High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[The Planner]

VoyagerPlan isn't the best of systems, Trainplan was (and still is the best in a lot of peoples eyes, including mine) the NR system of choice before TPS came in.

 

[PR1Berske]

I understand why some people are against HS2 - I was against it myself once upon a time (and have previously explained why I don't agree with every aspect of the current design). Generally I can appreciate someone else's viewpoint, even when I don't agree with them.

But the frustrating thing about the HS2 debate is that the "anti" brigade don't seem to want to understand things.

• HS2 isn't just a route from London to Birmingham (it'll run to Manchester/ Leeds, with proposals for it to run to Glasgow/ Edinburgh too)
• HS2 isn't a "busway"
• HS2 isn't planned to cost £73bn in today's prices (£73bn in 2033 is equivalent to something like £40bn in 2013)
• HS2 will benefit people north of Manchester (since services from Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle will run on HS2 tracks to save time)
• HS2 isn't just about "saving fifteen minutes" - in the same way that Crossrail isn't just about "saving fifteen minutes between Docklands and Paddington"
• We are spending lots of money this decade on infrastructure in Leeds/ Manchester/ Birmingham - and also on Bristol/ Southampton/ Hitchin/ Windermere/ Barking (so HS2 isn't starving the existing network/ we don't have to wait twenty years to see infrastructure improvements)
• If you didn't spend the "£40bn" on HS2, the Government isn't going to give Network Rail a blank cheque to spend it on whatever they want

I'm happy to listen to realistic alternatives - but the fact that there seems to be no sensible suggestions just strengthens the case for HS2.





It does annoy me when I see the references to "bureaucrats" in the railways from those who have no idea how much work is required to get things running/ keep things running.

Some enthusiasts seem to think that because they've managed to operate an oval of Hornby track they can run the WCML...



I thought you are an expert - after all you've identified lots of massive stations that could be built for £10m, found all sorts of gaps in the timetables that would enable loads of new services to be introduced and have solved congestion in rush hour (by telling people they should have taken an earlier train)...

...shame you won't share your top secret plans with us mere mortals, of course... :cry:

No, what I have consistently said has been this. Instead of HS2, we should be able to identify places where new stations can be built and do so (I admit that my figure of £10 is based on a maximum £2m each. That figure may well be wrong, but as with timetabling etc., I wonder if the inflated costs of stations is just an industry stuck in the past. Surely new stations shouldn't cost so much or take so long to be built? Why not try to do things differently?)

As for the locations of those stations? I don't know where they would be. That's where we look at each region in turn. The problem with HS2 is the assumption that "build and they shall come" is still thinking that works. It usually doesn't.

It's the same with my timetabling suggestion. I have never, not once, said there are gaps in the timetable, I've said there *may be gaps* if the whole system is taken apart and put together more efficiently.

[*]HS2 isn't just a route from London to Birmingham (it'll run to Manchester/ Leeds, with proposals for it to run to Glasgow/ Edinburgh too)

I know this, but it still doesn't make HS2 acceptable. It'll take too long for the initial expressway to be constructed, by which time the apparent/so-called congested WCML would, I assume, be even worse. So why not start on the WCML *now* rather than working on the HS2 *in thirty years time*?

[*]HS2 isn't a "busway"

I know. I was being facetious.

[*]HS2 isn't planned to cost £73bn in today's prices (£73bn in 2033 is equivalent to something like £40bn in 2013)

But it could. The budget has already gone up (a £600 million increase just to divert around Cheshire I seem to recall). There's no cap, so it could go much higher. Better to scrap the system now than suffer financial ruin later.

[*]HS2 will benefit people north of Manchester (since services from Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle will run on HS2 tracks to save time)

You cannot know this for certain. The whole basis on which HS2 is being built is to secure a 15 minute time saving for commuters, that's how Labour sold it to begin with and that's how the Conservatives are selling it now. There's no advantage to people in, say, Oldham or Cardiff or Stoke or the South West of England, as I said yesterday.

And by running selected services on HS2, customers would have to pay VERY inflated select fares, pushing low/fixed-wage customers onto the apparently/allegedly congested WCML, with older trains on tracks not repaired due to money being siphoned off elsewhere.

