HS2 in the press

[The Ham]

I don't think eighteen 360 km/h trains/hour will be running on the Italian high speed lines, any time soon. How much 400 km/h-capable infrastructure costs over the life cycle, is unknown, but a train travelling that fast, uses three times the energy of one travelling at 200 km/h.

In Germany, the 249 km/h ICx design is set to replace a large number of (faster) ICE trains, because higher speeds are seen as conferring no commercial advantage.

There is a difference between having an alignment capable of trains running at high speeds and maintaining the tracks for trains to run at that speed. Having the former doesn't mean that the latter has to happen until there are the trains which can run that fast.

There maybe other reasons than just due to pure speed as to why lower speed trains are replacing trains with higher speeds. For instance if they are having to work on a line with other slower services which then means that the faster trains are of no benefit. Alternatively, if the station stops are too close together to benefit from the higher speeds (or for very long) then there is, again, no benefit from the trains having higher speeds.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't think eighteen 360 km/h trains/hour will be running on the Italian high speed lines, any time soon. How much 400 km/h-capable infrastructure costs over the life cycle, is unknown, but a train travelling that fast, uses three times the energy of one travelling at 200 km/h.

In Germany, the 249 km/h ICx design is set to replace a large number of (faster) ICE trains, because higher speeds are seen as conferring no commercial advantage.

The 280km/h top speed of the ICE1/2 wasn't being used because high speed rail in Germany isn't the same as it is in France, Spain or the future UK network. In their case, many more of their lines are capable of 230-250km/h with upgrades, similar to how the GWML alignment theoretically could support speeds higher than 200km/h. There are so many such lines, as well as those without special high speeds, that it makes commercial sense for the ICx to be limited to 249km/h so that it does not have to meet the TSIs. However, on other routes using large sections of brand new track built for 300km/h, they're going to use their Velaro 3 and D at their normal top speed. If Germany didn't think it worthwhile to run above 249km/h, why would they be building more 300km/h lines?

 

[Snapper]

New blog.

"This weeks most bonkers anti hs2 mob message comes to you from one of the tiny number of anti Hs2 groups on the phase 2 route, or the North. Although, they do seem rather confused over where the North actually is. This was shared on Twitter"...

https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/this-weeks-most-bonkers-anti-hs2-mob-message/

 

[Ironside]

The 280km/h top speed of the ICE1/2 wasn't being used because high speed rail in Germany isn't the same as it is in France, Spain or the future UK network. In their case, many more of their lines are capable of 230-250km/h with upgrades, similar to how the GWML alignment theoretically could support speeds higher than 200km/h. There are so many such lines, as well as those without special high speeds, that it makes commercial sense for the ICx to be limited to 249km/h so that it does not have to meet the TSIs. However, on other routes using large sections of brand new track built for 300km/h, they're going to use their Velaro 3 and D at their normal top speed. If Germany didn't think it worthwhile to run above 249km/h, why would they be building more 300km/h lines?

I agree hole heartedly. Reading through the German wikipedia page on the ICx the routes invisaged use a mix of faster and slower lines.

 

[Voglitz]

There is a difference between having an alignment capable of trains running at high speeds and maintaining the tracks for trains to run at that speed. Having the former doesn't mean that the latter has to happen until there are the trains which can run that fast.

There is still the question as to whether building an alignment suitable for trains running at >> 250 km/h is worth the additional cost, when the effect on journey time is so small.

The 280km/h top speed of the ICE1/2 wasn't being used because high speed rail in Germany isn't the same as it is in France, Spain or the future UK network.

The maximum linespeed on AVE, and HS1, isn't being used by many trains, because they are incapable of reaching that speed.

In their case, many more of their lines are capable of 230-250km/h with upgrades, similar to how the GWML alignment theoretically could support speeds higher than 200km/h.

There's no information on how many lines in Britain, Spain, Italy, or France would be 'capable of 230-250km/h with upgrades'. So, 'many more in Germany' is your subjective view.

However, on other routes using large sections of brand new track built for 300km/h, they're going to use their Velaro 3 and D at their normal top speed.

Apparently, Velaro D has a normal top speed of 320 km/h. I have no information as to which routes using large sections of brand new track built for 300km/h, are intended to see 320 km/h Velaro D operation.

