HS2 Plans...

[90019]

Which city in Scotland will the line terminate at?

Perth, or maybe Stirling.

Why would you want to end it at Stirling? :?

Surely you'd be much better off ending it at either Glasgow or Edinburgh, as they're the major population centres in Scotland.

Perth, maybe, but at the same time, why?
It's approx 1-1 1/2 hours to Edinburgh or Glasgow from them, and I would be willing to say that a lot of people who would use it to get to Scotland would be coming to Edinburgh or Glasgow rather than going to Perth or Stirling, and I think it would lose a fair bit of it's attraction if you had to add between 40 and 90 minutes to the end of your journey.

 

[vtiman]

the comments here are so depressing and negative and this on a so called enthusiasts site. firstly this idea that somehow Gordon Brown caused all the economic problems is ludicrous I would like to see some of the commentators trying to run the country.

We are potentially in a very exciting time when the major parties agree on high speed rail. Why does anyone say it is not needed. I guess since I last travelled all flights to the north have been cancelled as there is no demand and the traffic jams on the M6 have all disappeared and it has been grassed over !

We all now how costly and disruptive it was upgrading the WCML and we still only got 125 mph / 200 kph ! And new carriages are hopefully on their way but in any case the WCML will be out of capacity in a few years.

Building a high speed line would allow extra capacity for freight and more services could serve more stations on the so called classic lines..

I get so annoyed when everyone is so negative and assumes the worst oh it wont be done oh its just an election ploy. And then to say we done need it.

Japan is more crowded then the UK and the topography more challenging. This is not some new invention either other countries have shown it to work and the HS1 is a success at some point there probably wont be any London paris flights. Why should we not be able to have a similar countrywide link which will also link in to Europe !!!!

 

[Domeyhead]

Sniper's earlier post makes an interesting argument which I find persuasive. As there is a finite amount for rail investment would we prefer to see it all consumed on one mega project (say HS2 and/or Crossrail) or an equivalent amount spent relaying viable old lines and expanding the existing infrastructure? I'd go further and say that money spent on new or expanded urban tram systems might actually have more benefit in terms of total passenger km? Round my neck of the woods the Treasury canned an integrated urban tram/train solution after all the options had been surveyed to death by consultants, and now instead of a joined up network we've got.........5 miles of guided busway. £60bn of rail investment buys a lot of reinstated lines and mass transit solutions and - dare I say it - a lot of grant aid for new freight terminals.
If the Government want to get people out of short haul planes and onto existing trains they need to
a) force the airlines to stop lying about the true costs of tickets (1p for the ticket then £75 on "taxes and surcharges"
b) Stop the mislabelling of regional airports (Since when have Luton or Stanstead been in London?
c)Get rid of the ridiculous confusing mess of rail ticket pricing. You need to be as obsessive as Barry Doe to get the best price these days. It should be one journey - one price.
d) Get rid of Dinosaurs like SWT Driver who still thinks of passengers as cattle. I have never been insulted by a pilot or even a coach driver and I don't expect to be insulted by a train driver. While his contemptuous attitude still pervades the industry then neither of the above alternatives will happen anyway.

 

[Wyvern]

The Sunday Times states that the line will be passing close to Tony Blair's luxurious Chilterns pile in Wotten Underwood. There must be much speculation amongst locals and enthusiasts regarding the exact line of route. Where could it puncture itself into the Chilterns ? . . . . . . etc..

Makes "Cranford" the TV series seem quite topical!

 

[jon0844]

If HS2 was really going to happen, I'd be happy for it to be built.

But, I fear it is nothing but an election ploy. If, sorry when, Labour lose the next election, they will indeed use this as a 'we set the project in motion, the Tories axed it' argument.

Gordon Brown allowed everyone in the late 1990s to rack up huge credit card/store card debts, take out huge loans and lie about income to get mortgages. Everyone was told the property market was booming and would never bust, so buy more property. Every TV programme was telling Joe Public to invest in property, become property developers, landlords etc..

And then we got to bust. Yes, we can blame the US for a lot of it - but let's not pretend Gordon Brown wasn't just as much to blame. However, I will say one thing; I have no doubt the same would have happened whoever was in control. It just so happened to be Labour. I am sure that worldwide, we had Governments left, right and centre involved.

