HS2 - A vanity project?

[gordonthemoron]

Whenever I talk to someone in my neck of the woods about HS2, they always complain that we in the North East won't see a benefit as it's not coming here and are therefore against it.

A train from Newcastle to London Kings Cross currently takes around 3 hours, but there's one non stop service each day thst only takes 2 hours and 35 minutes. With the extra capacity HS2 would open up on the ECML, there could be more of these services each day, so, even though the trains aren't physically going any faster, you can still get to London from Newcastle almost half an hour quicker (more if they ever upgrade to 140mph on the ECML)

I don't think it's a vanity project at all but i do think that the direct and indirect benefits (such as the example above) haven't been communicated to the public particularly well.

Exactly, I live in Milton Keynes so probably won't be using HS2, however our services will be able to be improved

 

[JamesRowden]

Whenever I talk to someone in my neck of the woods about HS2, they always complain that we in the North East won't see a benefit as it's not coming here and are therefore against it.

A train from Newcastle to London Kings Cross currently takes around 3 hours, but there's one non stop service each day thst only takes 2 hours and 35 minutes. With the extra capacity HS2 would open up on the ECML, there could be more of these services each day, so, even though the trains aren't physically going any faster, you can still get to London from Newcastle almost half an hour quicker (more if they ever upgrade to 140mph on the ECML)

I don't think it's a vanity project at all but i do think that the direct and indirect benefits (such as the example above) haven't been communicated to the public particularly well.

2hrs19m is the London to Newcastle HS2 journey time given when phase 2 was announced.

 

[MonsooN]

2hrs19m is the London to Newcastle HS2 journey time given when phase 2 was announced.

Is that with the new IEP trains and their quicker acceleration time or with the current fleet?

Thinking about how many times the trains have to speed up and slow down along the route, all those extra minutes would certainly make a difference.

 

[LexyBoy]

Is that with the new IEP trains and their quicker acceleration time or with the current fleet?

That's with "classic compatible" HS trains, running onto HS2 near Leeds.

It's expected that the ECML (and WCML) services will have an increased number of stops, to give a better regional service, since the big northern cities will get HS2 services.

 

[backontrack]

But then the classic compatibles to, say, Newcastle won't be any quicker than the existing services.

 

[JamesRowden]

But then the classic compatibles to, say, Newcastle won't be any quicker than the existing services.

2hrs19m (the Newcastle-Euston HS2 time with intermediate stops in the North East and at Old Oak Common) is quicker than 2hrs35m (the time given for the present non-stop service between Newcastle and Kings Cross).

 

[tsangpogorge]

Why not expand capacity at and improve links to airports? It's a much less expensive solution than building a new high speed line and low cost airlines are both cheaper and faster than a train with a maximum in service speed of 186mph. As for the environmental reasons can anyone prove that a train running on electricity generated from gas fired power stations and which will be 40-50% vacant outside the peaks is any more efficient than a packed ultra light Boeing Dreamliner?

 

[JamesRowden]

Why not expand capacity at and improve links to airports? It's a much less expensive solution than building a new high speed line and low cost airlines are both cheaper and faster than a train with a maximum in service speed of 186mph. As for the environmental reasons can anyone prove that a train running on electricity generated from gas fired power stations and which will be 40-50% vacant outside the peaks is any more efficient than a packed ultra light Boeing Dreamliner?

How do people get from the Airport to Central London?

I did Reading-Glasgow by both rail and air. Rail was simpler, cheaper and faster (considering the 3-4 hours which I had to wait at Glasgow Airport because I was tied to a specific plane unlike when I had the sub £80 open return rail ticket)

 

[J-2739]

As for the environmental reasons can anyone prove that a train running on electricity generated from gas fired power stations and which will be 40-50% vacant outside the peaks is any more efficient than a packed ultra light Boeing Dreamliner?

The difference is, that few power stations are required to power an electric railway, thus less maintenance while all planes have their own mode of power and with many of them in the air, makes planes less environmental-friendly than rail.

 

[JamesRowden]

The difference is, that few power stations are required to power an electric railway, thus less maintenance while all planes have their own mode of power and with many of them in the air, makes planes less environmental-friendly than rail.

Plus a plane burns a significant amount of energy getting into the air and staying there.