If Germany didn't think it worthwhile to run above 249km/h, why would they be building more 300km/h lines?

There isn't an entity called Germany which thinks something is or isn't worthwhile. The decisions to build various sections of ICE track were made at different times, by different people. The rolling stock procurement decisions were made at different times, by different people.

There was, and is, no reason to believe that these decisions resulted in an optimised or coherent system (as the pork-barrel stations on the Cologne - Frankfurt NBS bear witness).

 

[AE]

There isn't an entity called Germany which thinks something is or isn't worthwhile.

What a pathetic response to a valid point. It is entirely normal English usage to describe the persons who made decisions at different times about the railways in Germany as Germany. In fact, there's even terminology in English for it - synecdoche!

 

[Voglitz]

What a pathetic response to a valid point. It is entirely normal English usage to describe the persons who made decisions at different times about the railways in Germany as Germany. In fact, there's even terminology in English for it - synecdoche!

Woo, you've got a dictionary! But whether you like it or not, there was no single decision maker in the creation of the German rail system.

Nor is there any reason to believe, for example, that it was rational, or optimal, to build a new line 'for speed' between Cologne and Frankfurt with a couple of pork-barrel stations, a few miles apart, in the middle.

 

[AE]

Woo, you've got a dictionary! But whether you like it or not, there was no single decision maker in the creation of the German rail system.

No I didn't look it up in a dictionary (although you might have) - I knew what part of speech it was already.

Me liking or not liking the fact that there was no single decision maker in the creation of the German rail system is immaterial. That wasn't how the word Germany was intended to be read. You've projected that meaning onto it all by yourself.

It's entirely proper to say Germany when you mean the decisions Germany has made, over the years by different people about rail policy.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There is still the question as to whether building an alignment suitable for trains running at >> 250 km/h is worth the additional cost, when the effect on journey time is so small.

The projected cost of a 200km/h Dawlish Bypass is the same per kilometre as HS2. You need the same level of earthworks and other major engineering features as you need for a high speed route, unless you're reopening an old abandoned route. It's the same reason as why the Great Central had to have so many major civil engineering works along it - the best routes through major towns and cities and areas had already been taken so they had to make do.

The maximum linespeed on AVE, and HS1, isn't being used by many trains, because they are incapable of reaching that speed.

The HS1 trains aren't capable of 300km/h because there's no real need for them in the role they play. HS1 is 230km/h max until Ebbsfleet, where half the Javelin services branch off anyway. Beyond that, the relatively short distance to Ashford means there is no case to build 300km/h 120m long commuter EMUs which will then trundle around Kent on the third rail.

There's no information on how many lines in Britain, Spain, Italy, or France would be 'capable of 230-250km/h with upgrades'. So, 'many more in Germany' is your subjective view.

Network Rail have suggested 155mph running as a long-term future possibility for the GWML, since the Brunel alignment is so wonderful. We know the WCML south of Rugby isn't up to scratch because the IC250 project originally involved re-opening the Great Central.

Apparently, Velaro D has a normal top speed of 320 km/h. I have no information as to which routes using large sections of brand new track built for 300km/h, are intended to see 320 km/h Velaro D operation.

The Velaro D has to be able to run on the LGV Est, which runs at 320km/h.

There isn't an entity called Germany which thinks something is or isn't worthwhile. The decisions to build various sections of ICE track were made at different times, by different people. The rolling stock procurement decisions were made at different times, by different people.

There was, and is, no reason to believe that these decisions resulted in an optimised or coherent system (as the pork-barrel stations on the Cologne - Frankfurt NBS bear witness).

Isn't that just your subjective opinion though?

 

[Voglitz]

The projected cost of a 200km/h Dawlish Bypass is the same per kilometre as HS2.

HS2 average cost per km is not a useful comparator. A comparison based on a HS2 section having the same proportion of tunnel etc as the Dawlish bypass would be useful. But HS2 Ltd are unwilling to provide costs of individual sections of their route.

You need the same level of earthworks and other major engineering features as you need for a high speed route, unless you're reopening an old abandoned route.

Maximum linespeed is a determinant of the route taken by a railway. Lower speed routes require less straightness, reducing the need for tunnels, etc. So it is nonsense to claim that a lower speed route requires "the same level of earthworks and other major engineering features" as a higher speed one.