I also fear that HS2 will also be built by a private company/partnership who will no doubt (like HS1) be allowed to charge a premium to help pay for the construction. Therefore, HS2 will cost significantly more than it needs to - even though the tax payer is bound to be contributing a hefty proportion anyway.

Rail fares are already sky high.. I just think HS2 when it is built will be out of this world. Perhaps it should be built with first class only, and everyone else is forced to use the old WCML/ECML services instead.

Sadly, the only way we're likely to see such a thing built is if the Government, now or later, decides to fund it privately.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Who in the private sector would fund such a project? It would never make any money. Railways rarely do.

 

[tsubaki]

@tsubaki which towns? In general, unless you've got a properly commutable (ie reliably 2tph minimum) service to a major city (Bristol/Brum/Manc/Liverpool/Sheffield/Leeds/Newcastle/Glasgow/Edinburgh) and/or a sub-3-hour service to London, the value of a rail link to a provincial town is negligible

Even using your criteria, which I dont particularly agree with (a link for smaller towns to larger towns/small cities would be both viable and would benefit both ends of the line, imho) would justify the reopening of many lines - if you drew circles around those cities you mentioned, using one hours commuting time as a maximum, you would cover a great deal of the country.

Also, domeyhead makes a lot of good points.

 

[jon0844]

Who in the private sector would fund such a project? It would never make any money. Railways rarely do.

If the Government sets up a scheme, whereby the constructor (which will probably be a partnership arrangement as against all-out private) makes an ongoing profit from the use of the railway, I am sure there will be people interested.

Of course, that will mean a levy on all usage that will be passed on to you and me. There's already a hefty surcharge for using HS1, so imagine something similar - or much worse - on HS2 and any other new lines.

I can imagine them being like toll-roads. As air travel will continue to get more expensive, it's not as if Ryanair and the like will be able to keep competing anyway. Their pricing model cannot continue forever, unless aeroplanes get significantly more fuel efficient in the coming years. That and all the extra 'green' taxes that will be levied on them, the airports and so on.

 

[route:oxford]

Why would you want to end it at Stirling? :?

Surely you'd be much better off ending it at either Glasgow or Edinburgh, as they're the major population centres in Scotland.

Perth, maybe, but at the same time, why?
It's approx 1-1 1/2 hours to Edinburgh or Glasgow from them, and I would be willing to say that a lot of people who would use it to get to Scotland would be coming to Edinburgh or Glasgow rather than going to Perth or Stirling, and I think it would lose a fair bit of it's attraction if you had to add between 40 and 90 minutes to the end of your journey.

Not quite sure why it would add 90 minutes to the end of the journey...

Very few passengers would choose not to disembark at their destination of Edinburgh/Glasgow and continue on to the terminus of Stirling/Perth - unless they happened to have obtained a particularily good advance purchase ticket that made it worth their while.

Fastest Services

Perth-Glasgow 1h00m
Glasgow-Perth 0h52m (Quicker uphill!)

Stirling-Glasgow 0h30m
Glasgow-Stirling 0h24m (Again quicker uphill!)

 

[Dave R]

I thought HS2 was meant to join the WCML at Preston and go to Scotland from there

 

[90019]

Not quite sure why it would add 90 minutes to the end of the journey...

Very few passengers would choose not to disembark at their destination of Edinburgh/Glasgow and continue on to the terminus of Stirling/Perth - unless they happened to have obtained a particularily good advance purchase ticket that made it worth their while.

Fastest Services

Perth-Glasgow 1h00m
Glasgow-Perth 0h52m (Quicker uphill!)

Stirling-Glasgow 0h30m
Glasgow-Stirling 0h24m (Again quicker uphill!)

I'm talking about Edinburgh as well as Glasgow, which takes slightly longer. (50 mins for Stirling, 70-90 for Perth)

Also, why would you have it stop at Edinburgh or Glasgow then carry on to Stirling or Perth? i really don't see why it would be at all worth it, the decrease in journey time would be minimal, and I seriously doubt it would be worth the cost. If you really wanted to decrease times, find a way to improve the current ones from Edinburgh/Glasgow.


Ending it at Stirling or Perth doesn't seem a great idea anyway, especially as they are much smaller than Edinburgh and Glasgow - they have populations of just over 40,000, compared to Edinburgh's 471,650 and Glasgow's 580,690 (2008 and 2006 estimates respectively).

Continuing it up to Aberdeen or Inverness, I can sort of understand, because you could get greater time savings if you have little or no intermediate stops.

