High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[AndyLandy]

I liked him when he was doing things I approved of. I didn't mind that.

Now he's doing things I don't approve of.

I liked him when he was doing more things I approve of.

But now he's doing things I don't approve of.

There. Fixed that for you.

As long as you continue to make flippant remarks about HS2 "cheerleaders" and "lobbyist mouthpieces," nobody will take you seriously. Do you actually want a genuine discussion about the merits of HS2, or do you just want to hurl ad hominems at the pro-HS2 forumites on here? If it's the latter, is it any wonder that people have accused you of being a troll?

Perhaps the problem is that you see the pro-HS2 folks as completely barmy and misguided. Rather than trying to understand their point of view or engage in meaningful discussion, you'd rather point and laugh at them. "Oh, ho ho! Look at the HS2-supporting fools! They're such crazies, wanting to throw away so much money on a vanity railway!"

Remember, we don't see it as a farce, and bantering about how you do won't change anyones minds.

I used to be anti-HS2. I thought it was a pointless and expensive solution to make London-Birmingham journeys a tiny bit quicker. I've since looked at it in more detail, I've understood what else it achieves, what the knock-on effect will be for future WCML services and why upgrading the existing railway is just infeasible.

Yes, some of the prices being bandied about on here are particularly high. Yes, there has to be a limit to how much we can afford to spend on the line. We don't know what fares will be like when it opens. There's plenty of scope for discussing the actual route the railway takes, and Bonemaster makes the sadly all-too-accurate assessment that there has been too little in the way of a "hearts and minds" campaign for people in Buckinghamshire who are going to have the new line ran through their county. But in essence, I still see it as something this country desperately needs.

In summary:

• The WCML is at (or near) capacity.
• To solve this in any meaningful way, it needs another pair of lines. We can probably eek out a small bit of extra capacity with other tweaks, but what's the point in spending a few billion on creating only a couple more paths?
• Once you're resigned to laying another pair of lines, you don't actually have to run them adjacent to the existing WCML. You could run them along a more-direct route and it'll be cheaper than trying to work around all the existing structures on the WCML.
• And once you're resigned to laying what's basically a new railway, you might as well make it as modern and stupidly fast as you can, because it won't actually add all that much onto the cost, and you can not worry about capacity again for another century or more. Plus you can create some time savings on the journey as well!

That's my thoughts on the matter, at least.

 

[PR1Berske]

The WCML is at (or near) capacity.
To solve this in any meaningful way, it needs another pair of lines. We can probably eek out a small bit of extra capacity with other tweaks, but what's the point in spending a few billion on creating only a couple more paths?
Once you're resigned to laying another pair of lines, you don't actually have to run them adjacent to the existing WCML. You could run them along a more-direct route and it'll be cheaper than trying to work around all the existing structures on the WCML.
And once you're resigned to laying what's basically a new railway, you might as well make it as modern and stupidly fast as you can, because it won't actually add all that much onto the cost, and you can not worry about capacity again for another century or more. Plus you can create some time savings on the journey as well!

*It may well be near capacity at certain points, specifically around London and the SE, but that does not justify an outlay of around £20bn as a starting point for an entirely new national rail network

*Existing work on the WCML has proven that within 8 years you can have cheap and immediate results for far, far less cost

*Working on specific "hotspots", such as London, the SE and Birmingham, including expanding lines where necessary and building new stations where appropriate, ensures that local needs are identified and dealt with at source, rather than a London-based solution which ignores/disregards the needs of the very people it purports to assist.

I bet a penny to every pound that a Northern England rail infrastructure plan wouldn't get out the first draft. The same amount of money spent in London could solve the North's struggles in half the time.

Adonis used to talk sense. Now he's talking for the HS2 construction lobby.

 

[NotATrainspott]

*It may well be near capacity at certain points, specifically around London and the SE, but that does not justify an outlay of around £20bn as a starting point for an entirely new national rail network

It's at capacity the whole distance between Birmingham and London.

*Existing work on the WCML has proven that within 8 years you can have cheap and immediate results for far, far less cost

Cheap enough to bankrupt Railtrack for only 15mph worth of speed increase.

*Working on specific "hotspots", such as London, the SE and Birmingham, including expanding lines where necessary and building new stations where appropriate, ensures that local needs are identified and dealt with at source, rather than a London-based solution which ignores/disregards the needs of the very people it purports to assist.

Adding stations won't help when all the trains stopping there are already full. If you're going to expand lines it has to be for long distances which will be extraordinarily expensive and involve demolition of existing property up and down the line. If HS2 doesn't go ahead then all that can happen is that stations will fall victim to the need for paths and will be shut down.