 

[HSTEd]

Why not expand capacity at and improve links to airports? It's a much less expensive solution than building a new high speed line and low cost airlines are both cheaper and faster than a train with a maximum in service speed of 186mph. As for the environmental reasons can anyone prove that a train running on electricity generated from gas fired power stations and which will be 40-50% vacant outside the peaks is any more efficient than a packed ultra light Boeing Dreamliner?

TGV Duplex running at 300km/h is about ~0.037kWh/seat.km
Which at 50% overall load factor (being conservative here) is something like ~0.075kWh/passenger.km
A modern Siemens (as an example) H class CCGT station has a thermal efficiency above 60% and a carbon dioxide emission figure of roughly ~330g/kWh.
That translates to something like ~25g of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre.

A Boeing Dreamliner consumes something like ~0.03 litres of fuel per seat.km.
That crudely translates to roughly ~65g of carbon dioxide per seat.km.

So even if the airliner is full it gets crushed.
And even a single new nuclear reactor would be easily capable of powering the entire high speed rail system in all reasonable scenarios - at which point carbon emissions fall to effectively zero.

 

[backontrack]

2hrs19m (the Newcastle-Euston HS2 time with intermediate stops in the North East and at Old Oak Common) is quicker than 2hrs35m (the time given for the present non-stop service between Newcastle and Kings Cross).

I'm falling over myself with excitement.

I hear that, because the Euston refurbishment has been cancelled, Virgin services from Glasgow will be terminating at Old Oak Common. Is this true?

 

[fowler9]

I personally think it is a vanity project in the sense that I think that the country should be less centralised. Finding quicker ways to get people to London makes it worse. As a Scouser I will shame myself and say growing Manchester is a better answer.

 

[HSTEd]

I personally think it is a vanity project in the sense that I think that the country should be less centralised. Finding quicker ways to get people to London makes it worse. As a Scouser I will shame myself and say growing Manchester is a better answer.

Short of introducing internal passports how do you propose to cause that to happen?
An Alpha World City is not easily restrained, certainly not one of the greatest cities in the world.
At this point the only option I can see is attempt to grow the boundaries of london so it covers as much of the United Kingdom as possible.

 

[J-2739]

Short of introducing internal passports how do you propose to cause that to happen?
An Alpha World City is not easily restrained, certainly not one of the greatest cities in the world.
At this point the only option I can see is attempt to grow the boundaries of london so it covers as much of the United Kingdom as possible.

If only we didn't have a certain green belt...

 

[6Gman]

If only we didn't have a certain green belt...

It can be altered.

 

[Harbornite]

I personally think it is a vanity project in the sense that I think that the country should be less centralised. Finding quicker ways to get people to London makes it worse. As a Scouser I will shame myself and say growing Manchester is a better answer.

But that's what HS3 is for and that will tie in nicely with HS2.

 

[fowler9]

Short of introducing internal passports how do you propose to cause that to happen?
An Alpha World City is not easily restrained, certainly not one of the greatest cities in the world.
At this point the only option I can see is attempt to grow the boundaries of london so it covers as much of the United Kingdom as possible.

Christ, god help us. At the same time as everyone wanting to live in a semi with a garden unlike in Hong Kong? Lets just concrete over the UK starting in London? The world cannot continue to to grow the way it is, London certainly can't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that's what HS3 is for and that will tie in nicely with HS2.

Feeding more and more people in to London is not the answer. They don't even need to get there to leave any more. Anyone in the North can fly anywhere on the planet from Manchester.

 

[Harbornite]

Christ, god help us. At the same time as everyone wanting to live in a semi with a garden unlike in Hong Kong? Lets just concrete over the UK starting in London? The world cannot continue to to grow the way it is, London certainly can't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Feeding more and more people in to London is not the answer. They don't even need to get there to leave any more. Anyone in the North can fly anywhere on the planet from Manchester.

But not everyone will head to London. There will be more opportunities for traveling between the Midlands and the north. The North could do with better transport infrastructure and HS2 and HS3 help to address this.

By the way, what's your stance on HS3?

 

[fowler9]

But not everyone will head to London. There will be more opportunities for traveling between the Midlands and the north. The North could do with better transport infrastructure and HS2 and HS3 help to address this.

By the way, what's your stance on HS3?

I think that HS2 and then HS3 are already obsolete. They are routes like something from the 1900's. All pointing down to London. We can already communicate in an instant. Emirates, Qatar and Etihad already have multiple flights a day when needed from across the UK connecting to anywhere. Manchester already has 2 A380's a day just with Emirates.