 

[me123]

Why would you want to end it at Stirling? :?

Surely you'd be much better off ending it at either Glasgow or Edinburgh, as they're the major population centres in Scotland.

Perth, maybe, but at the same time, why?
It's approx 1-1 1/2 hours to Edinburgh or Glasgow from them, and I would be willing to say that a lot of people who would use it to get to Scotland would be coming to Edinburgh or Glasgow rather than going to Perth or Stirling, and I think it would lose a fair bit of it's attraction if you had to add between 40 and 90 minutes to the end of your journey.

I think, ultimately, getting it up to Aberdeen and Inverness should be an aim. Construct a new terminal at Glasgow St. Enoch to allow through trains, and get some high speed running up to the Highlands and Aberdeen.

OK, I'm a dreamer, but imagine Aberdeen-London in 4 hours by train... Not quite as many benefits as there are for Glasgow and Edinburgh, but it would still compete with air.

 

[route:oxford]

I'm talking about Edinburgh as well as Glasgow, which takes slightly longer. (50 mins for Stirling, 70-90 for Perth)

0h46m on the Highland Chieftan or 0h41m to Stirling on the evening commuter express.

Also, why would you have it stop at Edinburgh or Glasgow then carry on to Stirling or Perth? i really don't see why it would be at all worth it, the decrease in journey time would be minimal, and I seriously doubt it would be worth the cost. If you really wanted to decrease times, find a way to improve the current ones from Edinburgh/Glasgow.

Simply because I strongly believe that there is more to Scotland than Edinburgh or Glasgow. The best way to decrease current journey times is through electrification. Wires would be necessary to run this beastie north of Edinburgh/Glasgow anyway. I cannot see the line being electrified North of Perth towards Inverness.

Ending it at Stirling or Perth doesn't seem a great idea anyway, especially as they are much smaller than Edinburgh and Glasgow - they have populations of just over 40,000, compared to Edinburgh's 471,650 and Glasgow's 580,690 (2008 and 2006 estimates respectively).

If you put it like that, there's little point running "The Highland Chieftan" or the "Caledonian Sleeper" and having it stop at Gleneagles, Stirling & Falkirk - despite it being pretty well loaded.

 

[90019]

I think, ultimately, getting it up to Aberdeen and Inverness should be an aim. Construct a new terminal at Glasgow St. Enoch to allow through trains, and get some high speed running up to the Highlands and Aberdeen.

OK, I'm a dreamer, but imagine Aberdeen-London in 4 hours by train... Not quite as many benefits as there are for Glasgow and Edinburgh, but it would still compete with air.

I think we should have HS2 go through Glasgow, and get the ECML upgraded to 140.
Ideally get the wires up to Aberdeen or Inverness so you can have more London-Inverness/Aberdeen trains.

 

[me123]

Wires up to Aberdeen don't seem far off as it stands. We're only a few years off getting electrification to Dunblane. Perth and Dundee would naturally follow along with Aberdeen and Fife. Inverness may be harder to justify, but certainly full lowland electrification is not far off.

 

[90019]

0h46m on the Highland Chieftan or 0h41m to Stirling on the evening commuter express.

Minimum time is all very well, but average time is more relevant.

Simply because I strongly believe that there is more to Scotland than Edinburgh or Glasgow. The best way to decrease current journey times is through electrification. Wires would be necessary to run this beastie north of Edinburgh/Glasgow anyway. I cannot see the line being electrified North of Perth towards Inverness.

Maybe so, but they're still the major population centres, and afaik, are where the majority of demand for travel to Scotland from England currently is.

If you put it like that, there's little point running "The Highland Chieftan" or the "Caledonian Sleeper" and having it stop at Gleneagles, Stirling & Falkirk - despite it being pretty well loaded.

The Sleeper is a different type of service to a high speed line, and isn't really comparible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wires up to Aberdeen don't seem far off as it stands. We're only a few years off getting electrification to Dunblane. Perth and Dundee would naturally follow along with Aberdeen and Fife. Inverness may be harder to justify, but certainly full lowland electrification is not far off.

I'm interested to see what happens about wiring up the Forth Bridge.

 

[Donny Dave]

90% of England is still unpopulated and undeveloped. I reckon we can find room, as long as we're happy for a few halfwitted NIMBY/BANANA types to be Tasered a bit.