The HS1 trains aren't capable of 300km/h because there's no real need for them in the role they play.

Correct. There is no real need for them. As the 'Channel Tunnel Rail Link', HS1 was originally intended to carry only international trains. A domestic service was only added to justify the public subsidies for building the line.

HS1 is 230km/h max until Ebbsfleet, where half the Javelin services branch off anyway. Beyond that, the relatively short distance to Ashford means there is no case to build 300km/h 120m long commuter EMUs which will then trundle around Kent on the third rail.

There was no standalone case for HS1 domestic services. See above.

Network Rail have suggested 155mph running as a long-term future possibility for the GWML, since the Brunel alignment is so wonderful. We know the WCML south of Rugby isn't up to scratch because the IC250 project originally involved re-opening the Great Central.

There's no information on how many lines in Britain, Spain, Italy, or France would be 'capable of 230-250km/h with upgrades'. The East Coast, Great Western, and Great Central corridors are all likely to be suitable for 250 km/h operation.

The Velaro D has to be able to run on the LGV Est, which runs at 320km/h.

Class 395 has to be able to run on the HS1. Which, in your parlance, 'runs' at 300km/h.

Isn't that just your subjective opinion though?

What was subjective?

 

[edwin_m]

Maximum linespeed is a determinant of the route taken by a railway. Lower speed routes require less straightness, reducing the need for tunnels, etc. So it is nonsense to claim that a lower speed route requires "the same level of earthworks and other major engineering features" as a higher speed one.

Which is why HS2 has a lower design speed in places where a 400km/h alignment isn't practicable, for example where it curves more to get between the towns in the Warrington area.

On the sections where 400km/h is proposed, there would be virtually no cost saving from designing for a lower speed. They are basically straight or very gently curved, and already avoid major settlements and other obstacles where they can. Those obstacles that require extra cost, such as the Chilterns, can't be avoided by increasing the curvature.

Going right down to 200km/h might allow the formation to be narrowed a bit, saving on land purchase and tunnel cross-section, but these are only a tiny part of the cost of building a new route. Offsetting them would be the extra cost of more trains and crews because each one could do fewer journeys in a day, and the reduced revenue because more people would find it just as quick to drive.

 

[Voglitz]

On the sections where 400km/h is proposed, there would be virtually no cost saving from designing for a lower speed. They are basically straight or very gently curved, and already avoid major settlements and other obstacles where they can. Those obstacles that require extra cost, such as the Chilterns, can't be avoided by increasing the curvature.

Removing the fake 'need' for 400 km/h speed would have allowed a choice from much wider range of routes, or re-use of the southern Great Central formation.

Going right down to 200km/h might allow the formation to be narrowed a bit, saving on land purchase and tunnel cross-section, but these are only a tiny part of the cost of building a new route.

HS2 Ltd have been asked for, but have failed to provide, detailed information about the infrastructure costs associated with different maximum linespeeds.

Offsetting them would be the extra cost of more trains and crews because each one could do fewer journeys in a day, and the reduced revenue because more people would find it just as quick to drive.

So, what is the additional journey time arising from running trains at 250 km/h maximum to Manchester and Birmingham? And how many more people would find it just as quick to drive?

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 average cost per km is not a useful comparator. A comparison based on a HS2 section having the same proportion of tunnel etc as the Dawlish bypass would be useful. But HS2 Ltd are unwilling to provide costs of individual sections of their route.

The original documents provided ballpark figures per kilometre of each different type of civil engineering work required.

Maximum linespeed is a determinant of the route taken by a railway. Lower speed routes require less straightness, reducing the need for tunnels, etc. So it is nonsense to claim that a lower speed route requires "the same level of earthworks and other major engineering features" as a higher speed one.

But when you reduce linespeed, you are just decreasing the minimum curve radius. Instead of tunnelling through a landscape feature, you would be building a longer route around it. That isn't always necessarily any cheaper or better for the environment - tunnels are the best mitigation method available, and if you start building more surface civils, you'll need more mitigation to compensate.

Correct. There is no real need for them. As the 'Channel Tunnel Rail Link', HS1 was originally intended to carry only international trains. A domestic service was only added to justify the public subsidies for building the line.