I bet a penny to every pound that a Northern England rail infrastructure plan wouldn't get out the first draft. The same amount of money spent in London could solve the North's struggles in half the time.

Like the electrification of the North which is going full steam ahead, with additional schemes continuing to be added on? If London were truly taking all the money then why is the DC-AC conversion going to be decades and decades away when complete? The need to connect the Western and Eastern regions has been identified for 80 years or so now so it's not like Crossrail came out of nowhere and spite for the North.

Adonis used to talk sense. Now he's talking for the HS2 construction lobby.

He's talking a lot more sense than you are.

 

[Philip Elliott]

You know who Andrew Adonis is, right?

A member of the house of lords and therefore unelected and unaccountable to the electorate like he said....:roll:

 

[PR1Berske]

A member of the house of lords and therefore unelected and unaccountable to the electorate like he said....:roll:

At least I can't be brought to task on getting that wrong :roll:

 

[Chris125]

*It may well be near capacity at certain points, specifically around London and the SE, but that does not justify an outlay of around £20bn as a starting point for an entirely new national rail network

That is precisely the justification - these 'certain points' are the urban rail networks and major stations/termini of London/Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds etc and in particular the WCML south of Rugby; to justify the massive cost of providing the extra capacity you have to make the most of it, and that means connecting them up with infrastructure that allows a high frequency, high capacity service and a step-change in journey times.

*Existing work on the WCML has proven that within 8 years you can have cheap and immediate results for far, far less cost

It 'proved' the exact opposite - that a comprehensive upgrade is little if any cheaper quicker to complete than a new line if you take into account the massive ongoing disruption to passengers and the economy, the unknowns of a Victorian railway leads to massive budgetary risk both before and during the construction phase, you don't achieve a long term capacity solution while the fundamentally Victorian infrastructure will continue to put limits on reliability of the infrastructure.

I bet a penny to every pound that a Northern England rail infrastructure plan wouldn't get out the first draft. The same amount of money spent in London could solve the North's struggles in half the time.

Like the multi-billion pound Northern Hub, North West Triangle and Transpennine upgrade/electrification schemes committed to in CP5 alongside a raft of other individual rail upgrades?

Chris

 

[vtiman]

A member of the house of lords and therefore unelected and unaccountable to the electorate like he said....:roll:

He is amember of the house of lords but he knows a lot more than this PR1 guy.

Do you also object to all of the non elected vested interest lobby groups such as IEA and IOD when they voice their opinions against the project? I do not remember voting for any of them.Nor have I voted for the endless string of self opinionated journalists who think they run the country. What they all have in common is an almost total lack of fact.

Look at the IEA. They add £30 billion worth of non-related railway projects, some of which even they admit will never be built and ADD them to HS2 costs and then many people quote this wild propaganda as being true
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Adonis doesn't even have his own parties support.

Really ? What about this then ?

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/local-news/labour-plan-to-save-hs2-5798925?

Labour are still supporting HS2 as long as it stays within the revised £50 billion. Since it is extremely unlikely to cost as much as that, principally because the figure includes about £15 billion for contingency we can take it that HS2 still has Labour's full support
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I liked him when he was the "train taking Lord", I didn't mind that.

Now he's turned into a lobbyists mouthpiece.

I liked him talking about giving Northern railway stations funding and refurbishment priorities.

But now he's turned into a lobbyists mouthpiece.

I thought that Lobbyists lobbied the Houses of parliament and the other place. How can Lord Adonis, a labour peer, lobby the labour party for what is already their policy ? And what about the anti HS2 "cheerleaders" Apart from a few MPs, they are msotly unelected like the IEA who are definitely a lobby group

 

[NotATrainspott]

Something that might not be realised by some people is that the reason we've got so many problems with the WCML is that it wasn't ever built to mainline standards to begin with, hence the tilting trains and all the work needing done. When the ECML and GWML are upgraded to full HSR standard they'll be able to use quite a number of the existing alignments (like the Thirsk/Northallerton straight on the ECML which is quite literally straight).

 

[CalderRail]

Really ? What about this then ?

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/local-news/labour-plan-to-save-hs2-5798925?

Labour are still supporting HS2 as long as it stays within the revised £50 billion. Since it is extremely unlikely to cost as much as that, principally because the figure includes about £15 billion for contingency we can take it that HS2 still has Labour's full support

Meanwhile Alistair Darling and a dozen other Labour members rubbish the idea. Mostly because it's not them that's running it.