Japan is more crowded then the UK and the topography more challenging. This is not some new invention either other countries have shown it to work and the HS1 is a success at some point there probably wont be any London paris flights. Why should we not be able to have a similar countrywide link which will also link in to Europe !!!!

Japan is a different matter to the UK as they did have the space to build high speed lines. This in turn led to the regeneration of towns along the route as they had a fast connection to the major cities. This effectively means they built around the Shinkansen .....

Another factor about the Japanese network, is that it is over 1600km (1000 miles) from end to end (Hachinohe - Tokyo - Osaka - Hakata). The only route that is likely to be cost effective in the UK is London to Scotland. Assuming the principle stations along the route will be Birmingham, Manchester, Preston and Carlisle (or Leeds and Newcastle if going to Edinburgh), that means you literally have to bulldoze your way through the heart of 4 or 5 cities (plus London and which ever Scottish city the line terminates at) which is going to be extremely expensive. The alternative is to build sections of high speed line, then have them run on classic lines through the cities which will defeat the object of time savings anyway !

As I said in my original post in this thread (and others have said), We don't need the high speed route. What we do need however is a lot of capacity increases on current routes, and any other diversionare toutes that need building and/or upgrading.

 

[jon0844]

If you look at how towns and communities built up around the railway (especially the London tube network), there's almost a case for building new high-speed lines to the unpopulated parts of the country and building new towns and cities.

This would have many benefits, not least being able to build better roads and services for these new towns, instead of cramming in more shoe boxes and over populating existing places.

That would be quite radical thinking though, especially if these new places eventually become as big, or bigger, than the cities we currently go to/from (places that might actually benefit from a reduction in population).

 

[vtiman]

But as I said before we spent a huge amount of money and time and disruption rebuilding WCML. We could have had adecent stretch of hsl for that amount of money.

The primary reason for hsl is to increase capacity so that more people can use rail which pollutes less than any other source, assuming people are still going to be travelling but i think that is very likely.

If you are going to build another line you may as well build the best and the fastest that you can.

Finally, LGV lines terminate into existing terminals so I dont see why there needs to be a new HSR station built at every location in the UK the lines go to.

If you then say that existing terminals are full then you are arguing against yourself because even if you expand existing lines you would still need new or expanded terminals to put them in.

So unless we want to grind to a halt and have planes and cars everywhere (roads and runways arent cheap either and have to go somewhere too)
we need HSR.

I dont understand why people think that HSR would not be profitable or that there is not demand. If that were the case the motorways would not be so busy in the North nor would there be as many flights !!

And let's not forget that some of the capacity released by HS2 could be used for freight which we overlook sometimes. Talking of electrification the wires should go up from Southampton to Nuneaton to Felixstowe to allow freight to run more efficiently. Maybe the govt should give these lines to the railfreight association for free to run in exchange for electrification !!! they could then charge the hauliers on a per mile basis much more favourable than NR.

To summarise HSR is the only logical rational and sensible option as it provides extra capacity quiker journey times and less pollution. One could ask why every other country so switched on to the benefits of HSR..

 

[jon0844]

It isn't just high-speed rail, and long routes to get people from north to south very quickly, or in other directions.

I think we simply need to build more railway lines, open new stations and improve the network generally. And, presumably, new lines would be built to a standard that would allow faster running anyway.

More tracks, faster operation, more capacity (better signalling) would all allow for not only faster trains - but more regular services. Regular services are what will get people out of their cars. Trains that can run 24/7 (as there are alternative options for maintenance) will also get people out of their cars.

I am not against high-speed rail at all, but a fast line from London to Scotland only solves one 'problem'.

In the next 50-100 years, we'll be running very low on oil (or more to the point, oil extraction will be incredibly expensive) so air travel may well become incredibly expensive if we haven't got some alternative fuel that is cheap, plentiful and usable for aviation.

The electric train will ultimately win the battle, especially if the electricity produced is totally green.

 

[crewmeal]

Lets hope they plan properly for the right snow equipment on the pantagraphs, and when they break down a suitable coupling for a diesel to tow them away.

 

[Failed Unit]

I have seen a story that is concerned about HS2 ripping up miles of unspoilt countryside (the lake district). I think that it was in the times.