The domestic service makes sense once you have committed to building the infrastructure. Would you now remove it?

There was no standalone case for HS1 domestic services. See above.

Wonderful. Is that relevant to this argument here?

There's no information on how many lines in Britain, Spain, Italy, or France would be 'capable of 230-250km/h with upgrades'. The East Coast, Great Western, and Great Central corridors are all likely to be suitable for 250 km/h operation.

Indeed the Great Western probably is between London and Bristol. However, the ECML probably isn't, because although it may be for the most part very straight, the relevant figure is the curve radius where it isn't and it doesn't look pretty. Even York to Darlington isn't that straight given that it has a non-significant bend right in the middle which will cap top speeds.

In Germany, the railway operator and authorities did not permit >160km/h running without special signalling, similar to how >200km/h running is not allowed in the UK without it. Since they brought in that signalling system, it means there is no special figure at which track speeds would be capped. For example, Network Rail would never previously bother approving the GWML track for >200km/h running because there would be no way to run trains over it at that speed. Had in-cab signalling and increased speeds been introduced under BR, then I can't see it being a problem, but since they weren't, the network has developed in such a way which will make it much more difficult to implement in future.

Class 395 has to be able to run on the HS1. Which, in your parlance, 'runs' at 300km/h.

You are being deliberately obtuse because you know your arguments are specious.

What was subjective?

Because I'm holding you to the same standard you demand of me. If you don't want me to criticise you for being subjective, you have to back up what you say with referenced facts and figures. If you can't be bothered to do it, don't criticise me for doing the same.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Removing the fake 'need' for 400 km/h speed would have allowed a choice from much wider range of routes, or re-use of the southern Great Central formation.

HS2 doesn't reach 400km/h until it has exited the Chilterns Tunnels. From then on, it uses the Great Central formation as much as it can, given that the Great Central passes close to or through towns and villages. You can't reopen a fast railway of any speed through a variety of towns and villages without causing upset, and any major towns would need to have the same sorts of bypasses built just as far away. If you're going to need to stay a few kilometres away from any major town, you're going to have a wide curve radius.

HS2 Ltd have been asked for, but have failed to provide, detailed information about the infrastructure costs associated with different maximum linespeeds.

Because there is no major gradient in costs. A 400km/h viaduct will have only just a bit more concrete in it than a 300km/h or a 200km/h one, and the construction impact will be almost the same.

So, what is the additional journey time arising from running trains at 250 km/h maximum to Manchester and Birmingham? And how many more people would find it just as quick to drive?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Government wants to spend more money than they need to, given the difficult politics of the scheme?

The 400km/h top speed is intended to allow London-Scotland journeys of just above two hours in the future. If Great Britain ended at Preston, we wouldn't be building HS2 like we are.

There would need to be a business case for running trains at 250km/h that was better than the case for 330-360-400km/h for it to be worth doing. That takes into account any (minor) reductions in cost as well as the resulting economic and commercial effects. Network Rail didn't think a 250km/h railway was worth building back in their New Lines Programme, and they're the people whose job it is to make the railways work. If you know better, then why don't you present your ideas to them? Even the HSUK people think that >300km/h is the way to go.

 

[Voglitz]

The original documents provided ballpark figures per kilometre of each different type of civil engineering work required.

What is the cost of a section of HS2 having the same tunnel / cutting mix as the Dawlish bypass?

But when you reduce linespeed, you are just decreasing the minimum curve radius. Instead of tunnelling through a landscape feature, you would be building a longer route around it. That isn't always necessarily any cheaper or better for the environment - tunnels are the best mitigation method available, and if you start building more surface civils, you'll need more mitigation to compensate.

The HS2 route to Leeds and Manchester is no shorter than the classic routes, so the idea that 'curvature of the classic routes makes them longer than new-build', is false.

BTW, HS2 Ltd's Andrew McNaughton said that tunnels cost about seven times as much as surface track.

The domestic service makes sense once you have committed to building the infrastructure. Would you now remove it?

It can't really be removed, because the government have effectively guaranteed HS1 Ltd an income stream from track access charges. The sale of the HS1 lease would never have taken place, without that income stream.

Indeed the Great Western probably is between London and Bristol. However, the ECML probably isn't, because although it may be for the most part very straight, the relevant figure is the curve radius where it isn't and it doesn't look pretty. Even York to Darlington isn't that straight given that it has a non-significant bend right in the middle which will cap top speeds.