I accept there's some in Labour are sticking with it, but Labour as a whole have about 9 different opinions on any issue at the moment.

 

[The Ham]

*Existing work on the WCML has proven that within 8 years you can have cheap and immediate results for far, far less cost

8 years from now is 2021, or only 5 before HS2 pahse 1 is timetable to be opening, which even on conservitive estimates would provide 10 trains per hour. In comparrison how many more paths would the alternitives provide? I would suggest at a squeeze 2, maybe 3 (in the sameway HS2 maybe able to take 18 trains per hour).

As I have said previously, what happens if growth continues at it's current growth or only slows down a little? Bearing in mind that starting with 2009 as the base year passenger figures at the end of 2012, 3 years in, were already where they "should have been" in 2016, 7 years in! With that much head start the growth rate could drop from 2.5% per year to 1.8% per year and still be on target in 2026 (with the 2033 target reached in 2036, which is hardly white elephant stadards) or drop to 2% to still be on target in 2033. Even if growth were to drop to 1.35% the passenger numbers for 2026 would be seen in 2030 and those for 2033 would be seen in 2043. Again hardly a major cause for concern and phase 2 could even be put on hold if needed.

However if we have 3% growth per year from now onwards then by 2026 the number of passengers would be the same as they "should have been" (under the 2.5% growth model) in 2033.

Those who are pro HS2 always get asked what happens if rail growth collapises, to which the answer is that we have a rail route with not quite so many people on as we'd hoped (for every 176 people we'd have hoped for in 2033 there would be 116, if we used today's figures).

However no where has any of the anti HS2 people got an answer for what other schemes they could put in place if they needed to if passenger numbers were to rise more than the projections expected. As at least with HS2 the alteritive schemes put forward could be used to provide capacity if needed.

 

[Geezertronic]

*Existing work on the WCML has proven that within 8 years you can have cheap and immediate results for far, far less cost

You must have forgotten the massive disruption that the previous WCML upgrade caused, and often the financial cost of that disruption to the average Joe or to businesses is not taken into consideration or ignored

For example, the WCML will be closed for 5 periods next year due to renewal and improvement works at Watford:

•May 2014: 2330 Friday 2 May 2014 to 1030 Monday 5 May 2014 (bank holiday)
•August 2014: 2230 Friday 8 August 2014 to 12noon Monday 25 August (bank holiday)
•Christmas 2014: 2300 Wednesday 24 December through to 0400 Monday 29 December
•February 2015: 0200 Saturday 14 February through to 0600 Monday 23 February
•Easter 2015: 2230 Thursday 2 April to 0600 Tuesday 7 April

[Source: http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/west-coast-main-line-faces-closure-in-2014/]

This disruption is only the tip of the iceberg if you expect major upgrades to happen on the WCML to improve capacity to the extent that HS2 can offer as the capacity upgrades you expect on the WCML will require significantly more closures and massive disruption for passengers and businesses alike

 

[Trog]

Something that might not be realised by some people is that the reason we've got so many problems with the WCML is that it wasn't ever built to mainline standards to begin with, hence the tilting trains and all the work needing done.

Yes it was the L&B was built to a ruling gradient of 1 in 330 so the weight of the trains would not over tax the engines, and to curves that allowed express trains to run flat out at 40 odd MPH. Its not Robert Stephenson's fault that standards have changed a bit since the 1830's. Most of his smaller under bridges. tunnels and the track formation are still there. Performing well under loads way above what they were designed for.

Just think how long the structures on a modern railway designed for 30 ton locomotives running at 40MPH, would last under constant 25ton axle load freight and 125MPH passenger use.

The main problem with the WCML is that the amount of traffic it carries wears it out as fast as it can be maintained. Its the new Forth Bridge stretching from Euston to Rugby, and fixing it will need more than a fancy new formula for red paint.

 

[brianthegiant]

I note that Labour have said if elected they would take project in house (incorporate HS2 Ltd into network rail) to improve comms between the 2 organisations.

Also it will be renamed. calling it HS2 early on was clearly a mistake since everyone now thinks its all about speed, they might be criticised for wasting money on new stationary, but I think the idea could work well. But the question is what to call it?
I think the name needs to somehow emphasise how the line will be a new spine for the existing rail network (both with connecting services and classic compatibles) and be step change in capacity. I thought 'Electric spine' wasn't far off but already used obviously.

 

[PR1Berske]

I suspect that the HS2 vote will go the same way as Syria. Backbench Tories in rural seats, anti-Cameron tendency and Labour doublecrossing = HS2 defeated.