I do appreciate that other regeneration schemes are taking place. I would much rather they were funded with the money being wasted on HS2. Where is the "Northern Crossrail"? Why must the SW suffer just so Birmingham can get a brand new station? Why must a London-centric expressway be preferred over new rolling stock for Yorkshire?

I do not get, just simply do not understand, the case for HS2.

 

[CalderRail]

So let me get this straight: You think that the solution to a lack of capacity on the rails is more stations, not more track?

 

[tbtc]

Could you please point us to that posting or repeat it? I have asked you this before, but noting your critique of the OP (and agreeing with you), perhaps it would be helpful to the rest of us, who have lost sight of your criticisms?

Thanks in advance.

Sure - it's quite wordy and a lot of pages ago (given how this thread has got a new lease of "life" recently...) - my answer to your reasonable question is below (or on this link):

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1543691&postcount=3739

Long story, but basically:

It needs a Zone 1 terminus in London (not hung up about whether that's Euston/ Paddington/ Liverpool Street/ Waterloo/ wherever, they all have their advantages and disadvantages), so I'm happy to leave that aside.

The main problem is that HS2 is trying to solve a lot of problems/ link a lot of places, presumably for political reasons - hence the Leeds branch and the parkway stations.

This means that we end up with a muddled map/ service pattern, trying to be "all things to all people" (with "classic compatible" services and a tricky compromise).

I'd rather that we started with one simple line from London to Manchester
with stations at:

• Zone 1 in London (as above, not going to argue where specifically)
• Outer London (whether OOC/ Heathrow/ Willsden/ Watford)
• "Birmingham South" (maybe Leamington, maybe Rugby - somewhere to connect to local services for those south of Birmingham)
• Birmingham (somewhere in the centre - like currently planned)
• "Manchester South" (maybe Crewe, maybe Manchester Airport, maybe Hartford/Greenbank - somewhere to connect to local services for those elsewhere in the north west of England/ north Wales)
• Manchester (probably as planned for Piccadilly)

One simple route, one simple "turn up and go" service pattern (no branches etc), rather than the complicated service pattern planned for HS2. Keep it simple, get it up and running a lot faster, leave scope to extend it in future - give the opponents less of a headline figure to baulk at.

One reason for suggesting this is that it leaves a gap for an "eastern" High Speed line that could link places in the East Midlands/ Yorkshire properly. Once HS2 is up/ running we should be able to design a further line better, learn lessons. Because HS2 tries to serve this market it means there's little chance of an "HS3" (or any further new lines).

But, whilst HS2 isn't how I'd design it, I support it because it's a lot better than any realistic alternative - we need something radical to
meet future demand - and people need to remember that HS2 isn't about meeting demand in 2013 or even about meeting all demand in 2033, it's about 2043/ 2053 etc too.

**

The whole basis on which HS2 is being built is to secure a 15 minute time saving for commuters

I do not get, just simply do not understand, the case for HS2

Okay, I give up...

 

[Tobbes]

tbtc,

Interesting post, thanks for digging it out. I too was not an unabashed advocate of HS2, especially with the spiralling costs due to all of the new tunnels to get it through the Chilterns (I'd have stuck with the cuttings). I share your concerns with the Classic Compatible routings, but as you say, politics is a strange game (though this is hardly the first time that politics has intruded on UK rail network design - look at the deviations in the 19th Century around the landed estates and great houses!)

But fundamentally, I just wish that there was a coherent, implementable plan to get HS2 all the way to Scotland (via Manchester), with HSR connectivity to Leeds and Newcastle (though I don't yet see the case for an HSR from Newcastle to Edinburgh as it only about 90 mins - am pleased to be proved wrong.)

And I'd also go via Heathrow in stage 1, assuming that LHR expansion to three or four runways happens. If not, then HSR to the new hub is obviously non-negotiable. (I favour Kimpton, but know it is unlikely to happen.)

Tobbes

 

[Chris125]

And it is somehow wrong to include inflation when estimating the cost of something? The inflation will, of necessity, be estimated. As should be so with the HS2 Ltd/DfT estimates of the project costs. Have they failed to consider inflation? Bit remiss of them if they have.

