High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[jon0844]

I am stunned that someone on here can still think the line stops at Birmingham. Nearly 4000 posts in this thread, on a rail forum, and a staggering lack of knowledge being shown.

I can think of alternatives, I am sure we all can, but cheaper and more effective than a purpose built line that won't interfere (much) with the current network? Nope.

 

[PR1Berske]

An awful lot has been said, you've just not been listening to a word of it. It will not cost £80bn, and nor will it simply operate "a London to Birmingham shuttle bus". If those two points were true then I doubt anyone in their right mind would support the scheme. Parroting the patently untrue "£80bn" and "London to Birmingham shuttle" lines that are being spread by the anti-HS2 lobby groups undermines any legitimate points that you may raise.

I have listened to what has been said - and have reacted by pointing out that the reality is, we're building a multi-million pound route for commuters to get into London for 15 minutes less travelling time, sucking investment from the North and excluding dozens of towns and cities across the country who won't have the right to board the trains despite living next to the track.

£80bn is an accurately worked out figure for the entire project. Imagine what a fraction of just the Birmingham expressway cost could do to just the WCML.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am stunned that someone on here can still think the line stops at Birmingham. Nearly 4000 posts in this thread, on a rail forum, and a staggering lack of knowledge being shown.

I can think of alternatives, I am sure we all can, but cheaper and more effective than a purpose built line that won't interfere (much) with the current network? Nope.

The line stops in Birmingham, unless we're going to split hairs over local government boundaries for the sake of an argument? -

 

[jon0844]

Okay, I now think you're trolling for a laugh as you must know it isn't just to Birmingham, but will be built in stages. Even that made up figure wasn't just for stage one.

Why you're doing this I do not know but it's pointless having a debate with you any longer (and, no, that doesn't mean a victory for you).

 

[PR1Berske]

Okay, I now think you're trolling for a laugh as you must know it isn't just to Birmingham, but I'd built in stages. Even that made up figure wasn't for stage one.

Why you're doing this I do not know but it's pointless having a debate with you any longer (and, no, that doesn't mean a victory for you).

:roll:

I love it when people just go "Oh, you're trolling"

The line is ADVERTISED as a link to London from Birmingham, that's the context in which I use the term. Ministers use that as a term too. That map shows the link goes TO as well as THROUGH Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And how typical, btw, that pro-HS2 cheerleaders close ranks. "Oh you're trolling, bye", is a cop out.

Like I said, arguing on the Internet only gets people so far. But I'm fairly confident that this project will be stopped sooner rather than later, I can't imagine Labour wanting to be associated with a white elephant after the Dome etc.

 

[NSEFAN]

I love it when people just go "Oh, you're trolling"

The line is ADVERTISED as a link to London from Birmingham, that's the context in which I use the term. Ministers use that as a term too. That map shows the link goes TO as well as THROUGH Birmingham.

And how typical, btw, that pro-HS2 cheerleaders close ranks. "Oh you're trolling, bye", is a cop out.

Like I said, arguing on the Internet only gets people so far. But I'm fairly confident that this project will be stopped sooner rather than later, I can't imagine Labour wanting to be associated with a white elephant after the Dome etc.

People think you're trolling because you just seem to be recounting the same line over and over without actually reacting to the counter-arguments put to you. Just casually labeling a project to be a white elephant doesn't make it so.

Unfortunately the general press are taking very badly to HS2, either for vested interests or because people are jumping on the bandwagon. There is a lot of misinformation about the project in the media and it shows from the reaction of the general public. It is most infuriating to say the least.

 

[D365]

:roll:

I love it when people just go "Oh, you're trolling"

The line is ADVERTISED as a link to London from Birmingham, that's the context in which I use the term. Ministers use that as a term too. That map shows the link goes TO as well as THROUGH Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And how typical, btw, that pro-HS2 cheerleaders close ranks. "Oh you're trolling, bye", is a cop out.

Like I said, arguing on the Internet only gets people so far. But I'm fairly confident that this project will be stopped sooner rather than later, I can't imagine Labour wanting to be associated with a white elephant after the Dome etc.