You haven't surveyed the route. So you don't know.

HS2 doesn't reach 400km/h until it has exited the Chilterns Tunnels. From then on, it uses the Great Central formation as much as it can, given that the Great Central passes close to or through towns and villages. You can't reopen a fast railway of any speed through a variety of towns and villages without causing upset, and any major towns would need to have the same sorts of bypasses built just as far away. If you're going to need to stay a few kilometres away from any major town, you're going to have a wide curve radius.

The amount of "upset" involved with reactivating the Great Central formation is unlikely to be anything like building hundreds of km of HS2 across open countryside.

Because there is no major gradient in costs.

You don't know what the cost differentials are.

If you do, why not set out the details, in £.

A 400km/h viaduct will have only just a bit more concrete in it than a 300km/h or a 200km/h one, and the construction impact will be almost the same.

If a lower speed route didn't need the viaduct, or needed a shorter one, the costs could be massively different.

And for the tunnels, the cost increase for high speed is enormous.

Why wasn't LGV PSE built for 400 km/h, or 500 km/h, linespeed?

The 400km/h top speed is intended to allow London-Scotland journeys of just above two hours in the future. If Great Britain ended at Preston, we wouldn't be building HS2 like we are.

There is no sign of any demand case for a new line to Scotland.

There would need to be a business case for running trains at 250km/h that was better than the case for 330-360-400km/h for it to be worth doing. That takes into account any (minor) reductions in cost as well as the resulting economic and commercial effects.

So, what is the additional journey time arising from running trains at 250 km/h maximum to Manchester and Birmingham? And how many more people would find it just as quick to drive?

Network Rail didn't think a 250km/h railway was worth building back in their New Lines Programme, and they're the people whose job it is to make the railways work. If you know better, then why don't you present your ideas to them? Even the HSUK people think that >300km/h is the way to go.

A few weeks ago, Network Rail issued a report about Xmas disruption at Kings Cross, which suggested that the Highgate to Alexandra Palace branch was still part of the rail network. Their credibility must be somewhere near rock bottom.

 

[Noddy]

I do find it ironic that McCoy advocates rebuilding 'HS' lines on formations which were designed by visionaries in the 19th century, who could foresee that:

a) we'd run faster trains in the future
b) we'd run larger trains in the future

But he is against 21st century engineers doing the same thing. I've not seen that any of his proposals and comments solve these.

 

[edwin_m]

What is the cost of a section of HS2 having the same tunnel / cutting mix as the Dawlish bypass?

The HS2 route to Leeds and Manchester is no shorter than the classic routes, so the idea that 'curvature of the classic routes makes them longer than new-build', is false.

BTW, HS2 Ltd's Andrew McNaughton said that tunnels cost about seven times as much as surface track.

It can't really be removed, because the government have effectively guaranteed HS1 Ltd an income stream from track access charges. The sale of the HS1 lease would never have taken place, without that income stream.

You haven't surveyed the route. So you don't know.

The amount of "upset" involved with reactivating the Great Central formation is unlikely to be anything like building hundreds of km of HS2 across open countryside.

You don't know what the cost differentials are.

If you do, why not set out the details, in £.

If a lower speed route didn't need the viaduct, or needed a shorter one, the costs could be massively different.

And for the tunnels, the cost increase for high speed is enormous.

Why wasn't LGV PSE built for 400 km/h, or 500 km/h, linespeed?

There is no sign of any demand case for a new line to Scotland.

So, what is the additional journey time arising from running trains at 250 km/h maximum to Manchester and Birmingham? And how many more people would find it just as quick to drive?

A few weeks ago, Network Rail issued a report about Xmas disruption at Kings Cross, which suggested that the Highgate to Alexandra Palace branch was still part of the rail network. Their credibility must be somewhere near rock bottom.

You basically aren't going to get definitive answers to these questions on a forum like this.

HS2 and Network Rail have done work on this sort of question, some of which are on their websites, but I suspect you would not believe this because you would assume it was biased. I an probably some others here have been involved professionally with HS2 but even if we were able to reveal details that aren't already public, you would presumably ignore them for the same reason. And unless you or someone else is prepared to spend a five or six figure sum having some independent consultancy done then all you're going to get is opinions whether informed or not.