It is wrong to add inflation in this way because it goes against the treasury's own guidance for costing such projects - HS2 is no different to any other comparable project, such as Crossrail, HS1 or the Olympics, in having it's prices pegged at those of a certain year.

As I understand it, not only does this maintain clarity by allowing a meaningful comparison of costs from one year to the next but it avoids the impression given by this treasury source that a project is getting more and more expensive - in reality the monetary benefits also rise by inflation, leaving the cost:benefit ratio unchanged.

Chris

 

[HowardGWR]

It is wrong to add inflation in this way because it goes against the treasury's own guidance for costing such projects - HS2 is no different to any other comparable project, such as Crossrail, HS1 or the Olympics, in having it's prices pegged at those of a certain year.

As I understand it, not only does this maintain clarity by allowing a meaningful comparison of costs from one year to the next but it avoids the impression given by this treasury source that a project is getting more and more expensive - in reality the monetary benefits also rise by inflation, leaving the cost:benefit ratio unchanged.

Chris

Precisely. I am amazed that so few people are familiar with the net present value method of costing. I mean, if you are interested in transport developments, how could one have avoided knowing about this? It's the same with the allocation of costs and benefits, which in public investment terms does not discriminate between who pays for it and who gets the benefit (look up COBA).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sure - it's quite wordy and a lot of pages ago (given how this thread has got a new lease of "life" recently...) - my answer to your reasonable question is below (or on this link):

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1543691&postcount=3739



**





Okay, I give up...

Thanks TBTC very much. I am very happy with what is planned and the junctions back on to the 'conventional' lines are well-planned too (future proofing). Still food for thought and 'keeping it simple' is a good policy ( I was a project leader).

I also agree with your comment to the OP, I gave up that fruitless task long ago. Until that person comes forward with properly-researched views, it's just not worth the candle trying to reply.

 

[The Planner]

Handsacre looks properly thought out from the sketches i have seen.

 

[AndyLandy]

But fundamentally, I just wish that there was a coherent, implementable plan to get HS2 all the way to Scotland (via Manchester), with HSR connectivity to Leeds and Newcastle (though I don't yet see the case for an HSR from Newcastle to Edinburgh as it only about 90 mins - am pleased to be proved wrong.)

I could envisage the HS2 line to Leeds being eventually extended to Edinburgh, with Newcastle as a calling point. I would expect that Newcastle and Edinburgh would both benefit from an HS link into London, as well as HS links to Manchester/Birmingham, although I wonder how much speed benefit would be lost on a London-Edinburgh run that's routed via Birmingham.

 

[Dave1987]

This going round and round in circles........

 

[PR1Berske]

So let me get this straight: You think that the solution to a lack of capacity on the rails is more stations, not more track?

More stations where needed, more track were necessary. Focused and regional, not unfocused and national.

 

[AndyLandy]

This going round and round in circles........

Circles are great for avoiding the issues of terminus stations, but they're not so great for timetabling.

 

[D365]

Circles are great for avoiding the issues of terminus stations, but they're not so great for timetabling.

'Like'

More stations where needed, more track were necessary. Focused and regional, not unfocused and national.

HS2 is the "more track where necessary". As opposed to adding more tracks to one of the busiest sections of railway, which as it stands, is not the greatest alignment for longer-distance service.

Great Central tried this limited-stop, more direct approach but development in the Midlands didn't turn out in it's favour; technology has developed to increase capacity from the other NS lines. Though with WCML, today, we have effectively reached the limit of what we can do with the existing alignment, without the theoretical major works, costly in time and money and ultimately unviable. And yet you still refuse to believe this, and the counter-arguments you provide have no substance.

Back to your quoted statement; high speed railway is not a high speed railway if it stops at every conurbation. That would be an extended metro, and the hyper-accelerating trains to make this 'high-speed' are virtually impossible - can you imagine that?! Do I need to explain further? Please let us know when you have understood what we have said, regardless of whether you have any remarks to counter with or not.

