error". My brother (daily commuter Coventry-Euston) both regularly talk about Virgin's PEAK ghost trains, and nobody here, or on the thread about that topic has come up with a decent explanation for them.

No I have no confidence in them, for the most part they are absolute morons.... But the business case is based around this pricing so I cant see it been deviated from massively, also it would practically be political suicide.

Yet THEY are the people entrusted by the government to create the case. I am obviously no great fan of Virgin Trains, but it was similar morons at the DfT who pursued the "anything but Branson" strategy.

I have no issue with the concept of high speed trains, loved all the ones I've used on the continent. Yet we have to judge HS2 on the case before us, not somebody else's success.

 

[The Ham]

What freight might that be? Unless you plan to confine HGV's to the inner lane on the motorways I really don't see much of an increase in freight traffic over the next 30 years.

Even assuming you are right (ignoring all the works currently being undertaken or recently compleated on the network to cater for more freight), there is still CURRENTLY plenty on freight trains using up paths on our main lines, without which there would be many more paths for passenger trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What exactly is your evidence for this "rounding error". My brother (daily commuter Coventry-Euston) both regularly talk about Virgin's PEAK ghost trains, and nobody here, or on the thread about that topic has come up with a decent explanation for them.

However, the reason for HS2 isn't realy to cater for the inter city services, rather it is to allow the IC services to move off the existing lines freeing up mor paths for the other trains which use the line, as by getting rid of the trains running at 125mph there are more paths for the trains running at 100mph or less.

As if you get rid of the 125mph trains you can path more than 1 slower train for each faster train you get rid of.

 

[NSEFAN]

What exactly is your evidence for this "rounding error". My brother (daily commuter Coventry-Euston) both regularly talk about Virgin's PEAK ghost trains, and nobody here, or on the thread about that topic has come up with a decent explanation for them.

Was the explaination not already given: stupidly high walk up fares? From the TOC's point of view, it matters not that the trains are full, only that they are making money. You could either do this by having many cheaper fares and having the train rammed full, or charging a premium and having only the richest pay up.

Even if the fares on Virgin were adjusted to spread the load a bit better, sooner or later more infrastructure is going to have to be built in order to cope with increasing demand. Since it takes over a decade to build a railway in this country, constuction has to start well in advance of the increased demand. Of course, the new infrastructure doesn't have to be HS2, but something has to be done since juggling fares around doesn't actually solve the problem: too many people trying to use the system which is currently in place.

Yet THEY are the people entrusted by the government to create the case. I am obviously no great fan of Virgin Trains, but it was similar morons at the DfT who pursued the "anything but Branson" strategy.

I have no issue with the concept of high speed trains, loved all the ones I've used on the continent. Yet we have to judge HS2 on the case before us, not somebody else's success.

I suspect that the business case is always going to be a subject of debate because of the nature of the project. If we ran our railways purely on their financial cases, we'd close almost all of them and tarmac them over. Thankfully this doesn't happen because there are other social, environmental and economic benefits which are very important but very difficult to quantify. The business case tries to put value on the job creation, better north-south journey times, etc, but ultimately this will be a matter of opinion until the line is actually running.

I personally am convinced about the need for HS2 from a long-term operational perspective. I'm more sceptical about the "lowering the north-south divide" aspect, as to me it sounds like political mumbo jumbo.

 

[edwin_m]

But you could still run a classic compatible TGV into Nottingham without any problems. Along with a service into Derby and a service running from Sheffield calling at Chesterfield before linking up with HS2 at Toton.

There is no link proposed that would allow a train to get off HS2 into Nottingham. This would require some fairly major structures in the Trent area, and would be even more difficult if it was designed to link towards Derby too (probably obliterating East Midlands Parkway).

A link between the two where they are alongside at Toton is less difficult but not currently proposed to be provided. There is a suggestion of a south-facing link to allow something like Leicester-Leeds using spare capacity on the northern leg, but any trains for Derby, Nottingham etc would be difficult as the line between London and the Birmingham junction is full with other services.

I'm afraid with that kind of attitude Toton will become a White Elephant.

That is a significant risk unless the connecting trains into Nottingham and Derby are very slickly timed. Centre-to-centre journey times might end up being little faster than by the existing route, which will have to retain fast trains to provide a good service at Leicester.

 

[Ships]

What freight might that be? Unless you plan to confine HGV's to the inner lane on the motorways I really don't see much of an increase in freight traffic over the next 30 years.