 

[nidave]

The amount of "upset" involved with reactivating the Great Central formation is unlikely to be anything like building hundreds of km of HS2 across open countryside.

I would say the exact opposite is true - send it through as much open countryside as possible, this will reduce any negative impacts on the people on the current line and also allow the current line to remain in use.

 

[Trog]

I would say the exact opposite is true - send it through as much open countryside as possible, this will reduce any negative impacts on the people on the current line and also allow the current line to remain in use.

Probably also much cheaper to build new, than have to rebuild all the existing structures to suitable standards and loading gauge.

 

[nidave]

Probably also much cheaper to build new, than have to rebuild all the existing structures to suitable standards and loading gauge.

And you get more capacity with a new line which will last years into the future, not a small increase benefiting only those already on the line which gets full a lot quicker bringing you back to the point we are now.

I thought the Victorians always went with the simplest, straightest route they could with the technology available at the time. This allowed for upgrades to happen in the future (now the past).

 

[Voglitz]

I do find it ironic that McCoy advocates rebuilding 'HS' lines on formations which were designed by visionaries in the 19th century, who could foresee that:

a) we'd run faster trains in the future
b) we'd run larger trains in the future

But he is against 21st century engineers doing the same thing. I've not seen that any of his proposals and comments solve these.

I'm not advocating building 300 km/h lines in Britain on formations which were designed by visionaries in the 19th century. What is the additional journey time arising from running trains at 250 km/h maximum, instead of 330 or 400 km/h, to Manchester and Birmingham?

I would say the exact opposite is true - send it through as much open countryside as possible, this will reduce any negative impacts on the people on the current line and also allow the current line to remain in use.

Upgrading the existing line would be less disruptive to existing lines, than building HS2. The overall disruption to the West Coast line in building HS2 at Euston, Golborne, Armitage, and Crewe, would be enormous.

 

[nidave]

I'm not advocating building 300 km/h lines in Britain on formations which were designed by visionaries in the 19th century. What is the additional journey time arising from running trains at 250 km/h maximum, instead of 330 or 400 km/h, to Manchester and Birmingham?



Upgrading the existing line would be less disruptive to existing lines, than building HS2. The overall disruption to the West Coast line in building HS2 at Euston, Golborne, Armitage, and Crewe, would be enormous.

But the disruption would be shorter for a smaller stretch of the line compared to the disruption needed if you wanted to just upgrade the whole current line. Plus you loose the extra capacity.

I will throw my circumstances into the ring.. I live in London but commute to Manchester 3-4 times a month. I used to drive but the M6 especially on a Friday was taking about 6 hours for what would be a 3 hour journey. Now I get the train - wish I had started doing it earlier - I commute at odd times - peak and off peak depending on when I can get out of the office after my meetings but I have found most trips very well loaded in the peak and really bad in the off peak especially London to Manchester direction. I will admit one person does not make a good sample but I cant wait for HS2 to Manchester

 

[Voglitz]

Probably also much cheaper to build new, than have to rebuild all the existing structures to suitable standards and loading gauge.

What is the capacity gain from rebuilding all the existing structures to a larger loading gauge?

But the disruption would be shorter for a smaller stretch of the line compared to the disruption needed if you wanted to just upgrade the whole current line. Plus you loose the extra capacity.

Euston HS2 = potentially 20 years of disruption, and reduced capacity, at the West Coast Main Line's busiest point.

 

[nidave]

What is the capacity gain from rebuilding all the existing structures to a larger loading gauge?
.

I dont have the answer to that however its obvious that you can have the current capacity on the current line and have all this extra capacity on a new line - its new infrastructure so even with doing nothing to the existing line you still get extra capacity as the people that move to HS2 can then be filled up by new people taking the current line.

Euston HS2 = potentially 20 years of disruption, and reduced capacity, at the West Coast Main Line's busiest point

Who has said that? Source please? London Bridge is getting a massive rebuild and its not taking that long. did Kings Cross St P take 20 years to rebuild? the first phase of construction began in 2008 and it opened in opened in March 2012 - so 4 Years.

yes it will have reduced capacity during construction but after that you get a shiny new railway with all that extra space for people. I dont understand peoples obsession with - "no matter what the benefit in the future I dont want it to happen as it might cause some disruption in the short to medium term" - in other words "F*** everyone as along as I am happy. "

 

[Voglitz]

Who has said that? Source please? London Bridge is getting a massive rebuild and its not taking that long. did Kings Cross St P take 20 years to rebuild? the first phase of construction began in 2008 and it opened in opened in March 2012 - so 4 Years.

