High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Deerfold]

3% of HS2 passengers will transfer from air. Its here in table 2 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...update/hs2-economic-case-appraisal-update.pdf

Which is presumably far more than 3% of air passengers. The previous paragraph suggest rail's share of the market between Scotland and London will increase by 27% with 4.5 million journeys a year transferring from air to rail.

 

[Tobbes]

3% of HS2 passengers will transfer from air. Its here in table 2 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...update/hs2-economic-case-appraisal-update.pdf

I'm not sure why its so low, but my initial thought was that currently most domestic flights are operated by non budget airlines, so that air industry has room to reduce prices somewhat from current levels, and mitigate against loss of business to HS2.

Thanks for this, Bonemaster - I think that it is because the Table 2 figures are only for those places served by the HS2 Y network. There aren't that many flights per day from London to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds, and the total proportion of passengers on those corridors electing to fly is probably pretty low.

Thus, 3% coming from air is likely to represent a very significant proportion of the total number of air passengers. With the exception of those who are connecting to long-haul at LHR or LGW, I suspect that the attraction of HSR through to the central belt will mean that there are going to be very few flights to/from Scotland to London.

Tobbes

 

[NotATrainspott]

We need capacity thats the point in building this new line as those against are constantly told. Speed is a bonus. And your example is every suburb is somewhat of an exagreation for when I said 5-6 additional stations across both phases. Personally I would be looking at an M25 parkway, Aylesbury, Around Stoneleigh Warwickshire for Coventry/Leamington/Warwick, Stoke On Trent, and a South Manchester Parkway. The answer to are they going to get better services post HS2, No, No, No, No, and No in that order.

How many people would actually use those stations? The M25 parkway I do understand somewhat but South Manchester Parkway seems suprisingly like the Manchester Airport station. Remember that every path on a non-stop HS2 is already planned for and adding additional stops can only reduce throughput. Aylesbury is a big town but does is it big enough to warrant stopping a 400m long possibly double-decker train, even only from 155mph? What you seem to want is for the extra capacity to mainly take the form of an additional high-capacity commuter line. HS1 has commuter services running on it because it isn't completely filled by international operations, unlike HS2. For commuter purposes it's a much better use of money to use existing lines which aren't unsuitable for their operation; the current WCML is however unsuitable for running LDHS services so that's why they're being built on a new LDHS alignment without intermediate stations.

If an M25 parkway were to be built it would only make sense in a location where there would be flows of people from the North to there, rather than just as a commuter parkway station. Oddly enough there is reasonably suitable location in the form of Heathrow Airport, which oddly enough is still a possibility albeit one put on hold until the final decision on airport capacity in the south east is made.

Aylesbury is going to be connected via the East West Link so it will definitely see an increase in services. By the time HS2 opens the Chiltern line will probably be well on the way to full electrification and additional capacity since that's how the rail network is developing at the moment and there isn't anything to say it's going to change.

Coventry is so close to Birmingham that it would be better served by upgraded existing classic lines which will link in to the Birmingham International HS2 station. Remember that all of these HS2/classic interchange stations will become very important hubs in a way they may not be currently. HS2 will take away the trains which will never stop here thereby allowing more services which do.

The true capacity issues on the WCML are only really between Birmingham and London so there will be no problem in providing reasonably fast services to connect Stoke-on-Trent to the wider HS2 network. The city only has a population of around 250,000 whereas the combined Derby & Nottingham has 550,000 so it isn't unjustifiable that it won't get a station.

One issue in the minds of some opponents of HS2 is what the existing lines would become after having their LDHS services put on the new line. From what I gather in France after they built the LGVs they haven't paid the best of attention to the old lines they replaced with the result possibly being that crash at Brétigny-sur-Orge. However, the French have a completely different population distribution to our own and so it wouldn't be feasible to abandon existing lines here in the same way (except from the uselessly twisty turny bits of the WCML north of Carlisle after they've built the HSR bypass) since there would still be such a huge demand for services on them. Indeed, after the LDHS services are removed the service for each of them should be able to increase dramatically and make them even more appealing as commuter towns.

 

[tbtc]

I cant find the reference right now but building a slower network would save in the region of £4bn from DfT. The faster you go the more energy you need, and the further apart the optimum distances between stations become. I would also go so far as to say that some of the noise mitigation measures, could also be removed with slower running creating even bigger savings

Some people already complain about HS2 "only saving fifteen minutes between London and Birmingham" (and that HS2 won't be any faster than current MML services between city centre and city centre once you've added in the connecting tram etc).

So, by slowing HS2 down to 155mph, you'd probably get people moaning that its "only saving fifteen seconds between London and Birmingham" (and slower than current services to the centres of Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield once you add in the connection time, which takes away a chunk of justification for the whole eastern wing of HS2).