Instead, by building a new, limited-stop, high-speed railway (though this has been explained many times, I thought it might benefit you in order to reinforce the point) is that the current line can provide a better service to the existing stations. With the better service, development will see to taking advantage of the new capacity. Where this occurs on a larger scale, in between two or more stations, a station may be built to serve this new community. The suburban/express structure can still exist like today, but the latter will have the capability to provide more stops at these larger intermediate stations where more passengers will transfer or alight to visit the area, attracted by the increased service and 'fair' fares. In short, by building track as is needed now, and the demand for 'more local' stations can be supplied with the capacity made available.

End-to-end trains will likely continue as today on the WCML. With HS2 competing in the high-capacity, long-distance high-speed market with air travel, the WCML operators (and Chiltern) can focus on the 'lower end' market by serving those intermediate settlements, including the new stations as I described. I'm sure people will still be doing end-to-end journeys using the WCML 'mainline' operator (whoever succeeds Virgin), but because these will be slowed with the additional stops, fares will be cheaper than the non-stop services on HS2. This will force the HS2 operator to keep the fares at a reasonable price as money will be taken off their income to pay back all obligations (construction cost, compensation etc).

As such, the 'high/premium fare' argument is invalid, because if the trains are just 'shuttling' air, the operator won't be able to cover their dues; not to mention the controversy that will flare out. In short, a good degree of competition will continue to exist between all operators serving these routes, driving fares down and innovation up. I struggle to see how this could be set up on one existing and heavily-used WCML.

 

[Chris125]

More stations where needed, more track were necessary.

Where is extra station and track capacity needed? Oh yes, that'll be London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds....

Chris

 

[Philip Elliott]

Great Central tried this limited-stop, more direct approach but development in the Midlands didn't turn out in it's favour; technology has developed to increase capacity from the other NS lines

Wibble. The MS&LR built the London Extension to compete with rivals, network capacity had nothing to do with it. The 'increase in capacity' on the MML and WCML during the early 20th century came from widening the lines from 2 track to 4 track...

 

[mister-sparky]

What seems abundantly clear when reading this thread, is that the anti-HS2 brigade are convinced that if HS2 is cancelled then the money will be spent on alternative rail projects. It WON'T. The money would probably be given to the MoD to go to build another army helicopter that will never be used, or spending another 20yrs trying to find stuff in Iraq, or road projects, or giving it to the Americans to pay off our spies. It is highly unlikely the money will go to rail projects.

 

[Dave1987]

Well I can honestly say that this gone from a good dicussion to a bit of a farce. I have no problem with people opposing if they have sensible solution that would provide the same amount of capacity as HS2 for less money. And yes I have looked at 51M's proposals and no they do not cure the capacity problem we are facing.

 

[D365]

The money would probably be given to the MoD to go to build another army helicopter that will never be used, or spending another 20yrs trying to find stuff in Iraq, or road projects, or giving it to the Americans to pay off our spies. It is highly unlikely the money will go to rail projects.

Remember that at least some of the money should be coming from private investors, who obviously will withdraw their funding if HS2 is culled. Though if someone could finally cough up for a toll-free A14 bypass (you mentioning road projects), that would be great.

Well I can honestly say that this gone from a good dicussion to a bit of a farce. I have no problem with people opposing if they have sensible solution that would provide the same amount of capacity as HS2 for less money. And yes I have looked at 51M's proposals and no they do not cure the capacity problem we are facing.

I can honestly agree. If there was something which could provide more bang for the buck, or more capacity for less money, surely the bright spark who devised it would have gotten this onto the news, and the railway/transport planners would be looking at it in great depth.

 

[HSTEd]

A52 bypass for Grantham would be nice.

But we won't ever get it.

 

[bnm]

Well I can honestly say that this gone from a good dicussion to a bit of a farce. I have no problem with people opposing if they have sensible solution that would provide the same amount of capacity as HS2 for less money. And yes I have looked at 51M's proposals and no they do not cure the capacity problem we are facing.

Targeted investment in education, job creation, housing, transport and capital projects in the regions. Make it more attractive for people to work, rest and play nearer home. Not another line to London. HS2 will do nothing to improve the lot of the vast majority of those on this island.

If you focus this investment in the regions, you reduce demand for travel to/from London.