If you want to argue a case against HS2, fine, go ahead. That is exactly what a debate consists of. But in order to do so, you need to use credible facts and evidence. That is exactly what you are not doing. You have just tossed out the £80bn lumped together by the opposition mobs, and in fact, gone a step further by claiming this is the cost for Phase 1 ALONE. HS2 is NOT advertised as finishing at Birmingham. You keep throwing tidbits at us, backed up by no evidence whatsoever, as well as claiming that upgrading the existing, crowded WCML and other railways will bring the same or more benefit for a fraction of this absurd and completely fictional value. Despite thousands of arguments to the contrary. You are refusing to listen to the facts, which have been reiterated countless times on the forums, and when someone has genuine comments to make, you throw back the same answers every time. These inconsiderate and ignorant actions have undermined any opinion you could have on the matter; though without doubt there will be more like you, preceding and inevitably succeeding.

That wasn't a "cop-out", that was informing you of the desire to not partake in what could descend into a hot-headed attack any further. You have been, even if it isn't your ultimate intention, using ridiculous and utterly exaggerated statements to get a rise.

 

[jon0844]

Oh come on PR1Berske, you're clutching at straws now. Your sig says "£80bn for a London-Birmingham shuttle bus" and yet you acknowledge it goes beyond Birmingham? And you've surely read that the £80bn figure is balderdash - given it includes Crossrail and other stuff loaded on. Why not include the whole national debt of the UK while we're at it?

Read this; http://www.cityam.com/blog/1376904189/why-hs2-wont-cost-80bn (there are many other sites that are now actually destroying that estimate, which was put out to sections of the press against HS2 on a weekend).

And finally, Labour came up with the proposals. The coalition, rather than scale it back or axe it, actually went with it. If Labour wins in 2015, they'll be pushing for it if it hasn't already been signed off.

All that will happen is that we've lost another few years, which of course means 2-3 years more congestion and heartache for existing rail users that won't be getting much more out of the WCML between now and then.

 

[Bonemaster]

I am stunned that someone on here can still think the line stops at Birmingham. Nearly 4000 posts in this thread, on a rail forum, and a staggering lack of knowledge being shown.

To be fair this is on both sides, I have seen numerous posts about the alternative of upgrading the WCML being promoted drawing parallels with WCRM, this shows a staggering level of blinkedness and having never read the alternative solution that those against the project are championing. It is by no means a perfect solution, but nor is HS2 in its current guise. Other comments about the fact that alternatives will present the same level of benefits as HS2 is another pro myth, those against have not that I have seen claimed a limited upgrade will provide the same benefits, the argument is centred around what benefits are required, and when are they required by. I'm not too sure that many people know what the Network Rail projections on passenger growth are to 2034 or what the HS2 Ltd projections to 2033 are.

Now, I am pro High Speed Rail, but I cant support a bad scheme. A bad scheme that fails will impact hard on future rail investment like a disease, and if like every other high speed rail project world wide requires direct or indirect subsidy, either taxpayers will be asked to pay more, or money will be diverted from other schemes.

I can think of alternatives, I am sure we all can, but cheaper and more effective than a purpose built line that won't interfere (much) with the current network? Nope.

Other than 8 years of disruption at Euston you mean

Then again why are we all surprised? The antis have already spent a hell of a lot of public council money on high court battles. Buckinghamshire council recently admitted they knew they wouldn't win but they were determined to continue with the court battles using public money.

Would you prefer that your local authority did not represent its own interests, and your interests as a member of the electorate. To argue that they shouldn't do that is quite frankly barmy

 

[PR1Berske]

To be fair this is on both sides, I have seen numerous posts about the alternative of upgrading the WCML being promoted drawing parallels with WCRM, this shows a staggering level of blinkedness and having never read the alternative solution that those against the project are championing. It is by no means a perfect solution, but nor is HS2 in its current guise. Other comments about the fact that alternatives will present the same level of benefits as HS2 is another pro myth, those against have not that I have seen claimed a limited upgrade will provide the same benefits, the argument is centred around what benefits are required, and when are they required by. I'm not too sure that many people know what the Network Rail projections on passenger growth are to 2034 or what the HS2 Ltd projections to 2033 are.

Now, I am pro High Speed Rail, but I cant support a bad scheme. A bad scheme that fails will impact hard on future rail investment like a disease, and if like every other high speed rail project world wide requires direct or indirect subsidy, either taxpayers will be asked to pay more, or money will be diverted from other schemes.