 

[DarloRich]

We need capacity thats the point in building this new line as those against are constantly told. Speed is a bonus. And your example is every suburb is somewhat of an exagreation for when I said 5-6 additional stations across both phases. Personally I would be looking at an M25 parkway, Aylesbury, Around Stoneleigh Warwickshire for Coventry/Leamington/Warwick, Stoke On Trent, and a South Manchester Parkway.

Ludicrous suggestion. :roll:

You would loose the whole point of the new line. The only suggestion that has any merit (and then very little merit!) is the M25 one and only then if situated at, essentially, Heathrow Airport.

Aylesbury has about 40 people in it and will be served by a revolutionised E-W and Chilterns line service. The West Midlands can be served by normal trains to Birmingham and HS2 from there, Stoke isn't big enough or important enough and Manchester will have its own station. What would be the benefit of a station in Manchester then another about 5 minutes into the journey somewhere in "south Manchester"?

 

[merlodlliw]

I think people are concerned -- I know I am -- that this very expensive project, with no budget cap, is building a single railway between two major cities without any real justification or reason. The fewer stations built on HS2 only goes to double the doubt and cynicism; why spend so much when it goes through so many towns and cities without stopping? Britain isn't used to these sorts of long, HS lines with few or any stops, and that's why it seems alien.

I'd rather Britain kept to what it does best - intercity routes connecting as many towns and cities as possible, rather than an expensive expressway.

Regular stopping trains may well slow down timetables, but surely it's better to do that than exclude millions of potential passengers from a brand new train they've paid for but can't use? We don't moan about buses having too many stops, after all, so why is the WCML suddenly too packed for purpose?

Well said,its too costly with no cap,& local lines like the Wrexham/Chester redouble are frowned on because real people want a few extra services locally.Too many vested interests in Parliament for HS2 for my liking, is this being built for MP's to get to London quicker like the Welsh North/South route for AMs & few else.Plus will real people afford to travel on HS2,all my opinion.

 

[DarloRich]

I think people are concerned -- I know I am -- that this very expensive project, with no budget cap, is building a single railway between two major cities without any real justification or reason. The fewer stations built on HS2 only goes to double the doubt and cynicism; why spend so much when it goes through so many towns and cities without stopping? Britain isn't used to these sorts of long, HS lines with few or any stops, and that's why it seems alien.

I'd rather Britain kept to what it does best - intercity routes connecting as many towns and cities as possible, rather than an expensive expressway.

Regular stopping trains may well slow down timetables, but surely it's better to do that than exclude millions of potential passengers from a brand new train they've paid for but can't use? We don't moan about buses having too many stops, after all, so why is the WCML suddenly too packed for purpose?

wibble of the highest order. How do you propose to force more services and more people down the already congested WCML.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well said,its too costly with no cap,like the WAG Express,hardly any use it,& local lines like the Wrexham/Chester redouble are frowned on because real people want a few extra services locally.

HS2 to blame because there aren't extra services for Wrexham and Chester? I have heard it all now. :roll:

The costs are high but they need to be challenged and bought down. We also need to keep the price down by not pandering to every loudmouth yokel nimby conservative voter in a marginal seat and just build the line along the best route regardless of who or what is in the way.

 

[Bonemaster]

Ludicrous suggestion. :roll:

So is HS2 as it stands, thats my opinion your welcome to yours. I strongly believe this error of judgement will kill HS2 off before a spade is even in the ground.

Remember that every path on a non-stop HS2 is already planned for and adding additional stops can only reduce throughput. Aylesbury is a big town but does is it big enough to warrant stopping a 400m long possibly double-decker train, even only from 155mph?

Thats a political gesture at Aylesbury to serve the Chilterns, getting such a scheme through easily involves give and take, and doing things that may not be obvious.

What you seem to want is for the extra capacity to mainly take the form of an additional high-capacity commuter line.

No

If an M25 parkway were to be built it would only make sense in a location where there would be flows of people from the North to there, rather than just as a commuter parkway station. Oddly enough there is reasonably suitable location in the form of Heathrow Airport, which oddly enough is still a possibility albeit one put on hold until the final decision on airport capacity in the south east is made.

No the purpose of an M25 stop would be to take people north from the south of England. Using Heathrow as a parkway to the north is a crazy idea.

Coventry is so close to Birmingham that it would be better served by upgraded existing classic lines which will link in to the Birmingham International HS2 station. Remember that all of these HS2/classic interchange stations will become very important hubs in a way they may not be currently. HS2 will take away the trains which will never stop here thereby allowing more services which do.

Please feel free to join me on a morning drive between Coventry and Birmingham International, you will be talking at least 60 minutes or so, to do the journey, park, and get on the train. My suggestion not only serves Coventry, but Leamington Spa, and Warwick, the M40 corridor as well as the west of Birmingham, for which a station at Birmingham International is badly placed. By adding in that time it will be quicker to get classic services, which really is not the point of HS2. The same would apply to Rugby, Leamington Spa, Nuneaton, Bedworth & Warwick.