The answer doesn't have to be capacity, capacity, capacity, as those on the pro- camp keep banging on about. Reducing demand is a viable alternative.

From the guardian. (Who's first to dismiss the article because of the guardian's political leaning?):

HS2 is certainly not for northerners' benefit

The way to build up the north is to improve rail links between its towns. Trains to London are fast enough already

The HS2 rail project is often trumpeted as helping to connect the north to Britain's wealthier south. Northerners, it seems, are expected to rejoice at the fact they can commute to well-paying jobs in the south-east without having to up sticks. But the more we learn about the project, the clearer it becomes that those at the northern end of the line won't be the main beneficiaries.

The fact is, it's already quick enough for Londoners to get to Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds, or vice versa: the real barrier isn't time, it's the one in the mind. I've lived in the north-west on and off for several years, eventually settling in Liverpool last year. The daily experience of getting into the city, or of getting from one northern town to another, is to be reminded of how much better, and how much more urgently, that £42bn or £50bn or £80bn cost of HS2 can be spent. We have ancient, mucky trains; frequent breakdowns; no possibility of a direct train to Glasgow or Bristol. If you live 20 miles in the wrong direction outside Manchester you have no chance of getting to work in the city without owning a car.

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

Former transport secretary Lord Adonis, who defended the project on Saturday, seems to be more focused on maintaining an inflated perception of Britain's power and status than on improving people's daily lives. The Channel tunnel link, which he cites as an example of infrastructural investment that was put off for too long, still carries far fewer passengers than were predicted upon its opening in 1994. By the same token, HS2 trains may end up carting hordes of bumless seats from London to Manchester in double-quick time.

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

Moreover, the great gains in faster journey times from the north to London have already been made. When I started travelling between London and Liverpool 15 years ago, it took three hours; now it takes two, which goes in the time it takes to find my seat, eat a sandwich and, for a sublime hour or so, watch cows, sheep and canals roll past and be reminded that most of the country is still actually green.But there are times when shorter journeys do matter, not least when you're stuck on a 30-year-old Northern Rail relic and the only toilet has broken down. The densely populated urban corridor lying between Liverpool and Hull has the potential to make London, or at least its self-aggrandising role as national benefactor, seem irrelevant. A fraction of the investment proposed for HS2 would transform connections between towns and cities that have effectively been written off as producers of their own jobs and wealth. Research by the Centre for Cities showed that upgrading the line between Bradford and Manchester and improving the trans-Pennine rail route would, among other transport improvements, produce economic benefits to the Leeds region in the hundreds of millions.

If Britain does need a high-speed route from north to south, it's so we can make space on the existing mainlines for stopping trains and freight. And if there's any part of the country that really needs faster journeys, it's Wales and the south-west of England, both economically isolated and in desperate need of inward investment. No one seriously needs to get to Birmingham from London any faster than the 70 minutes it currently takes. Relax, guys: Selfridges stays open till 8pm.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Of course the price is inflated, it's in Buckinghamshire.

In all honesty the arguments of most of the home counties NIMBYs is "we bought our house because it's close enough to London to commute, but now other people want to commute we're opposed to a rail development near our house. And by the way, the service on our commuter train is horrible."

It's basically people wanting their own way, in a short-sighted fashion. Thankfully, the planning laws and the business analysis of DfT and NR don't take into account that sort of thing.

It’s very easy to be sanctimonious about all of this when the proposed construction of HS2 doesn't affect you personally. Are you seriously suggesting that people living in Bucks should be prepared to make sacrifices so that people living in the North have quicker journey times to the capital? Why should they care about people living in the Midlands and the North?

Although I support the idea of HS2 I think it's perfectly reasonable that those people affected want their own way, I know I would! If they are holding out for more compensation or to have more tunnels built then good for them.

And you don't have any right to anything just because it wasn't planned when you bought the house. If you paid a premium, then you were paying it for something which you didn't own and can't control.

Lots of things can be considered a local premium feature, but while they will affect the property value, they aren't owned by the property and you aren't entitled to them.

Let's say (for example) that you bought a house in Shepperton. Good transport links, 2tph (6tph in rush hour). Then some latter-day beeching decides the branch isn't profitable, and there's no business case to retain it. Bomf, your nearest station is 3 miles away. Do you get any compensation for your house suddenly being less convenient to commute? Do you hell as like.