Other than 8 years of disruption at Euston you mean



Would you prefer that your local authority did not represent its own interests, and your interests as a member of the electorate. To argue that they shouldn't do that is quite frankly barmy

Thank you for this post. I keep forgetting about the extent of the Euston disruption, I assume that's going to be hammered home heavily to everyday commuters using that station every day for that long, long, expensive, long period of construction work.

 

[jon0844]

Isn't Euston going to be getting a station upgrade anyway? I mean, whether HS2 happens or not - there are many years of disruption to look forward to. Just as I had to endure when I came into King's Cross before that was finished (well, it's not even finished now, but you know what I mean).

And then there was St Pancras.. and soon Victoria and I'm guessing London Bridge is a bit of a mess.

To upgrade the WCML would be like the work at Euston spread along the whole line. Not all at once, obviously, but moving around to ensure that you'd have constant disruption and the usual risk of overrunning work in the mornings that will scupper your morning commute and get you to work late.

But, even I am not pretending there won't be some pain whatever happens. Of course you can't build HS2 without it affecting services when it links up to existing stations.. but it's on a whole different level to upgrading an existing, live, railway with the sort of improvements that would be necessary.

And still the fact that because of the age of the WCML and the many old stations along it, realistically you're never going to be running trains at 250mph and higher EVER).

BTW, Bonemaster, I am not saying HS2 as is is perfect. Nor have I looked over the exact plans, or have knowledge of all the areas it passes through. I am saying we need to build HS2 - and accepting that there may need to be tweaks. By that, I don't mean taking another ten years to do it.

 

[CalderRail]

A couple of facts that should probably be stated for some people (and any casual reader's) attention.

1. The effect upon commuters is not a question of "how many Birmingham <> London commuters will be able to take advantage of HS2 when it doesn't stop anywhere in between". The question is "what capacity on existing lines will be freed up for use by London commuter zone (up to 1 hour travel time) trains if main line services are no long using capacity on the same line?"

2. The speed of HS2 is not the point; it's simply going to be a high-speed rail system because why would you build anything else?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Other than 8 years of disruption at Euston you mean

I believe the latest designs have addressed this.

 

[Bonemaster]

Isn't Euston going to be getting a station upgrade anyway? I mean, whether HS2 happens or not - there are many years of disruption to look forward to. Just as I had to endure when I came into King's Cross before that was finished (well, it's not even finished now, but you know what I mean).

Not that is going to involve half the work that HS2 requires, track dropping etc

To upgrade the WCML would be like the work at Euston spread along the whole line. Not all at once, obviously, but moving around to ensure that you'd have constant disruption and the usual risk of overrunning work in the mornings that will scupper your morning commute and get you to work late.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking WCRM2. Stafford bypass, 4 tracking at Brinklow and a grade separated junction at Ledburn Junction are not going to cause chaos for years. How long did the grade separated junction at Hitchin close the ECML for? Add into that that some of the works at Stafford it is assumed as part of HS2 that this will happen anyway, so the disruption is even between both schemes near enough.

And still the fact that because of the age of the WCML and the many old stations along it, realistically you're never going to be running trains at 250mph and higher EVER).

I totally agree, but what is the need for 250mph trains, other than they go very fast and quick, you could build HS2 at 150mph and be greener, but slower. Or with the advent of ETCS many of the obstacles to 140mph running on conventional lines would be overcome.

 

[trainplan1]

BTW, Bonemaster, I am not saying HS2 as is is perfect. Nor have I looked over the exact plans, or have knowledge of all the areas it passes through. I am saying we need to build HS2 - and accepting that there may need to be tweaks. By that, I don't mean taking another ten years to do it.

I think that's the view of a lot of pro HS2 people. I certainly can find plenty of little things to pick at but overall I support the concept and welcome the day it arrives.

 

[billio]

HS2 is NOT advertised as finishing at Birmingham.

Phase 1 does finish in Birmingham. It finishes in a way which integrates poorly with the existing rail services. Any advantage in a reduction of journey for customers joining from existing services is likely to be swallowed up with the transfer time from an existing mode to the HS2 mode.

When Phase 2 arrives, are services going to run into Birmingham and out again - not very many of them, if any.

This is largely true of later phase, for example in Leeds.