 

[Harbornite]

I think that HS2 and then HS3 are already obsolete. They are routes like something from the 1900's. All pointing down to London. We can already communicate in an instant. Emirates, Qatar and Etihad already have multiple flights a day when needed from across the UK connecting to anywhere. Manchester already has 2 A380's a day just with Emirates.

Do you even know what the HS3 proposals are?

HS3 does not go to London.


Your argument that we can communicate instantly doesn't wash with me, the growing prevalence of computers and internet usage has not led to a decline in rail usage and your qatar 787s and Emirates a380s don't help people trying to get from Leeds to Manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

Christ, god help us. At the same time as everyone wanting to live in a semi with a garden unlike in Hong Kong? Lets just concrete over the UK starting in London? The world cannot continue to to grow the way it is, London certainly can't.

Even at detached house densities you can get 30+ properties in a hectare, after accounting for things like streets/other buildings
Which means you could fit the entire 0 million household population of hte UK in something less than a million hectares.
Which is 10,000 square kilometers.

Which is not actually that much compared to the size of the UK, something like 4%.
And with the rise of one or two person households the densities would climb further.

Historically suburbia predates the car and it could exist with public transport.
Also the people will need similar amounts of land in London as elsewhere - which seems to indicate that restricting London's growth would not help reduce land use - but would simply seize up the economy be preventing the crazy economic engine that is London for what it is best at - producing economic activity.

 

[J-2739]

I think that HS2 and then HS3 are already obsolete. They are routes like something from the 1900's. All pointing down to London. We can already communicate in an instant. Emirates, Qatar and Etihad already have multiple flights a day when needed from across the UK connecting to anywhere. Manchester already has 2 A380's a day just with Emirates.

HS3 is basically a pseudo trans-Pennine route that connects the two largest contributors of the north.

 

[fowler9]

Do you even know what the HS3 proposals are?

HS3 does not go to London.


Your argument that we can communicate instantly doesn't wash with me, the growing prevalence of computers and internet usage has not led to a decline in rail usage and your qatar 787s and Emirates a380s don't help people trying to get from Leeds to Manchester.

Mate if an mp stood up tomorrow and said they are going to propose spending a bloody fortune on trains between northern cities I would back it to the hilt. As it is we have a load of willy waiving that in the next 20 years or so we may or may not get trains slightly better than the ones we currently have between northern cities. Who cares? By the time anyone agrees people in Seoul will be able to fly.

 

[Harbornite]

Historically suburbia predates the car and it could exist with public transport.

Indeed, many suburban developments were encouraged by the development of railways and streetcars (in the USA). It was only in the interwar and postwar years that suburbia was encouraged by the rise in motor cars.

 

[J-2739]

It can be altered.

Yeah, at some sort of cost and great controversy. But it's to be seen if the UK becomes a city state...
BTW: Isn't HS3 practically a dead project by this point?

 

[fowler9]

Even at detached house densities you can get 30+ properties in a hectare, after accounting for things like streets/other buildings
Which means you could fit the entire 0 million household population of hte UK in something less than a million hectares.
Which is 10,000 square kilometers.

Which is not actually that much compared to the size of the UK, something like 4%.
And with the rise of one or two person households the densities would climb further.

Historically suburbia predates the car and it could exist with public transport.
Also the people will need similar amounts of land in London as elsewhere - which seems to indicate that restricting London's growth would not help reduce land use - but would simply seize up the economy be preventing the crazy economic engine that is London for what it is best at - producing economic activity.

You assumed so much stuff there I cannot be arsed arguing with you. You are clearly very clever however don't live in the real world. It is all numbers in your head.

 

[backontrack]

mate if an mp stood up tomorrow and said they are going to propose spending a bloody fortune on trains between northern cities i would back it to the hilt. As it is we have a load of willy waiving that in the next 20 years or so we may or may not get trains slightly better than the ones we currently have between northern cities. Who cares? By the time anyone agrees people in seoul will be able to fly.

| | | | | |
v v v v v v

 

[6Gman]

I think that HS2 and then HS3 are already obsolete. They are routes like something from the 1900's. All pointing down to London. We can already communicate in an instant. Emirates, Qatar and Etihad already have multiple flights a day when needed from across the UK connecting to anywhere. Manchester already has 2 A380's a day just with Emirates.

How do Emirates get me from Birmingham to York?

 

[fowler9]

How do Emirates get me from Birmingham to York?

Give them time. Ha ha. In a finite world with finite resorces we need to decrease movement.