The classic lines through the Coventry are not planned for any upgrade and even by train, you would have to catch a people mover to get between the two stations, in fact the plan is to downgrade services between Coventry and Birmingham International.

The true capacity issues on the WCML are only really between Birmingham and London so there will be no problem in providing reasonably fast services to connect Stoke-on-Trent to the wider HS2 network. The city only has a population of around 250,000 whereas the combined Derby & Nottingham has 550,000 so it isn't unjustifiable that it won't get a station.

Yes, but the current plan is that Stoke will loose most of its services post HS2 and will be one of the biggest losers from HS2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some people already complain about HS2 "only saving fifteen minutes between London and Birmingham" (and that HS2 won't be any faster than current MML services between city centre and city centre once you've added in the connecting tram etc).

So, by slowing HS2 down to 155mph, you'd probably get people moaning that its "only saving fifteen seconds between London and Birmingham" (and slower than current services to the centres of Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield once you add in the connection time, which takes away a chunk of justification for the whole eastern wing of HS2).

Is this not about creating capacity

 

[DarloRich]

So is HS2 as it stands, thats my opinion your welcome to yours. I strongly believe this error of judgement will kill HS2 off before a spade is even in the ground.

My personal view is that vocal whiny rich nimbys and a cowardly government will kill of HS2 which will be a disaster for the wider UK. (sorry that shouldn't be seen as a personal attack, just that many of the antis seem to fit that picture)

Again i will ask. How do you propose to get more capacity out of the southern WCML if HS2 does not remove some of the load?

 

[Bonemaster]

My personal view is that vocal whiny rich nimbys and a cowardly government will kill of HS2 which will be a disaster.

Again i will ask. How do you propose to get more capacity out of the southern WCML if HS2 does not remove some of the load?

You can only do a disruptive sticking plaster that will just about do.

HS2 will die because is simply serves too few people, at too much cost, has minority support, and could cost a party the next election as it runs straight through a number of marginal constituencies.

The big picture was missed on the whole thing, which will be a disaster because we do not have a national transport strategy that any new line would fit into and can demonstrably show how it fits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(sorry that shouldn't be seen as a personal attack, just that many of the antis seem to fit that picture)

I know, I'm certainly not a Nimby, and I think the battle for hearts and minds has long been lost, as opportunities to give something back to the effected communities was lost.

 

[AndyLandy]

HS2 will die because is simply serves too few people, at too much cost, has minority support, and could cost a party the next election as it runs straight through a number of marginal constituencies.

I really don't buy that. HS2 isn't just about serving London and Birmingham. It will provide lots of capacity and speed increases on services from London to all over the North of England. And once you've taken the expresses off the WCML, you can start to provide lots of additional regional/commuter services in their place, increasing service levels and capacity at stations between London and Birmingham.

That's the key thing about HS2 as I see it. It's essentially add another pair of lines to the WCML -- The only difference is the new alignment is in a better location to permit higher speeds, and is probably a whole lot cheaper than hacking the new lines directly adjacent to the current lines.

 

[The Ham]

It would be difficult from many of the locations using classic lines, as the capacity is given away to slower services and where the faster services that currently serve them are diverted away with HS2 running in the vicinity, others are new journey opportunities in providing what is currently not there and integrating HS2 into the wider transport network, and some a mixture of the two. The last one, and to a lesser extend one of the others is political, giving back something to an area highly impacted by the construction, as such I strongly believe all of them have strong justification.

Although HS2 could do away with the fast services, these are likely to be just replaced with slightly less fast services. For instance some of the Virgin serives which run into London which don't call at Milton Keynes will then do so post HS2 to collect as many passengers as posisble. Repeat this at 2 other staions and you'd possibly add about 10 minutes from Birmingham to London, however as there would be (say) be 3 or 4 services an hour rather than 1 or 2 and these could still be faster than the existing LM services you could end up with a much better level of service than is currenly there.

Yes the average journey time on the WCML will increase a lot, but from each individual station it may not get any worse and if it does it is likely to only be by a few minutes, which could be offset by a more frequent service.

Likewise with the ECML the loss of the Flying Scotsman will enable more of the principal stations south of Leeds to be served without altering any of the existing calling patterns or journey speeds for the other IC services.

Yes it is likely to mean that there will be a few services which are cut altogether and the reming services are likely to be shorterned from the existing 9 or 11 coaches down to (say) 5 coaches with the possibility of the odd 10 coach train during the peaks, but it is unlikely to be the carnage that some suggest.