You could look at the proposed HS rail network and see that the design is meant to be independant of the existing rail network. So we will end up with two networks, the HS network and the "old" network, with the HS network running over some old network lines because we cannot afford to develop a full network (the North east, Scotland).

What will happen in the long term is that the old network will be starved of funds and suffer accordingly.

The much better approach is for the HS netwrok to properly integrate with the existing network. It may mean that the highest speeds are not going to be attained, but for the majority of potential passengers overall journey time will be less and interconnections will be more convenient.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I totally agree, but what is the need for 250mph trains, other than they go very fast and quick, you could build HS2 at 150mph and be greener, but slower. Or with the advent of ETCS many of the obstacles to 140mph running on conventional lines would be overcome.

Unfortunately not the main obstacle though which is you cannot operate a high capacity mixed traffic railway. High capacity or mixed traffic not really feasible to do both.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Phase 1 does finish in Birmingham. It finishes in a way which integrates poorly with the existing rail services. Any advantage in a reduction of journey for customers joining from existing services is likely to be swallowed up with the transfer time from an existing mode to the HS2 mode.

Phase I has two branches, one terminates at Birmingham Curzon Street, the other joins the WCML at Lichfield for classic compatable services

 

[YorkshireBear]

Phase 1 does finish in Birmingham. It finishes in a way which integrates poorly with the existing rail services. Any advantage in a reduction of journey for customers joining from existing services is likely to be swallowed up with the transfer time from an existing mode to the HS2 mode.

When Phase 2 arrives, are services going to run into Birmingham and out again - not very many of them, if any.

This is largely true of later phase, for example in Leeds.

You could look at the proposed HS rail network and see that the design is meant to be independant of the existing rail network. So we will end up with two networks, the HS network and the "old" network, with the HS network running over some old network lines because we cannot afford to develop a full network (the North east, Scotland).

What will happen in the long term is that the old network will be starved of funds and suffer accordingly.

The much better approach is for the HS netwrok to properly integrate with the existing network. It may mean that the highest speeds are not going to be attained, but for the majority of potential passengers overall journey time will be less and interconnections will be more convenient.

How is it not fully integrated? Leeds, Manchester, East Midlands, South Yorkshire, Birmingham International, Old Oak Common all have conventional rail platforms underneath/next to. Birmingham Curzon street doesn't have them directly attached but it isn't far. And I believe the tram is being extended too.
As well as captive sets leaving HS2 to go onto exiting network. How is that not integrated? People will loose no more time changing than they do now....

 

[D365]

Oh come on PR1Berske, you're clutching at straws now. Your sig says "£80bn for a London-Birmingham shuttle bus" and yet you acknowledge it goes beyond Birmingham? And you've surely read that the £80bn figure is balderdash - given it includes Crossrail and other stuff loaded on. Why not include the whole national debt of the UK while we're at it?

Read this; http://www.cityam.com/blog/1376904189/why-hs2-wont-cost-80bn (there are many other sites that are now actually destroying that estimate, which was put out to sections of the press against HS2 on a weekend).

And finally, Labour came up with the proposals. The coalition, rather than scale it back or axe it, actually went with it. If Labour wins in 2015, they'll be pushing for it if it hasn't already been signed off.

All that will happen is that we've lost another few years, which of course means 2-3 years more congestion and heartache for existing rail users that won't be getting much more out of the WCML between now and then.

Have I read that correctly or does the article state that part of the £80bn includes Pacer replacements? Maybe that's where PR1Berske gets his bus from.

Isn't Euston going to be getting a station upgrade anyway? I mean, whether HS2 happens or not - there are many years of disruption to look forward to. Just as I had to endure when I came into King's Cross before that was finished (well, it's not even finished now, but you know what I mean).

And then there was St Pancras.. and soon Victoria and I'm guessing London Bridge is a bit of a mess.

To upgrade the WCML would be like the work at Euston spread along the whole line. Not all at once, obviously, but moving around to ensure that you'd have constant disruption and the usual risk of overrunning work in the mornings that will scupper your morning commute and get you to work late.

But, even I am not pretending there won't be some pain whatever happens. Of course you can't build HS2 without it affecting services when it links up to existing stations.. but it's on a whole different level to upgrading an existing, live, railway with the sort of improvements that would be necessary.