I'm sorry but I think that's a pretty shoddy example. Good transport links might influence a decision on a particular area but not a particular property. Not everyone in a certain area will be affected by HS2 but those that are have every right to fight tooth and nail for everything that they can get.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well my earlier proposal went from the current 2tph with one stopping at MKC only and the other non stop to half of 1tph with the split occuring at MKC, again the only stop.

So you add 5 minutes for the split and then ~6 minutes for running at 110mph instead of 125mph.
So only 10-11 minutes slower probably.

Which is hardly catastrophic, considering this does not include the change-at-Birmingham Int. for HS2 route.

Ok thats not making a lot of sense but if 125 mph running isn't important than why did NR spend all that money and why have customer numbers gone through the roof since it's introduction?

Probably two, one via the Wilmslow route as well.
It is unlikely that those trains would run via the Birmingham Loop line, people attempting to travel to Birmingham Int from Manchester/Stoke would be better served loading onto the existing XC services in that corridor.

Now hang on a minute, in post 3922 you suggest that those trains would run via the Birmingham Loop line so which one is it?

Is that a catastrophic loss?
Having to change at Crewe to get a train to Milton Keynes?
Is this really a major flow?
And I wasn't aware Liverpool trains even stopped there.

To be honest I have no idea whether the Liverpool trains stop at Milton Keynes but who knows what might happen in the next 20 years? However, if you begin to run down the service on the classic lines people will simply switch to their cars. And we've already discussed how people in this country dislike having to change trains.

 

[bnm]

Business leaders, only lukewarm on the project in August 2011, are now even less certain that the project represents value for money. Surely they are a key demographic that HS2 promoters should be winning over if the project is to be viable.

From the BBC:

HS2: Businesses 'not convinced' of economic benefits

A leading business lobby group has called on the government to abandon its controversial high-speed rail project. The Institute of Directors (IoD) said a survey of its members showed businesses were unconvinced by the economic case for HS2. The IoD's director general, Simon Walker, described the project as "one grand folly".

In response the government said the HS2 project was forecast to generate billions in economic benefits.

HS2, which stands for High Speed Two, is intended to allow trains to run at 250mph (400km/h) from London to Birmingham from 2026, with branches to Manchester and Leeds via Sheffield planned by 2032.

The government says it expects the project to cost £42.6bn. But the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank, has suggested it could rise to more than £80bn. The Department for Transport (DfT) also claims the project will generate £50bn in benefits to the UK economy, helping job creation and creating investment opportunities.

But the IoD said a survey of its members showed that just 27% felt the project represented good value for money.

Costs 'critical'

Some 70% said the scheme would have no impact on the productivity of their business. Fewer than half (41%) rated HS2 as important to their business - that is down from 54% in a similar survey conducted in August 2011.

"Businesses up and down the country know value for money when they see it, and our research shows that they don't see it in the government's case for HS2," said Mr Walker. "Overall there appears to be little enthusiasm amongst IoD members, not even in the regions where the benefits are supposed to be strongest. We agree with the need for key infrastructure spending, but the business case for HS2 simply is not there... It is time for the government to look at a thousand smaller projects instead of falling for one grand folly."

HS2 has divided opinion, even among the business community. The British Chambers of Commerce, another business lobby group, said it remained supportive of the project, though a spokesperson told the BBC it was "critical" that costs were kept under control.

The CBI has also voiced lukewarm support. Director general John Cridland said it supported HS2 "in principle" but that "it must be demonstrably clear that the benefits outweigh the costs".

A DfT spokesman said the HS2 Growth Taskforce would "work with city and business leaders to ensure we are capitalising on every opportunity to help regeneration, job creation, investment opportunities and in building a skilled UK economy". Without HS2, he said, "our existing rail network will be full by the mid-2020s at a cost to passengers and businesses up and down country".

The project has the backing of the major political parties, but is opposed by many backbench MPs.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, the shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle said Labour continued to support the project, but that its backing was contingent on costs being kept under control.