 

[Geezertronic]

Please feel free to join me on a morning drive between Coventry and Birmingham International, you will be talking at least 60 minutes or so, to do the journey, park, and get on the train

It will do at the moment due to the redirection of the A45 because of the airport work. Once that is finished, journeys will be back to normal. I used to do the reverse journey and when roadwork free, the A45 journey was easy and quick. Now work has an office at Trinity Park, I am down there frequently

 

[DarloRich]

You can only do a disruptive sticking plaster that will just about do.

HS2 will die because is simply serves too few people, at too much cost, has minority support, and could cost a party the next election as it runs straight through a number of marginal constituencies.

The big picture was missed on the whole thing, which will be a disaster because we do not have a national transport strategy that any new line would fit into and can demonstrably show how it fits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I know, I'm certainly not a Nimby, and I think the battle for hearts and minds has long been lost, as opportunities to give something back to the effected communities was lost.

But still no proposals as to how to make things better on the existing railway. Again

The current infrastructure is falling apart, mainly because access to that infrastructure is nigh on impossible. The TOCs say they want to help maintain the system but they dont allow sufficient access.

The infrastructure is stretched almost to breaking point on the busiest mixed use railway in the world. How can we get any more traffic down it? How can we cope with more passenger and especially freight demand?

HS2 serves the biggest cities in the UK. What it doesn't do is serve every little town in Buckinghamshire. Why should there be any concessions to the locals? That defeats he whole purpose of the line.

if not HS2 then what?

 

[Bonemaster]

It will do at the moment due to the redirection of the A45 because of the airport work. Once that is finished, journeys will be back to normal. I used to do the reverse journey and when roadwork free, the A45 journey was easy and quick. Now work has an office at Trinity Park, I am down there frequently

Its getting onto the A45 in Coventry that takes the time, or round the Warwick University area if coming from that side of town, and down the M6 is a slow crawl.

I spent 6 years doing that near enough that exact commute

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But still no proposals as to how to make things better on the existing railway. Again

The current infrastructure is falling apart, mainly because access to that infrastructure is nigh on impossible. The TOCs say they want to help maintain the system but they dont allow sufficient access.

The infrastructure is stretched almost to breaking point on the busiest mixed use railway in the world. How can we get any more traffic down it? How can we cope with more passenger and especially freight demand?

HS2 serves the biggest cities in the UK. What it doesn't do is serve every little town in Buckinghamshire. Why should there be any concessions to the locals? That defeats he whole purpose of the line.

if not HS2 then what?

I've made my proposals quite clear, I am not HS2 Ltd, I did not come up with the current plan, you can keep on repeating the same question my answer will still be what I've said already. HS2 will fail to be built because HS2 Ltd came up with a bad plan, that was never going to win hearts and minds, it created opposition where it was being built, it created opposition where it decided not to stop, it created opposition because of the cost, it created opposition because it was not part of an integrated plan. It cant even win over support on areas where classic line services are planned to be improved. Planting it through the middle of at least 4 super marginal constituencies wasn't a great plan either. You can keep asking the question, it maybe worth getting some ideas ready for the what after HS2 is cancelled thread.

What is least worse a bad expensive plan that the majority of people now oppose, or a much cheaper sticking plaster, that can at least take the strain until we come up with a good plan. If HS2 does progress, and fail to reach its ambitious growth targets (which are likely to be revised downwards anyway in the Autumn), rail investment will be dead for a generation, no government will want to touch another expensive rail investment plan.

 

[HSTEd]

The cheap option to this problem would be a light rail project between Coventry and the Airport.

Not rerouting the line and certainly not maintaining a huge service pattern on the classic line purely for the benefit of Coventry.

What is least worse a bad expensive plan that the majority of people now oppose, or a much cheaper sticking plaster, that can at least take the strain until we come up with a good plan. If HS2 does progress, and fail to reach its ambitious growth targets (which are likely to be revised downwards anyway in the Autumn), rail investment will be dead for a generation, no government will want to touch another expensive rail investment plan.

But the sticking plaster will last about until the sticking plaster has finished being applied.
And HS2 is the good plan.
There is no way we can come up with a more likely to be acceptable to all one than simply biting the bullet, adding ten billion to the price and putting the entire route into a continuous tunnel with breaks only at the stations.

Which at least would make the railway more reliable.
And frankly HS2s growth estimates will be just as likely revised up.
Since the railway is beating them now, let alone when the travel time cuts come through.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Thats a political gesture at Aylesbury to serve the Chilterns, getting such a scheme through easily involves give and take, and doing things that may not be obvious.

It would be political suicide for the rest of the country. What you would be saying to the rest of the country is that a town in the London commuter belt has more power than the tens of millions of people living in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow et al. How many people live in the Chilterns? If you built it there would be no moral justification not to build a station to serve each moderately sized town on the route even though they are already served or could be served by existing or reopened routes. As nice as the Chilterns may be their absolute preservation cannot stop something which will serve the country as a whole. The M40 motorway already runs through it so it's not some virgin, unspoiled land. In my own opinion there are a lot more interesting and beautiful places in the UK which don't happen to lie between two of the most important cities in northern Europe so arguments to save them don't really carry much sway with me. A lot of people overestimate how much of the British Isles have actually been industrialised and it is absolutely not the case that the small strip of land that HS2 would need would ruin the entire landscape. Remember too that if they hadn't been so lucky we might have built an airport there at Cublington!