Woah pony....I would like to know where your getting these forecasts from. Every expert I've Heard from would suggest other wise and NR are planning based on consistent growth in the freight sector over the next thirty years.

 

[Dave1987]

What freight might that be? Unless you plan to confine HGV's to the inner lane on the motorways I really don't see much of an increase in freight traffic over the next 30 years.

Felixstowe has just expanded. Already demand for more than 4 freight paths per hour that there currently are. If hs2 isn't built there will be more lorries on the A14.

 

[Ironside]

Could a classic compatable train be run on the WCML from London to Birmingham calling at a few major stations on the way, Eg Milton keynes, Rugby, Coventry: and then go onto HS2 to Manchester.

Would this be possible and would it be a good use of paths and classic compatable trains?

 

[tbtc]

Could a classic compatable train be run on the WCML from London to Birmingham calling at a few major stations on the way, Eg Milton keynes, Rugby, Coventry: and then go onto HS2 to Manchester.

Would this be possible and would it be a good use of paths and classic compatable trains?

Potentially, but you'd be limited to 110mph on Classic Compatibles as they couldn't tilt on the WCML

 

[HSTEd]

Woah pony....I would like to know where your getting these forecasts from. Every expert I've Heard from would suggest other wise and NR are planning based on consistent growth in the freight sector over the next thirty years.

Yes, assuming that subsidies continue to be available at the current levels and probably steadily increasing over time.

Without huge subsidies the bottom would fall out of the freight rail market.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But you could still run a classic compatible TGV into Nottingham without any problems. Along with a service into Derby and a service running from Sheffield calling at Chesterfield before linking up with HS2 at Toton.

So have you priced up the cost of a HS2 access point at Toton?
The cost of the three half-paths you just took away from the Captives to run a bunch of trains into city centres?
Apparently the benefits to Chesterfield and very minor benefits to Sheffield are worth a half-path? (Once you account for the drastically increased travel time to Sheffield I doubt you will be up at all frankly)

I'm afraid with that kind of attitude Toton will become a White Elephant.

If its a white elephant that gets the project built, so be it.

Well exactly so the need to create capacity for increases in freight traffic is an untruth? Right?

I don't care about freight.
I wouldn't shed a tear if intermodal freight operations vanished in a puff of smoke, they guzzle paths like no tomorrow and burn vast amounts of diesel on electrified routes.
The WCML needs reduced traffic over it so we can have improved regional services and so we can stop pushing ageing infrastructure to the very limits of its capability.

 

[The Planner]

Woah pony....I would like to know where your getting these forecasts from. Every expert I've Heard from would suggest other wise and NR are planning based on consistent growth in the freight sector over the next thirty years.

Would agree, the amount of proposals for Intermodal freight terminals on the go expecting into double figures tpd is growing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wouldn't shed a tear if intermodal freight operations vanished in a puff of smoke, they guzzle paths like no tomorrow and burn vast amounts of diesel on electrified routes.
The WCML needs reduced traffic over it so we can have improved regional services and so we can stop pushing ageing infrastructure to the very limits of its capability.

No they don't, a Class 4 freight on the southern part of the WCML eats up less than a stopping service. If a Class 4 is put in front, it gets away from the one behind it.

 

[Dave1987]

The whole point of build HS2 is to provide additional capacity to relieve pressure on the WCML. Provide more paths for stopping services to serve "the Watford gap" and more space for freight to get lorries off the roads.

The additional reduced journey times are a massive bonus.

The real issue is the opponents have failed to provide a realistic alternative to hs2 apart from the standard "upgrade what we already have". Even though they have no clue how that would be done and how much it would cost.

 

[Rugd1022]

I don't care about freight.
I wouldn't shed a tear if intermodal freight operations vanished in a puff of smoke, they guzzle paths like no tomorrow and burn vast amounts of diesel on electrified routes.
The WCML needs reduced traffic over it so we can have improved regional services and so we can stop pushing ageing infrastructure to the very limits of its capability.

I think you'd be very surprised at how much coasting we can do with Intermodals on the WCML (and elsewhere by the way), likewise with the Heavyhaul stuff.

If you don't care about freight then why should anyone care about your opinion...?

 

[HSTEd]

I think you'd be very surprised at how much coasting we can do with Intermodals on the WCML (and elsewhere by the way), likewise with the Heavyhaul stuff.

If freight doesn't guzzle paths why are increasingly large numbers of freight loops appearing, at great expense, all over the network?