And still the fact that because of the age of the WCML and the many old stations along it, realistically you're never going to be running trains at 250mph and higher EVER).

BTW, Bonemaster, I am not saying HS2 as is is perfect. Nor have I looked over the exact plans, or have knowledge of all the areas it passes through. I am saying we need to build HS2 - and accepting that there may need to be tweaks. By that, I don't mean taking another ten years to do it.

I can only agree with that post.

...How long did the grade separated junction at Hitchin close the ECML for?

Please don't tell me you are trying to compare this small but long-needed component, bringing long-term benefits to the operation of this section of railway, with the upgrade of AN ENTIRE LINE?! Again!?

I totally agree, but what is the need for 250mph trains, other than they go very fast and quick, you could build HS2 at 150mph and be greener, but slower. Or with the advent of ETCS many of the obstacles to 140mph running on conventional lines would be overcome.

Trains will only be running at 200mph for the forseeable future. The benefit of an extra 50mph at that point is not great. The railway itself is merely to be built with 250mph capability from the outset. Building it for a slower speed will not save as much as you think.

Also, ETCS is not the solution to all problems preventing 140mph. Flat crossings, speed restrictions and suchforth all require work. The railway is a complex system compromising a multitude of components which all play a part. If one of these links fails or is not up to standard, the railway does not work.

Phase 1 has two branches, one terminates at Birmingham Curzon Street, the other joins the WCML at Lichfield for classic compatable services

Yes, and it certainly isn't the end of HS2. Definitely won't cost £80bn.

 

[HSTEd]

"that journey time is used by a tiny fraction of travellers."

I was referring to the fact that anti HS2 people define the journey time for the WCML using the fastest train of the day that is 20m faster than the normal journey time.

Trying to justify the project on the basis that it might, magnet-like, drag small towns closer to London is obscene. Why should the North suffer just so the suits in London can make it to their massive homes 15 minutes earlier?

Either way the North 'suffers', this way they may not continue to suffer forever.
And the suits in London are the ones who have the money, they can live in London and pump that money into the London economy or they can live in the north and pump this money into the Northern economy.

Make your choice.

 

[Bonemaster]

Unfortunately not the main obstacle though which is you cannot operate a high capacity mixed traffic railway. High capacity or mixed traffic not really feasible to do both.

We have done this for 150 years, traditional freight is forecast to fall, whilst faster easier to path intermodal freight is set to grow (how many false railfreight dawns have we seen over the last 25 years or so), making slow passenger trains the main obstacle in the future railway. There is no denying that small schemes to increase operational flexibility, remove bottlenecks, and train lengthening, can increase capacity, forecast falls in slow freight will also free up paths. HS2 is not going to solve many of the capacity problems that exist such as Birmingham New Street with the number of trains actually forecast to increase, and no capacity released south of Leicester again with early proposals to push more trains down lines that are currently at capacity

Please don't tell me you are trying to compare this small but long-needed component, bringing long-term benefits to the operation of this section of railway, with the upgrade of AN ENTIRE LINE?! Again!?

Another WCRM2 belief. Shows you have not read my post, or have any knowledge of the alternatives proposed to HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

I totally agree, but what is the need for 250mph trains, other than they go very fast and quick, you could build HS2 at 150mph and be greener, but slower. Or with the advent of ETCS many of the obstacles to 140mph running on conventional lines would be overcome.

Running slower will not make the line greener, since it will reduce its modal share and allow the low cost flight and driving options to endure when they would have otherwise been obliterated.

And ETCS can't get around the primary obstacle to 140mph on conventional lines in the UK.
That is the Pauli exclusion principle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another WCRM2 belief. Shows you have not read my post, or have any knowledge of the alternatives proposed to HS2.

The alternatives to HS2 deliver a fraction of the paths with far longer journey times and far higher operational costs than HS2.

Running idiotic things like short (00m) single deck tilting trains with absurdly oversized catering staff contingents due to the long journey times is not a good way to run a railway.
Continuing to do so when a relatively small infrastructure investment allows you to escape this is madness.

And you propose to four track sections of active railway without absurd amounts of disruption?
Do you actually understand what is involved in such work?