No the purpose of an M25 stop would be to take people north from the south of England. Using Heathrow as a parkway to the north is a crazy idea.

Why would it be? It's readily accessible by the existing road and rail networks, especially with the Western Access project, and it already has much of the necessary infrastructure. Since the extra runways are likely to go ahead we would be building a station there and if we do, there's not much point building another just a few kilometres away to serve the same purpose. It's also somewhere worth serving even without the whole HS2 parkway bit.

Please feel free to join me on a morning drive between Coventry and Birmingham International, you will be talking at least 60 minutes or so, to do the journey, park, and get on the train. My suggestion not only serves Coventry, but Leamington Spa, and Warwick, the M40 corridor as well as the west of Birmingham, for which a station at Birmingham International is badly placed. By adding in that time it will be quicker to get classic services, which really is not the point of HS2. The same would apply to Rugby, Leamington Spa, Nuneaton, Bedworth & Warwick.

The classic lines through the Coventry are not planned for any upgrade and even by train, you would have to catch a people mover to get between the two stations, in fact the plan is to downgrade services between Coventry and Birmingham International.

The road network seems to be a lost cause in general since any new capacity becomes used as soon as it is built and rather inefficiently so. Fuel prices will only go up and electric cars don't fix the problems of road capacity until every one can be autonomous which isn't going to happen for another few decades, if that. There will be yet more reopenings to reconnect towns to the wider network because that's what is happening across the country and I see no reason for it to stop. If you built a station where you propose you would have to deal with the massive increase in road traffic there which would end up making your problems worse.

We're not ripping up the existing tracks so there's no infrastructural reasons why the services would decrease - what do you mean by 'downgrade'? Do you mean you'll have a commuter EMU rather than a Pendolino? Since you won't have the LDHS ICWC services to run through there you'll have more space to fit classic services. Virgin are timed for only about 10 minutes in this section so it isn't really that far away.

What's wrong with a people mover? It's dedicated infrastructure which doesn't preclude other development on the site and won't have to be shared with other services so it's not like a full National Rail service between the two.

Yes, but the current plan is that Stoke will loose most of its services post HS2 and will be one of the biggest losers from HS2.

Even in the worst case Stoke would have connections to HS2 - via Manchester, Crewe and Birmingham. Unfortunately there will always be winners and losers when you have to build massive infrastructure schemes but with the capacity freed by removing the non-stop LDHS services they will have more space to run more local services alongside connecting services to HS2. If there were to be an HS2 station it would likely end up being in Crewe for the additional connectivity.

 

[Bonemaster]

The cheap option to this problem would be a light rail project between Coventry and the Airport.

Not rerouting the line and certainly not maintaining a huge service pattern on the classic line purely for the benefit of Coventry.

Who said anything around rerouting the line, if you knew the route and read my suggestion, it was right on the exisiting planned route. Light rail in Edinburgh has cost £1bn, the scheme will put local authorities off building further light rail solutions, and imagine the outcry, when you are talking tens of millions for a station right where the line goes against possibly a billion for a light rail vanity scheme just to complement HS2.

Coventry has one of the highest levels of intercity travel to London, and I did not propose maintaining a huge service pattern, but the proposed service pattern will not be fit for purpose.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

My personal view is that vocal whiny rich nimbys and a cowardly government will kill of HS2 which will be a disaster for the wider UK. (sorry that shouldn't be seen as a personal attack, just that many of the antis seem to fit that picture)

Again i will ask. How do you propose to get more capacity out of the southern WCML if HS2 does not remove some of the load?

Sadly I fear you are right but come 2026 when all the supposed alternative upgrades have been implemented and failed to meet the capacity needs, the WCML is full and people physically cannot get on the trains the plans will be dusted off and we will actually get on with building it. Of course by then it will be too late by then and untold damaged will have been done to the economy. Sill he will be people moaning about overcrowding and why doesn't the government do something about it :roll:

 

[DarloRich]

I've made my proposals quite clear, I am not HS2 Ltd, I did not come up with the current plan, you can keep on repeating the same question my answer will still be what I've said already. HS2 will fail to be built because HS2 Ltd came up with a bad plan, that was never going to win hearts and minds, it created opposition where it was being built, it created opposition where it decided not to stop, it created opposition because of the cost, it created opposition because it was not part of an integrated plan. It cant even win over support on areas where classic line services are planned to be improved. Planting it through the middle of at least 4 super marginal constituencies wasn't a great plan either. You can keep asking the question, it maybe worth getting some ideas ready for the what after HS2 is cancelled thread.