If you don't care about freight then why should anyone care about your opinion...?

Whether people care about my opinion is not my concern, the fact remains that rail freight guzzles disproportionate amounts of the public subsidy and is the reason that we are so limited in what services can be run.

Another example of this is the operating pressures on the NLL, GOBLIN and WLL that prevent additional passenger services being run that might be more useful to the economy overall than the subsidy junkie that is intermodal rail freight.

 

[Dave1987]

If freight doesn't guzzle paths why are increasingly large numbers of freight loops appearing, at great expense, all over the network?



Whether people care about my opinion is not my concern, the fact remains that rail freight guzzles disproportionate amounts of the public subsidy and is the reason that we are so limited in what services can be run.

Another example of this is the operating pressures on the NLL, GOBLIN and WLL that prevent additional passenger services being run that might be more useful to the economy overall than the subsidy junkie that is intermodal rail freight.

Would you rather all freight went via road? Or would you rather the British economy ground to a complete halt?

 

[HSTEd]

Would you rather all freight went via road? Or would you rather the British economy ground to a complete halt?

I would rather, in an ideal world, that it was moved by rail, but at the present time that would require most of the industrial and commercial real estate be torn down and replaced with new stuff built around railways.
That fight is already lost.

Simply throwing money at it in a desperate attempt to get more freight onto the rails through the currently used mechanisms is really a waste of money.
Almost all freight moves by road or by sea, this is the way it will be for the foreseeable future now.

 

[Dave1987]

I would rather, in an ideal world, that it was moved by rail, but at the present time that would require most of the industrial and commercial real estate be torn down and replaced with new stuff built around railways.
That fight is already lost.

Simply throwing money at it in a desperate attempt to get more freight onto the rails through the currently used mechanisms is really a waste of money.
Almost all freight moves by road or by sea, this is the way it will be for the foreseeable future now.

But that is the point of building a project like HS2. To give more capacity to allow more freight to go by rail, and to give access to the fast lines to stopping services to give the "the Watford Gap" a more intense service.

 

[HSTEd]

But that is the point of building a project like HS2. To give more capacity to allow more freight to go by rail, and to give access to the fast lines to stopping services to give the "the Watford Gap" a more intense service.

Regional services and providing more breathing room on the WCML are the bulk of the justification of the project, rail freight is just a totem held up because people operate under the illusion that it is not a hugely subsidised business.

 

[Dave1987]

Regional services and providing more breathing room on the WCML are the bulk of the justification of the project, rail freight is just a totem held up because people operate under the illusion that it is not a hugely subsidised business.

Rail freight is crucial to the country. You say that you would love all freight to go by rail yet you say you would rather all rail freight was banished from the WCML. To as I'm slightly confused is and understatement!

 

[HSTEd]

Rail freight is crucial to the country. You say that you would love all freight to go by rail yet you say you would rather all rail freight was banished from the WCML. To as I'm slightly confused is and understatement!

I would rather all freight went by rail in an ideal world.
However this most certainly is not an ideal world.

Rail freight already lost the battle with road freight and the economy of the country has developed to prevent significant reversal (industrial estates very rarely have rail access now and facilities have decentralised now that single loads can be economically shipped), additionally technologies that might allow a resurgence are not going to be adopted (widespread electric traction and very large train weights) for a variety of reasons.

Regarding the traffic to and from the Midlands distribution centres from various ports, it has to be noted that the revitalisation of the Manchester Ship Canal by Peel Ports could be expected to rip the heart out of that demand relatively soon.
Why bother trans-shipping onto a train when you can trans-ship onto a coaster in Rotterdam or Felixstowe and still deliver the container at lower overall cost, both options will require relatively short road hops at the end?
The opening of the Arctic Trade route and the proposed construction of a huge portage facility at Scapa Flow makes the problem even worse.

Rail freight functions best when on lines where it does not conflict with huge passenger services, attempting to fit in amongst passenger trains using the dominant diesel traction drives train weights down and power requirements up, making it unable to effectively compete with road freight over the distances involved.
Putting it on a major main line is massively counter-productive, why is it not being transferred to secondary routes with far fewer passenger services? I am not even sure why significant freight is on lines like the NLL at all?

 

[Dave1987]

I would rather all freight went by rail in an ideal world.
However this most certainly is not an ideal world.

Rail freight already lost the battle with road freight and the economy of the country has developed to prevent significant reversal (industrial estates very rarely have rail access now and facilities have decentralised now that single loads can be economically shipped), additionally technologies that might allow a resurgence are not going to be adopted (widespread electric traction and very large train weights) for a variety of reasons.