The Camden New Journal reported on HS2's Euston "triple u-turn" which could "extend building works in Camden into the 2040s".

I dont understand peoples obsession with - "no matter what the benefit in the future I dont want it to happen as it might cause some disruption in the short to medium term" - in other words "F*** everyone as along as I am happy. "

That objection is not based on the disruption in the short to medium term. It is based on the opportunity costs, the low value for money, the high risk, and the environmental damage.

 

[nidave]

The Camden New Journal reported on HS2's Euston "triple u-turn" which could "extend building works in Camden into the 2040s".

That objection is not based on the disruption in the short to medium term. It is based on the opportunity costs, the low value for money, the high risk, and the environmental damage.

Euston "triple u-turn" which could "extend building works in Camden into the 2040s".

the word there is Could - its click bait to sell adverts to readers by appealing to there sense of outrage. Like all newspapers it is there to sell adverts. They print what will get people to read them - the content of the article does not reflect the headline. We don't have a start date for the project or a final design so we don't know the final design for Eustion nor the mitigation that will be put in place.

Do you use the train on the lines to any of the destinations or even any train or tube at all especially during the peak? If so you will know that there is a capacity problem its being addressed with the long term view, just like crossrail is for London and Thameslink - its about giving people the opportunity to get where they want to go to

The fact people want to use public transport should be applauded as its far more environmentally friendly than driving or should we all just stay local and never travel and go back to farming the fields and bartering chickens?

 

[The Planner]

I an probably some others here have been involved professionally with HS2 but even if we were able to reveal details that aren't already public, you would presumably ignore them for the same reason.

This, there is so much more that cannot be revealed or certainly discussed on a public forum currently that would probably require the thread to be started again! I know for a fact there is plenty going on that would blow some of both arguments here out of the water.

 

[D365]

This, there is so much more that cannot be revealed or certainly discussed on a public forum currently that would probably require the thread to be started again! I know for a fact there is plenty going on that would blow some of both arguments here out of the water.

Which I find, makes it a shame that any such information cannot be disclosed [at this time?].

 

[Noddy]

I'm not advocating building 300 km/h lines in Britain on formations which were designed by visionaries in the 19th century. What is the additional journey time arising from running trains at 250 km/h maximum, instead of 330 or 400 km/h, to Manchester and Birmingham?



Upgrading the existing line would be less disruptive to existing lines, than building HS2. The overall disruption to the West Coast line in building HS2 at Euston, Golborne, Armitage, and Crewe, would be enormous.

There, you just said it in your second paragraph.

By the way 250kph is defined in the EU as high speed rail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Definitions
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Upgrading the existing line would be less disruptive to existing lines, than building HS2.

That's really, really special logic there!

 

[Voglitz]

I know for a fact there is plenty going on that would blow some of both arguments here out of the water.

I don't believe you.

Euston "triple u-turn" which could "extend building works in Camden into the 2040s".

the word there is Could - its click bait to sell adverts to readers by appealing to there sense of outrage. Like all newspapers it is there to sell adverts. They print what will get people to read them - the content of the article does not reflect the headline. We don't have a start date for the project or a final design so we don't know the final design for Eustion nor the mitigation that will be put in place.

And I said, "Euston HS2 = potentially 20 years of disruption, and reduced capacity, at the West Coast Main Line's busiest point."

There, you just said it in your second paragraph.

Said what?

There's no mention of 300 km/h in that paragraph. You're reading in things, which aren't there.

That's really, really special logic there!

Please explain.

How is upgrading the existing line for additional capacity, more disruptive?

 

[D365]

I don't believe you.

And we don't have to believe you. You haven't shown us any comprehensive evidence to back up your postings.

How is upgrading the existing line for additional capacity, more disruptive?

... Because it's an entire working railway, the busiest mixed-traffic route in Europe, and needs to stay open. Is that right?