What is least worse a bad expensive plan that the majority of people now oppose, or a much cheaper sticking plaster, that can at least take the strain until we come up with a good plan. If HS2 does progress, and fail to reach its ambitious growth targets (which are likely to be revised downwards anyway in the Autumn), rail investment will be dead for a generation, no government will want to touch another expensive rail investment plan.

So what is the plan? A normal speed railway stopping everywhere and taking hours to do a journey? Yes, that seems sensible and in no way a recipe for a white elephant. it also still seems a vastly expensive investment for little actual return.

So no, you dont have a credible alternative then? The antis never do. I will keep asking the same question till they do.

The antis are rich, vocal, influential, Conservative group, with lots of access to the media and have to be countered. Strangely i bet they wouldn't give two hoots if vast tracts of "desolate" Northern England were to be built upon.

I would respect them more if they just admitted they didn't want to damage their already obscene second house/country retreat prices. Mind funny how the M40 seems to be ok for their Range Rovers

( Bonemaster - i think i may have come across my first reverse Nimby - you want a station near you! )

 

[HSTEd]

Who said anything around rerouting the line, if you knew the route and read my suggestion, it was right on the exisiting planned route. Light rail in Edinburgh has cost £1bn, the scheme will put local authorities off building further light rail solutions, and imagine the outcry, when you are talking tens of millions for a station right where the line goes against possibly a billion for a light rail vanity scheme just to complement HS2.

Imagine the outcry from Liverpool when it is revealed that it is not to recieve HS2 services because Coventry has taken the paths it had been assigned in order to put in an extra station on the core, thus significantly reducing the rotues' capacity?

A billion pounds would pay for a rather large amount of light rail in any reasonable world, but I am afraid you won't get a TSI compatible station for a few tens of millions of pounds.

Even just two platforms and 2 through lines would require a station complex ~800m long and costing in the low hundreds of millions of pounds.

Coventry has one of the highest levels of intercity travel to London, and I did not propose maintaining a huge service pattern, but the proposed service pattern will not be fit for purpose.

How many people who travel from Coventry actually live in Coventry?
It seems like it coudl be relatively well placed as a rail head for most of the Trent Valley.
Those people might not have too much difficulty transferring to the airport, which is even better connected to the motorway network than the city centre station in Coventry is. (Apparently even from as close to Coventry as Bedworth you are no worse off going to Birmingham Airport than to Coventry station).

 

[Dave1987]

For a brief period this debate was starting to get back to being a good one. Now it is descending into a farce again. PR1Berske your argument now seems to be that we should have every train stop at every single station so that every passenger can have a chance of boarding every service that goes through their station. Please please please come up with a decent argument as to to why HS2 is such a bad idea. The fact that everyone won't benefit from building HS2 is a farcical argument. If billions of pounds was spent on the WCML as you are suggesting not everyone would benefit from that.......:roll:

 

[Bonemaster]

Why would it be? It's readily accessible by the existing road and rail networks, especially with the Western Access project, and it already has much of the necessary infrastructure. Since the extra runways are likely to go ahead we would be building a station there and if we do, there's not much point building another just a few kilometres away to serve the same purpose. It's also somewhere worth serving even without the whole HS2 parkway bit.

Its on one of the busiest sections of the M25, and is notorious for traffic snarl ups, better to build a purpose built parkway, rather than a hybrid parkway airport station, that ends up doing neither well.

The road network seems to be a lost cause in general since any new capacity becomes used as soon as it is built and rather inefficiently so. Fuel prices will only go up and electric cars don't fix the problems of road capacity until every one can be autonomous which isn't going to happen for another few decades, if that.

That exact reasoning is why parkway stations are becoming the norm for new openings because people drive there cars a short distance and park them. Much easier than getting into the centre of town traffic.

There will be yet more reopenings to reconnect towns to the wider network because that's what is happening across the country and I see no reason for it to stop. If you built a station where you propose you would have to deal with the massive increase in road traffic there which would end up making your problems worse.

What reopenings, feel free to name one in England that has happened, with the exception of the line to Aylesbury Parkway, I cant think of any since 1997. East-West Rail has taken over 20 years to get to where it is now

We're not ripping up the existing tracks so there's no infrastructural reasons why the services would decrease - what do you mean by 'downgrade'? Do you mean you'll have a commuter EMU rather than a Pendolino? Since you won't have the LDHS ICWC services to run through there you'll have more space to fit classic services. Virgin are timed for only about 10 minutes in this section so it isn't really that far away.

By downgrade I mean fewer regardless of rolling stock type.

What's wrong with a people mover? It's dedicated infrastructure which doesn't preclude other development on the site and won't have to be shared with other services so it's not like a full National Rail service between the two.