Regarding the traffic to and from the Midlands distribution centres from various ports, it has to be noted that the revitalisation of the Manchester Ship Canal by Peel Ports could be expected to rip the heart out of that demand relatively soon.
Why bother trans-shipping onto a train when you can trans-ship onto a coaster in Rotterdam or Felixstowe and still deliver the container at lower overall cost, both options will require relatively short road hops at the end?
The opening of the Arctic Trade route and the proposed construction of a huge portage facility at Scapa Flow makes the problem even worse.

Rail freight functions best when on lines where it does not conflict with huge passenger services, attempting to fit in amongst passenger trains using the dominant diesel traction drives train weights down and power requirements up, making it unable to effectively compete with road freight over the distances involved.
Putting it on a major main line is massively counter-productive, why is it not being transferred to secondary routes with far fewer passenger services? I am not even sure why significant freight is on lines like the NLL at all?

I think you will find that Felixstowe has just had a major expansion to accommodate the new super ships (I have no idea what they are called). Containers from Felixstowe will be required in the north and midlands within 24 hours. The A14 simply cannot cope with an increase in traffic, it is bad enough now. I think the deal between Stobart and Tesco is a prime example that you are very wrong that rail freight has no place in the modern economy. Quite the contrary. I think more and more freight will go back to rail from the ports to the main distribution centres like Daventry to them be moved locally by road. HS2 is crucial in aiding this. Also HS2 is crucial in eliminating short haul flights in this country which will also free up space at Heathrow.

 

[edwin_m]

I would rather all freight went by rail in an ideal world.
Regarding the traffic to and from the Midlands distribution centres from various ports, it has to be noted that the revitalisation of the Manchester Ship Canal by Peel Ports could be expected to rip the heart out of that demand relatively soon.
Why bother trans-shipping onto a train when you can trans-ship onto a coaster in Rotterdam or Felixstowe and still deliver the container at lower overall cost, both options will require relatively short road hops at the end?
The opening of the Arctic Trade route and the proposed construction of a huge portage facility at Scapa Flow makes the problem even worse.

The Manchester Ship Canal is already up and running and transhipping containers at Liverpool onto barges to Irlam. If this sort of coastal shipping distribution was a major threat to rail then we would see it expanding much beyond that, but we don't.

All the predictions are saying that intermodal freight will continue its rapid growth of recent years, as road gradually becomes less competitive. Yes there are various grants to encourage rail use, but these are directly related to the mileage of lorry movements eliminated, weighted by the type of road involved. As an example domestic intermodal has reappeared in the last decade for the first time since the 70s, running between distribution hubs that are a long distance apart such as Daventry and Scotlan, but in time rail should become competitive for shorter hub-to-hub links. I do agree that distribution to individual premises will continue to be predominantly by road.

The average speed of rail freight is broadly similar to that of outer suburban and regional passenger trains - in fact the freight is often a bit faster as noted above, as a class 4 could bowl along at 75mph and although the passengers can get up to 90 or 100 they have to keep stopping for stations. The places having or getting freight loops are generally the double-track main lines that also carry intercity-type passenger trains which can quite quickly catch up a freight in front. The most obvious example is the WCML north of Crewe.

 

[Tomnick]

It's a strange decision to pick on intermodal freight as one that 'wastes' a lot of paths, when in fact it generally keeps well out of the way at 75mph. We have a regular runner that generally runs right on the block behind a 90mph passenger. For the most part though, freight makes use of spare capacity between passenger trains (and the extra or lengthened loops will help in that respect). Some routes are full, yes - hence the various schemes, relatively modest, to allow freight to run over routes with spare capacity (Peterborough - Nuneaton, for example) and ease the pressure on other areas where there is a problem (e.g. North London). What's so bad about that?

 

[The Planner]

If freight doesn't guzzle paths why are increasingly large numbers of freight loops appearing, at great expense, all over the network?

Where are the large numbers though? The only one i know of planned on the WCML is Stafford which isnt due until 2015 and the reason for that is for 775m growth. Is there a list of ones going in on the Western, LNE etc..?

 

[Rugd1022]

If freight doesn't guzzle paths why are increasingly large numbers of freight loops appearing, at great expense, all over the network?

Would love to know where all these goods loops are appearing.... my route card is very extensive and no new loops have appeared on my patch. The old down goods north of Oxford is currently being extended and renamed as a passenger loop, other than that there are none that I know of, unless the loop fairie has slipped a few in without me noticing...