 

[Geezertronic]

I have listened to what has been said - and have reacted by pointing out that the reality is, we're building a multi-million pound route for commuters to get into London for 15 minutes less travelling time, sucking investment from the North and excluding dozens of towns and cities across the country who won't have the right to board the trains despite living next to the track.

What about the positive effect HS2 will have on commuters on the Southern Section of the WCML?

£80bn is an accurately worked out figure for the entire project. Imagine what a fraction of just the Birmingham expressway cost could do to just the WCML.

If £80bn was for the entire project, why do you still think it is for a "London-Birmingham Shuttle"? That is not the whole project?

The line stops in Birmingham, unless we're going to split hairs over local government boundaries for the sake of an argument? -

That diagram clearly shows the delta junction with the line carrying on north towards the WCML so no HS2 Phase 1 doesn't end in Birmingham. If you look at the proper interactive map you link to, it does say Phase 1.

More details on Phase 2 can be found here: http://www.hs2.org.uk/phase-two so you can see for yourself that HS2 does not "stop in Birmingham".

 

[jon0844]

Trains will only be running at 200mph for the forseeable future. The benefit of an extra 50mph at that point is not great. The railway itself is merely to be built with 250mph capability from the outset. Building it for a slower speed will not save as much as you think.

We should applaud anyone for thinking a little ahead on a new construction project. If it costs a bit more, so be it.

Otherwise, there will have to be further upgrade work in 2050/60 that will then be like working on the WCML - i.e. working on a live railway.

 

[Bonemaster]

Running slower will not make the line greener, since it will reduce its modal share and allow the low cost flight and driving options to endure when they would have otherwise been obliterated.

Due to energy usage for the high speed HS2 is not carbon reducing, its carbon neutral, in fact HS2s own figures put down only 3% modal shift from air and just 8% from cars we are not talking significant numbers.

Running idiotic things like short (00m) single deck tilting trains with absurdly oversized catering staff contingents due to the long journey times is not a good way to run a railway.
Continuing to do so when a relatively small infrastructure investment allows you to escape this is madness.

£40bn is not small in fact, how many years will it take to see the cost benefit, at the current prices.

And you propose to four track sections of active railway without absurd amounts of disruption?
Do you actually understand what is involved in such work?

Oh please not another who thinks the proposed alternative is a WCRM2, and doesn't know what they are arguing against, the four tracking suggestion is a distance of less than 10 miles in open countryside.

 

[jon0844]

And the suits in London are the ones who have the money, they can live in London and pump that money into the London economy or they can live in the north and pump this money into the Northern economy.

As London is set to expand by another million people in the next ten years (as taken from the recent BBC documentary, quoting TfL estimations) I think that in the next 20-30 years, even more people will have no option but to move out of London.

Not just because of house prices, but also for a better standard of living in general.

Just as we saw new developments along the M4 corridor, and now have many new scientific establishments in and around Cambridge (as well as a lot of tech companies, which will probably grow now 'Tech City'/'Silicon Roundabout' is now becoming impossibly expensive), HS2 is bound to see places served becoming more important in their own right.

For what it's worth, there are also quite a few people believe it or not who actually commute the other way - coming from London to work outside. What's to say people won't be going to Birmingham to work, or even Manchester, just as many people travel down to Basingstoke, Bath or Bournemouth to get to work.

 

[HSTEd]

Due to energy usage for the high speed HS2 is not carbon reducing, its carbon neutral, in fact HS2s own figures put down only 3% modal shift from air and just 8% from cars we are not talking significant numbers.

A Class 390 Pendolino in fact uses almost exactly the same amount of energy per seat.km as a TGV Duplex and the AGV supposedly uses even less than that.

And then there is the future TGV Duplex successor that is supposed to be appearing later in this decade (and still in plenty of time for HS2).

And 1 journey in a car is worth 10 journeys on HS2 in terms of carbon emission, so the benefits are ridiculously enormous from just those "8%".

£40bn is not small in fact, how many years will it take to see the cost benefit, at the current prices.

Not very long, you can remove almost all the catering staff on the Birmingham services, carry far more people and have fewer trainsets than you have to have now.

All that contributes to drastically cutting the ICWC subsidy costs which are currently enormous.

Oh please not another who thinks the proposed alternative is a WCRM2, and doesn't know what they are arguing against, the four tracking suggestion is a distance of less than 10 miles in open countryside.