 

[Ironside]

I note that Labour have said if elected they would take project in house (incorporate HS2 Ltd into network rail) to improve comms between the 2 organisations.

Also it will be renamed. calling it HS2 early on was clearly a mistake since everyone now thinks its all about speed, they might be criticised for wasting money on new stationary, but I think the idea could work well. But the question is what to call it?
I think the name needs to somehow emphasise how the line will be a new spine for the existing rail network (both with connecting services and classic compatibles) and be step change in capacity. I thought 'Electric spine' wasn't far off but already used obviously.

I dont think that there is a comms problem or name problem to solve but if that is all the tinkering that is done if Labour win the next election then it's no big deal. As for what to call hs2 if you want to rename it, I think the current name has got enough brand awareness it would be odd to change it and previous attempts on this thread to come up with a better name did not produce any good alternatives IMHO.

 

[D365]

I suspect that the HS2 vote will go the same way as Syria. Backbench Tories in rural seats, anti-Cameron tendency and Labour doublecrossing = HS2 defeated.

HS2's already been voted on and approved, back in January?

(Throwing myself back into the ring...)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A member of the house of lords and therefore unelected and unaccountable to the electorate like he said....:roll:

He would be accountable to the Minister of Transport and the Government of the day.
As Transport Minister Adonis rescued the railway from people like Rod Eddington and the hydrogen fuel maniacs, and gave us the current electrification programme.
And IEP (but that's another story ).

 

[PR1Berske]

HS2's already been voted on and approved, back in January?

(Throwing myself back into the ring...)

One Parliament cannot bind another, for one thing.

And the preparation Bill has only just been introduced (see here)

 

[Ironside]

One Parliament cannot bind another, for one thing.

And the preparation Bill has only just been introduced (see here)

The above link refers to the preparation bill and it is currently on stage 4 out of 5 in the house of commons. After that there are 5 stages in the house of lords followed by by a further stage if alterations need to be made then royal assent ( queen has to sign the piece of paper).

 

[HowardGWR]

I dont think that there is a comms problem or name problem to solve but if that is all the tinkering that is done if Labour win the next election then it's no big deal. As for what to call hs2 if you want to rename it, I think the current name has got enough brand awareness it would be odd to change it and previous attempts on this thread to come up with a better name did not produce any good alternatives IMHO.

New Great Central Railway sounds just fine to me!

Good to see both Labour Front Bench and Coalition Front bench (both parties) are fully committed and are all to strengthen their public support for the scheme. George Osborne is to lead for the Government.

Perhaps we could resume discussion of implementation issues instead of this continued trolling. My policy is to ignore it.

Labour is promising a review of the HS2 - HS1 link and I am sure this is sensible. It is about time urban dwellers were considered instead of cows and sheep.

 

[Tobbes]

Labour is promising a review of the HS2 - HS1 link and I am sure this is sensible. It is about time urban dwellers were considered instead of cows and sheep.

What exactly are Labour proposing? I thought that it was an effort to make sue that HS2 - HS1 linkages were as seamless as possible - is there a problem with the Camden Road route?

Tobbes

 

[HowardGWR]

What exactly are Labour proposing? I thought that it was an effort to make sue that HS2 - HS1 linkages were as seamless as possible - is there a problem with the Camden Road route?

Tobbes

Ms Eagle has only announced a review if they take government, not proposing an alternative solution already.

Here is a link.

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

Note also her commitment, to which i referred earlier.

If you google with 'eagle HS2 HS1 link'

you get a lot more interesting references.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its getting a bit conflated.
They promised to review the whole project if the cost exceeds £50bn.
They will review the HS2-HS1 link, something I think most will agree for a long time has been viewed as inadequate, at the moment because of the phasing of works that would only cause an issue if it delayed work on Euston station itself as that is forecast to take the full program schedule to complete.

 

[Ironside]

I have a question on phase 3 of hs2. By phase 3 i am talking about an extention that would link northern England with Scotland via either Manchester through the lake district or Leeds via Newcastle.

The main reason for building phase 1 and 2 is that of capacity running out. If phase 3 was built as phase 2 is completed is it likely that their will be a similar capacity problem to solve? Or would their be a different rational such a desire to compete for market share with the domestic airlines or wanting to put more freight on rails?

 

[brianthegiant]

I suspect that the HS2 vote will go the same way as Syria. Backbench Tories in rural seats, anti-Cameron tendency and Labour doublecrossing = HS2 defeated.