Granted, some existing loops have had their entry and exit speeds increased here and there which is all but pointless, since on entering said loops we're heading straight for a red signal at the far end.

Quite often being looped to let another train pass slows following traffic down even more, especially since defensive driving was introduced. Hatton loop is a classic example... I'll be on full power climbing through Warwick Parkway, then on sighting two yellows at Budbrooke it'll be power off, brakes on for the inevitable red just before the loop points which doesn't come off until the very last minute, followed by a painfully slow crawl into the loop at 10mph. If kept going at 60mph instead I could reach Dorridge loop or even Bordesley loop in good time without delaying whatever is behind me too much.

 

[tbtc]

It's a strange decision to pick on intermodal freight as one that 'wastes' a lot of paths, when in fact it generally keeps well out of the way at 75mph. We have a regular runner that generally runs right on the block behind a 90mph passenger. For the most part though, freight makes use of spare capacity between passenger trains (and the extra or lengthened loops will help in that respect). Some routes are full, yes - hence the various schemes, relatively modest, to allow freight to run over routes with spare capacity (Peterborough - Nuneaton, for example) and ease the pressure on other areas where there is a problem (e.g. North London). What's so bad about that?

The "problem" I have with freight (if any) is that on a clockface railway finding a spare path for a freight at lunchtime means we can't use the same path every other hour of the day.

For example, the Hope Valley (a local line to me) sees freight for the cement place at Hope. If it was the same path every hour then its not "wasting" passenger paths. But since freight isn't "clockface" it means a number of potential slots are sacrificed.

Its more of a problem on fast lines where the difference between freight and passenger in speed terms is greater, of course, but thats another story.

 

[HSTEd]

Peel Ports supposedly projects that container traffic on the Manchester Ship Canal will increase by an order of magnitude over the next fifteen years.
This is part of that enormous "Port Salford" development project.

And it while it is true that rail freight is growing, it is not because of the rising cost of road haulage, it is because the enormous subsidies provided to freight rail via indirect means have artificially suppressed its costs (track charges held ridiculously low by Network Rail), these being far larger than the relatively minor direct subsidies.
I believe the DfT itself published figures demonstrating that the 'farebox' recovery for freight was in fact lower than the average for passenger services by a significant margin, although disentangling all the subsidies is notoriously difficult.

There are numerous paths on the rail network that are booked and never used, denying them to other services that would be of some benefit.
Hence why there is now talk of capacity improvements on the Hope Valley when there is no real need since many of the paths are in reality still unused but cannot be reassigned because some operator has laid claim to them.

There is no real competitive pressure on freight rail to become more efficient in use of resources, which is why they run such short lightly loaded trains with such lacklustre performance.
(If a diesel freight service can stay away from suburban trains on electrified main lines, why not switch to electric traction and thus eliminate the need for any loops at all thanks to the further improved performance? That would mean that train length limitations would be removed and the trains could grow longer and heavier).

As to the capacity limitations on the A14.... what about the now apparent shift of distribution hubs away from the Midlands to a more distributed model? with the soon to be opening Thamesport project with its dockside facilities that will eliminate the need for large scale hub to hub movements in that logistics train?

Freight rail is very much of secondary importance, British railways are extremely passenger orientated to a degree that is only surpassed by Japan.

EDIT:

And lets say that a 775m train fits into the timetable just like a passenger train.
Would you rather take 50 lorries or a couple hundred cars off the road (or more?)?
Which benefits the environment more?

 

[Tomnick]

The "problem" I have with freight (if any) is that on a clockface railway finding a spare path for a freight at lunchtime means we can't use the same path every other hour of the day.

For example, the Hope Valley (a local line to me) sees freight for the cement place at Hope. If it was the same path every hour then its not "wasting" passenger paths. But since freight isn't "clockface" it means a number of potential slots are sacrificed.

Its more of a problem on fast lines where the difference between freight and passenger in speed terms is greater, of course, but thats another story.

I'm sure decent freight paths and clockface passenger timetables aren't mutually exclusive!

Quite often being looped to let another train pass slows following traffic down even more, especially since defensive driving was introduced. Hatton loop is a classic example... I'll be on full power climbing through Warwick Parkway, then on sighting two yellows at Budbrooke it'll be power off, brakes on for the inevitable red just before the loop points which doesn't come off until the very last minute, followed by a painfully slow crawl into the loop at 10mph. If kept going at 60mph instead I could reach Dorridge loop or even Bordesley loop in good time without delaying whatever is behind me too much.