 

[CalderRail]

Are you seriously suggesting that people living in Bucks should be prepared to make sacrifices so that people living in the North have quicker journey times to the capital?

You do realise that taking the ICs off the WCML and onto HS2 has benefits for the Commuter services in Bucks, right?

 

[HSTEd]

Ok thats not making a lot of sense but if 125 mph running isn't important than why did NR spend all that money and why have customer numbers gone through the roof since it's introduction?

Its important when the route is the primary intercity corridor for major cities.
With HS2 in place that rationale go outs of the window.

If 125mph running is so important why did XC abandon it on its WCML routes?

Now hang on a minute, in post 3922 you suggest that those trains would run via the Birmingham Loop line so which one is it?

I was suggesting I believe that the remaining Birmingham trains could interwork with the Classic Birmingham-Scotland service.
Not that Manchester and other trains would run via the loop which is a waste of paths in such an important cross country choke point.

To be honest I have no idea whether the Liverpool trains stop at Milton Keynes but who knows what might happen in the next 20 years? However, if you begin to run down the service on the classic lines people will simply switch to their cars. And we've already discussed how people in this country dislike having to change trains.

But in the case of Liverpool trains at least they would be almost entirely duplicating the HS2 service pattern (apart from Stafford calls) and therefore I see no compelling reason to continue with them.

As to "running them down", people are eager to have trains to new destinations but don't seem to understand that the Classic ICWC timetable will have to be rationalised to make room for them.
Cutting ICWC from 9tph to 4tph on the southern parts of the classic lines is one way to make that extra room..
As is cutting top speed from 125mph to 110mph.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You do realise that taking the ICs off the WCML and onto HS2 has benefits for the Commuter services in Bucks, right?

The last time I looked, in terms of Bucks the proposed route of HS2 is some distance from the WCML. Why drive 10 miles to Cheddington from Aylesbury, right?

 

[Morgsie]

Shadow Secretary of State Maria Eagle has threatened to delay the construction of the London end to review the connection with HS1

http://www.cityam.com/article/1377573343/exclusive-labour-threatens-redesign-hs2-link

Euston Cross proposal should be examined and this line needs to be built ASAP

 

[PR1Berske]

That article is very interesting because of this quote, not exactly the "usual suspects"

Her intervention comes amid mounting criticism of the railway, with the Institute of Directors (IoD) today calling on the government to abandon what it terms “a grand folly”.

A poll of 1,300 IoD members found half the respondents believe the scheme represents poor value for money, with most businesspeople instead wanting investment to be directed towards existing intercity railway lines and roadbuilding efforts.

“The IoD cannot support the government’s current economic case for HS2 when so many of our members are doubtful of the benefits,” said the organisation’s director general Simon Walker. “It is time for the government to look at a thousand smaller projects instead of falling for one grand folly.”

Eagle is right to be concerned about the London part of the London/NotQuiteBirmingham Expressway. We all know how congested the run-in to Euston is now; get it wrong and there's no benefit to anybody.

What exactly is wrong with scrapping HS2--even if its just for the time being--to sort out the WCML approach into Euston, and *then*, looking at targeted smaller projects as the IoD suggest?

Other posters here keep banging on about other countries building HS lines - I note nobody has acknowledged a quote I found from the Spectator, I think it was, pointing out that in France at least schemes are being watered down or scrapped entirely.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No one is going to take you seriously while you call it london/not quite birmingham expressway.
It is a london to birmingham leeds and manchester high speed railway with connections to conventional network. Why not quitw birmingham? Which as a city has a city centre and parkway station serving it.

 

[The Ham]

In 100 years, you don't think the WCML and ECML lines would still be exactly as they are now?

If growth in passenger numbers grows at 2.5% from no onwards then it's only 60 years bfore the WCML reaches about the same number of passengers as it had in 2009. (allowing for an 80% drop in passenger numbers in the year of opening because of HS2).

 

[PR1Berske]

I will happily 'stand down' and call it London/Birmingham Expressway, but as for anything else, there's no guarantee of money being available to make it any further north, so don't go counting those particular chickens just yet.

The IoD makes a good case against the scheme. The momentum is clearly moving to anti- , which is fine with me.