You have two stations in two separate locations, a fair distance apart, that means taking luggage, elderly, blind and disabled people off one station over to a people mover, across to another station, this will have a huge time penalty associated, you will most likely be looking at a 25-30 minute connection time between the two stations. Anybody who claims that Coventry will be well served by Birmingham International is living in a dream world and believing the HS2 Ltd hype.

Even in the worst case Stoke would have connections to HS2 - via Manchester, Crewe and Birmingham. Unfortunately there will always be winners and losers when you have to build massive infrastructure schemes but with the capacity freed by removing the non-stop LDHS services they will have more space to run more local services alongside connecting services to HS2. If there were to be an HS2 station it would likely end up being in Crewe for the additional connectivity.

You have too many losers in the current plan, that is why public support is wavering. Crewe would be a missed opportunity to deliver benefits to the Staffordshire area.

 

[tbtc]

Light rail in Edinburgh has cost £1bn, the scheme will put local authorities off building further light rail solutions

It's certainly not put Manchester off. The Midland Metro is expanding too. Sheffield is getting a TramTrain to Rotherham.

In fact, I can't think of a serious proposal for Light Rail that's become less likely because of the Edinburgh scheme (which, like the Cambridgeshire Busway, is more about a bad relationship between council and contractor than something specific to the infrastructure)

Planting it through the middle of at least 4 super marginal constituencies wasn't a great plan either

How do you build a serious bit of national infrastructure if you are worrying about these kind of things though?

Is there a route that avoids every marginal constituency?

 

[HSTEd]

That exact reasoning is why parkway stations are becoming the norm for new openings because people drive there cars a short distance and park them. Much easier than getting into the centre of town traffic.

And Birmingham Airport would make an amazing parkway station with its road connections to multiple dual carriageways and motorways.

By downgrade I mean fewer regardless of rolling stock type.

The operating costs of a Class 350 are so low that I can't imagine that any paths on the Birmingham Loop would be left unused in the aftermath of HS2 opening.

You have two stations in two separate locations, a fair distance apart, that means taking luggage, elderly, blind and disabled people off one station over to a people mover, across to another station, this will have a huge time penalty associated, you will most likely be looking at a 25-30 minute connection time between the two stations. Anybody who claims that Coventry will be well served by Birmingham International is living in a dream world and believing the HS2 Ltd hype.

What fraction of passengers are blind, disabled, carrying absurdly heavy luggage that they can't handle properly or elderly in the fashion that you imply?
For the vast majority of the passengers the transfer time would be on order of fifteen-twenty minutes at most.

38 minutes from London to Birmingham Interchange, 20 minutes from Birmingham Interchange to central Coventry including the additional transfer and there you are, you have a whole minute saving compared to the current direct train service.

You have too many losers in the current plan, that is why public support is wavering. Crewe would be a missed opportunity to deliver benefits to the Staffordshire area.

Cheshire has comparable population to Staffordshire, and the additional functionality provided by the HS2 Classic Compatible service to Crewe is far more beneficial than a captive station at Stoke that very few trains would actually ever call at.

 

[LateThanNever]

After a long read thru the comments are copied mostly from bnm and PR1Berske - replies in bold (I hope)!

The SW matters because it's an economically deprived area which needs to have the same opportunities for jobs and growth as the rest of England. Imagine spending a fraction of the 20/40/73+bn on rail in the SW, with better links within and beyond Cornwall and the Bristol city regions? What opportunities there could be to extend the same opportunities to one corner of England in greatest need of investment which seem to be only offered to London Birmingham Leeds Manchester.

Quite -Lowest wages in the UK are in the far South West

HS2 is broadly focused on London at the already stuffed Euston.

If it really goes ahead a proper through route to Paris is the the very minimum requirement - not Euston. Ideal for the British Library - its former goodsyard I think, but not especially convenient for anywhere else at all!

I am suggesting that the existing timetables could be examined from top to bottom to find greater or more efficient use of existing stock.

Especially by joining and splitting trains on most lines N of London especially the WCML - seems so far not to have been considered.

Of course , Alistair Darling will be well aware that it isn't really possible to guarantee investment on an uprade project over several decades. Target 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.

Hear, Hear!

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, Aberdeen or Penzance or Aberdeen to Penzance (or even just Aberdeen Exeter).

There are no regional voices loud enough promoting the scheme - it's entirely the work of the London elite and the Westminster bubble, and that's what makes this a London-centric scheme. There's no point in keep saying "There's a link to Manchester too you know!" when that's 30 or so years away, at which point Crossrail et al. would have provided yet more evidence that there's only one part of the country where investment really matters; London, London, London.

Hear, Hear! Again

"Whilst I agree that the Government does focus economic development on London, could this be because London is in fact the main economic driver and it's seen as safer to promote this than dabble with other regions?"
This is a circular argument!