That's one of the problems with many loops - it takes so long to get anything inside. Flashing yellows and a higher speed on the turnout into the loop, where possible, would be a big help, rather than bringing heavy trains right down to a crawl. I reckon it easily adds four minutes to the section time when we're putting one inside, and it's even worse at the loop in rear (to the point where running a class 6 train an extra ten miles or so to our loop causes no more delay to whatever's following).

Freight rail is very much of secondary importance, British railways are extremely passenger orientated to a degree that is only surpassed by Japan.

Syston - Peterborough isn't one of the busiest freight routes, but even so, there's a substantial amount of freight traffic - such that you'll sometimes find three or four, even five, freight trains actually running in each direction in a single hour. Yet the whole operation, current Notts diversions excepted, revolves around a three-car DMU every hour .

And lets say that a 775m train fits into the timetable just like a passenger train.
Would you rather take 50 lorries or a couple hundred cars off the road?
Which benefits the environment more?

Surely there are more than 50 lorry loads on a 775m container train?? On many routes though, there's space for both the passenger train and the 775m freight train (and part of the solution has to be to find ways of pushing freight away from busy passenger corridors and onto these quieter lines?).

 

[The Planner]

Intermodals tend to run at up to 1600 tonnes fully loaded so it can be around the 40 lorry mark. That is based o current trains that run at the 500m ish mark.

The VHF timetable was constructed with fixed freight paths within it which trains slot in to. If a freight path is not used for a certain period then there are mechanisms within track access contracts to remove them.

 

[edwin_m]

Peel Ports supposedly projects that container traffic on the Manchester Ship Canal will increase by an order of magnitude over the next fifteen years.
This is part of that enormous "Port Salford" development project.

...which will also have a branch off the Chat Moss line and no doubt is also projected to generate quite a bit of rail freight - probably including containers that will go in by canal and out by train or vice versa.

 

[vtiman]

http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/sector/containers/article426672.ece?

this is a 3rd running line to be constructed along the freight only Betuwe route so obviously there are a lot of containers unloaded in Rotterdam and the train clearly has much demand vis a vis inshore shipping although i have no idea what size of ships can use the various inland european waterways.

As far as one of the benefits of HS2 being extra freight paths on the WCML etc, have a look at this link if you are in doubt about this benefit.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regional-affairs/west-coast-main-line-congestion-5397233?

The idea that some of you are suggesting that we shouldn't even care about railfreight is bizarre. Even diesel hauled freight is less damaging to the environment then is road freight and that is without considering accidents, congestion and the affects of 40 tonne HGVs. Rail's great advantage be it freight or commuter lines or HS2 is that it is the least damaging way of transporting people or goods and far safer then road transport. Remember 1.2 MILLION people die on roads worldwide. This is a shocking state of affairs which shows how addicted we are to road travel
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When was the last time you went through the CUTTING as it traverses north-south through Rugby?

True, it is a nature reserve, true, it is used by some joggers and cyclists, but as a keen member of the latter group, even I would accept the return of a RAILWAY to its original use, as long as there was a suitable compensation package for the loss of what is there now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What exactly is your evidence for this "rounding error". My brother (daily commuter Coventry-Euston) both regularly talk about Virgin's PEAK ghost trains, and nobody here, or on the thread about that topic has come up with a decent explanation for them.



Yet THEY are the people entrusted by the government to create the case. I am obviously no great fan of Virgin Trains, but it was similar morons at the DfT who pursued the "anything but Branson" strategy.

I have no issue with the concept of high speed trains, loved all the ones I've used on the continent. Yet we have to judge HS2 on the case before us, not somebody else's success.

This is the problem I have with people who say that they are against HS2 which we know you are because of your highly original username. In a sense there is almost no point in conversing with you. I understand that you dont want HS2 built near you and have genuine concerns re the post HS2 service that Coventry will be offered. I therefore find it incredible that you not only profess to love high speed trains but ADMIT that you have used EUROPEAN high speed services apparently on numerous occasions !


One wonders if you had any thoughts at all about those displaced or affected by those high speed lines you have used, or that these lines were white elephants or that their various business cases did not add up ! The cynic in me has the sneaking suspicion that the main reason you are opposed to HS2 is because it will (a) run near you and (b) not offer Coventry a station other then at NEC / International / Interchange !