And this will magically solve all the WCML and ECMLs capacity problems overnight and allow intercity passenger demand to continue to grow for another 50 years?
Or is this just a sticking plaster that will last a few years but then leave us back at square one soon enough?

And 10 miles of quad tracking an operational railway is still going to be months of weekend closures.

 

[joeykins82]

Grade separating Ledbury Junction provides a modest capacity improvement to the southern WCML based on current service patterns, but what comes next? What other interventions will be able to get Northampton more peak time trains? What are the options available that'll allow all of the VT services to call at MKC during the peaks (and it does need to be all of the VT services otherwise the handful that do stop will be subject to horrendous overcrowding as people shun the 50 minute LM services in favour of a 35 minute VT option, which is the reason VT don't serve MKC during the peaks)? What step-change in capacity is available via small, targetted interventions that could lift the evening peak restriction on ex-Euston services?

 

[tbtc]

An awful lot has been said, you've just not been listening to a word of it. It will not cost £80bn, and nor will it simply operate "a London to Birmingham shuttle bus". If those two points were true then I doubt anyone in their right mind would support the scheme. Parroting the patently untrue "£80bn" and "London to Birmingham shuttle" lines that are being spread by the anti-HS2 lobby groups undermines any legitimate points that you may raise.

Agreed.

If this is the level of debate on a railway forum, then what hope is there of explaining HS2 to the general public?

And it's complete balderdash for anyone complaining about this rolled up "eighty billion" to then complain about it only going from London to Birmingham - if you are complaining about the entire costs of the project (which now seem to include the whole cost of Crossrail2 and gold-plating the Chilterns) then you have to at least accept that this builds a line to Manchester/ Leeds etc.

Not criticising joeykins82, I should add, just quoting his post to highlight my point.

I have listened to what has been said - and have reacted by pointing out that the reality is, we're building a multi-million pound route for commuters to get into London for 15 minutes less travelling time, sucking investment from the North and excluding dozens of towns and cities across the country who won't have the right to board the trains despite living next to the track

I love how the second part contradicts the first part...

£80bn is an accurately worked out figure for the entire project

Do you know what this "£80bn" includes?

Thank you for this post. I keep forgetting about the extent of the Euston disruption, I assume that's going to be hammered home heavily to everyday commuters using that station every day for that long, long, expensive, long period of construction work.

Why do people complain about HS2's disruption to Euston and yet claim that a better alternative to HS2 would be to upgrade hundreds of miles of existing lines and dozens of stations (thus inflicting years of disruption all along several lines)?

What will happen in the long term is that the old network will be starved of funds and suffer accordingly

This was a strong argument against HS2 a year or two ago.

Then we found out about CP5/ had the IEP order etc - we are seeing huge improvements on a number of routes - covering much of the UK - there's never been more investment planned over a period - so I can't buy the "starve other railways" argument.

A year or two ago you could have told me that Sheffield Midland - London St Pancras would be downgraded since all the rail budget would be focussed on HS2 - now we've found out that the Midland Main Line is getting proper 125mph upgrades, electrified from London to Sheffield etc - HS2 is on top of these improvements.

 

[Dave1987]

If HS2 is scrapped then this country is doomed pretty much. It will show that we can't do big infrastructure projects as the antis will just get in the way all the time. The same thing is happening for power at the moment. People don't want wind turbines ("blot on the landscape"), dont want nuclear ("scared of it"), dont want fracking ("causes earthquakes and damage to water supply") so how are we supposed to feed our insatiable desire for electricity? Same is happening with rail. We are the laughing stock of the world with our transport network. And the main heart of our rail network, the WCML is near bursting point.

So the antis say that it is a "white elephant" and will cost far far too much and won't provide value for money. Current cost is £43bn with around £7bn contingency fund not £80bn which is a figure that has been cobbled together and includes Cross rail 2 which probably won't even go ahead!!

Can the antis please provide proof that your idea to upgrade the WCML to will cost less than HS2 and provide the same capacity benefits (ie a better cost to benefit ratio), and can you also please show that these capacity benefits will be good enough to last the next fifty years or so. If you cannot show that then your arguments are meaningless.

Plus the £43bn is the cost of the entire Y network to the north NOT just a "London to Birmingham shuttle" as one poster has claimed.