"At the moment we have a number of lines where we are trying to fit 125mph services and 75mph services, which leads to a lot of wasted capacity. Put the fastest services on a dedicated line for "high speed" trains and you have a lot more capacity for other trains."

Couldn't we just do this by putting say slower trains on, say, a widened upgraded Chiltern line for example?

Apropos nothing. I was called out for talking "absolute tosh" by the Managing Editor of "RAIL" magazine today for my opposition of HS2.

Who has himself failed to report that all French TGV investment is on hold!

But that means thousands upon thousands of people, potentially millions, are paying through taxes for an ultra-modern high speed route they will never use. And that's no good use of public funds by any measure.

Spending for others education is fine but spending for others' transport any more than we already spend for London's is absolutely not.

Well said,its too costly with no cap,& local lines like the Wrexham/Chester redouble are frowned on because real people want a few extra services locally.Too many vested interests in Parliament for HS2 for my liking, is this being built for MP's to get to London quicker like the Welsh North/South route for AMs & few else. Plus will real people afford to travel on HS2?

Quite so and doubt it and those of us in the SW of England for example are unlikely to have the opportunity1

 

[Bonemaster]

It's certainly not put Manchester off. The Midland Metro is expanding too.

All expansions of current schemes, rather than a start form nothing as Edinburgh did all councils will think hard before embarking on a new scheme

How do you build a serious bit of national infrastructure if you are worrying about these kind of things though?

Simple you build national infrastructure to win elections, you make sure they are popular in the marginal constituencies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For the vast majority of the passengers the transfer time would be on order of fifteen-twenty minutes at most.

38 minutes from London to Birmingham Interchange, 20 minutes from Birmingham Interchange to central Coventry including the additional transfer and there you are, you have a whole minute saving compared to the current direct train service.

And heading the other way 12 minutes Coventry - Birmingham International, 20 minutes transfer times, 38 mins to London. That assumes every connection works perfectly and that somebody leaves the minimum possible amount of time to make their connection, thats more than 10 minutes more than what is currently offered, and I'm sure you would not recommend that anybody leaves the minimum amount of time for an advanced ticket connection.

 

[HSTEd]

And heading the other way 12 minutes Coventry - Birmingham International, 20 minutes transfer times, 38 mins to London. That assumes every connection works perfectly and that somebody leaves the minimum possible amount of time to make their connection, thats more than 10 minutes more than what is currently offered, and I'm sure you would not recommend that anybody leaves the minimum amount of time for an advanced ticket connection.

That was 20 minutes including the travel time.
And since the connection would likely be turn-up-and-go the extra time that should be left for the advanced ticket connection would be the same as the extra time left for the advanced ticket from coventry.

Unless you are suggesting that they will leave no extra time when going from Coventry but will be extra careful from Birmingham International?

 

[Bonemaster]

The fact that everyone won't benefit from building HS2 is a farcical argument. If billions of pounds was spent on the WCML as you are suggesting not everyone would benefit from that.......:roll:

I've made my points very clear, this is not about where you put stations, its not about winners and losers, this is a battle for hearts and minds of people who will support this, this is about politics (with a small p). Throw away what the textbook tells you to do with any large project, the only use of it will be to hit people over the head with and that definitely will not get people onside.

Projects that do not win hearts and minds will fail, they always have, and always will, that is the way of the world, if you convince people that this will benefit them, and it does or even if it doesn't its part of a grand scheme that will benefit them, they will support it.

We have no grand plan, its currently a year late with no sign of appearing any time soon, an HS2 scheme that almost one senior politician a week comes out either against or at best with negative statements about how it has no blank cheque. The plan united communities against it, as it offered nothing to them.

When or if the curtain comes down, I am sure the majority of people on here will blame the Nimbys, short termism, or weak government, but the actual fault will lie squarely with HS2 Ltd for the poor plan and the government for pushing it through without a grand transport plan. A scheme of this kind should have been full of green credentials, but the speed factor killed that off.

As this debate appears to have been pulled around into detail rather than theory (and some of that detail very misguided), and in every piece of detail a hole can be found, just as you can in every element of HS2 if you wanted to find them as the antis have, and in every element of the alternatives, just as the pros have. You can put 5-6 stations wherever the Politics (note the large P) dictates, and deal with why HS2 has such strong opposition, and what can be done to bring the public back onside with this concept, it has descended into many people here believing the current scheme is perfect. When the truth is that if the scheme was perfect, the price would not matter half as much as it does today, and the majority of the British public would support the idea. The price is simply a large rock that is conveniently placed.

If it means changing the plan to get it done, that's a good thing, as its better to get something than nothing that solves the problems.

Yes we have a problem, the railways will be poorer without a proper solution.

I've said my piece so I will be leaving this thread for a while.

 

[HSTEd]

But no railway plan would have offered anything to the affected communities.

This position effectively means rail is dead.