You obviously haven't watched the paving bill debate and are rushing to conclusions.

Even those MPs opposing the bill seemed to acknowledge that it is going to happen and hence the main criticism was around compensation & need for property bonds, not around the fundamental basis of the project. There were plenty of MPs supporting the bill, including notably most of the transport select committee. In the end only a few dozen MPs opposed HS2 in the paving bill division and it was passed with overwhelming majority.

Just because HS2 gets a lot of media hot air doesn't mean it doesn't have majority parliamentary support. If you look at electoral maths the only parties which might gain by opposing HS2 are tories & UKIP, the tories are supporting it and UKIP wont get seat in our voting system. end of story.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You obviously haven't watched the paving bill debate and are rushing to conclusions.

Even those MPs opposing the bill seemed to acknowledge that it is going to happen and hence the main criticism was around compensation & need for property bonds, not around the fundamental basis of the project. There were plenty of MPs supporting the bill, including notably most of the transport select committee. In the end only a few dozen MPs opposed HS2 in the paving bill division and it was passed with overwhelming majority.

Just because HS2 gets a lot of media hot air doesn't mean it doesn't have majority parliamentary support. If you look at electoral maths the only parties which might gain by opposing HS2 are tories & UKIP, the tories are supporting it and UKIP wont get seat in our voting system. end of story.

IIRC one of the UKIP manifestos had an HSR to Exeter in it so I wouldn't even count on them.

 

[WatcherZero]

I have a question on phase 3 of hs2. By phase 3 i am talking about an extention that would link northern England with Scotland via either Manchester through the lake district or Leeds via Newcastle.

The main reason for building phase 1 and 2 is that of capacity running out. If phase 3 was built as phase 2 is completed is it likely that their will be a similar capacity problem to solve? Or would their be a different rational such a desire to compete for market share with the domestic airlines or wanting to put more freight on rails?

There is limited capacity available for extra freight trains in future but the passenger trains themselves arent considered a pressing problem. The motivation and driving force for the link up is the Scottish Government which for international and national prestige doesnt want to be left out of a UK high speed network and to provide an integrated network and time savings for passengers which would be more significant than those in England as there would be fewer stops and more room for improvement. That said the greater distance with fewer stops/passengers does reduce the business case for it making it more a national symbol than commercial need, on the plus side there would be cost savings from doing it together as one project and a lot less Nimbyism with the technical problems of terrain being more significant than the people problems of the English phases which required routes that avoided or went under population centres.

 

[edwin_m]

As posted repeatedly on here, the reasons for HS2 phases 1 and 2 are all about capacity and speed is a by-product. Saving 15min to Birmingham or whatever isn't particularly significant and the airlines carry very few passengers between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Things become quite different with phase 3, because it brings Glasgow and Edinburgh within the 3-4 hour rail travel time at which most passengers will switch from air to rail. So phase 3 is more about speed than capacity, and the ability of the phase 1 and 2 infrastructure to carry trains at high speeds becomes more important if and when phase 3 is completed.

There is an interesting question about whether the UK government would pay for phase 3 within England if Scotland decided to become independent, and what this might do for the economics of phases 1 and 2.

Sorry if this duplicates previous answers - I have not waded through the many pages of pointless argument that have recently appeared on this topic.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think it will come down to both governments paying for the works on their own sides of the border whether there is independence or not as transport spending is devolved to Scotland.

HS2 Ltd did produce a route from Wigan to south of Lancaster skirting Wigan and Preston centres which was costed at £2bn due to requirement for tunneling, if that can be taken as indicative of the cost of a Scotland link it would put the costs for the English side at around £5bn with probably something similar on the Scottish side.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I have a question on phase 3 of hs2. By phase 3 i am talking about an extention that would link northern England with Scotland via either Manchester through the lake district or Leeds via Newcastle.

The main reason for building phase 1 and 2 is that of capacity running out. If phase 3 was built as phase 2 is completed is it likely that their will be a similar capacity problem to solve? Or would their be a different rational such a desire to compete for market share with the domestic airlines or wanting to put more freight on rails?

The only trains that run on the WCML between the edge of Glasgow and Carlisle are freight, Virgin to London and Birmingham and TPX to Manchester Airport. Everything else runs via the South Western line.

If the whole route were built for 400km/h (or thereabouts - not all of stage 1 and 2 are actually as some tunnels and curves are for only 360km/h I seem to recall) the air market from the central belt to London would be annihilated, especially if they build the Heathrow spur.

Building HSR up to Carlisle at that speed also improves the case for a fixed link to Ireland, which is nice.