The article seemed to forget that the M6 is already there and isn't very sexy! Likewise if you look at some of the lines that rip through scenic areas they are seen as an enhancement not an scar. Settle - Carlisle and Fort William - Maillag for example and the viaducts they have seem to be things that people want to see. Looks like the NIMBY's will be the bigger battle as not many people the Lake District will really see any benefit anyway. Remember how hard it was to get HS1 through Kent.

 

[Metroland]

the comments here are so depressing and negative and this on a so called enthusiasts site. firstly this idea that somehow Gordon Brown caused all the economic problems is ludicrous I would like to see some of the commentators trying to run the country.
!

I'm afraid it's fairly typical of not just this site, but comments from the public in general. If people want to know why transport is not higher up the agenda or we don't have better railways, it has an awful lot to do with public perceptions and support. Of course not helped by the tabloid habit of moaning about late trains, but failing to point out the alternatives are worse.

So effectively you are up against a huge perception problem, and one where comments are thrown about as fact, which on closer examination appear not to be the case.

Only this morning I read the rail line is not a solution, because rail has never been profitable. Totally untrue: intercity and freight has always been relatively profitable, and similar high speed lines abroad are expected to produce operating profits. Airlines, overall, have always lost more money than they have ever made, but nobody has ever argued they are not worth having? Rail is the ideal solution for dense flows, in a densely populated country over medium distances: 50-450 miles. If it can be demonstrated that external benefits can be produced, then it's an investment.

The NIMBYS will no doubt be out in force, a huge bedrock of objection will come from the Chilterns - even though the M40 will share the same corridor. There was similar scare stories about HS1, truth is, hardly anyone notices it. Take the A6 road through the peak district from Derby to Buxton. A rail line shares the majority of this corridor, whether it be the Midland Main line, the Matlock branch, Peak rail or freight lines around Buxton. But you hardly notice its there! Drive the road and see.

I remain sceptical that a new line will ever go through the Lake district. The load factors on the current trains are hardly high, and whereas the Pendolinos have had some success increasing rail's share over the Scottish market, and huge success from the NW, its not hard to see a line on the other side of the coast, serving more population and traversing easier countryside might be the easier option. We shall have to see what the report says!

BTW, the latest rumour for a central London Station is the King's cross/Euston area. I had a quick look at Google earth, the only place I can see possible n the lands north of St Pancras. Unless they slice off part of Regents park, double deck Euston, or build underground.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Take the A6 road through the peak district from Derby to Buxton. A rail line shares the majority of this corridor, whether it be the Midland Main line, the Matlock branch, Peak rail or freight lines around Buxton. But you hardly notice its there! Drive the road and see.

The primary reason it would seem for building HS2 is not that we would like to travel between London and the North faster, but that the WCML will be full by 2016 or 2017.

During the original WCML electrification in the 1960s, many trains were diverted down the Midland Main Line through the peak. Unfortunately, about 16 miles of that route is now missing, hence the reason Project Rio had trains running via the Hope Valley (i.e. east to go south!).

It seems to me that a low cost way to solve the capacity issues north-south would be to reinstate this 16 miles. If you want to be more ambitious, re-open Woodhead Tunnel (although again, this is east to go south).

For some reason, all the recent feasibility studies on reopening the Millers Dale - Rowsley route have been commissioned by Derbyshire County Council, and the conclusion has always been that as far as DCC is concerned, there is no buisness case.... no **it Sherlock!! This is a strategic national issue, not one for a county council.

Wake up Lord Adonis (or Mr Hammond) and get this sorted!! This will give you some capacity until you can afford a proper fix instead of a sticking plaster. And, the next time you want to play with either the WCML or the ECML, you'll have a credible diversionary route to use north-south.

Rant over!

 

[jon0844]

A fairly narrow line with trains giving off no emissions surely can't be considered an eyesore? Perhaps during construction, but not for the many many years thereafter?

As said above, it will become something to look at for people living there - as well as boosting tourism when people travel through and enjoy amazing views and decide to go there (obviously another time if the HS train isn't stopping there).

 

[Metroland]

'Low cost' might be possible. I certainly would be interested if there is a case for reopening the GCR from Buckinghamshire to Leicester, and via Woodhead to name one example.

Overall, however, the reason for any project to get the go ahead is how many benefits it can produce. Where you have time savings (aka HSR) between major centres, which produce agglomerating benefits, congestion benefits and so on, it might score better than a 'low cost scheme'.

Low cost can appear to be attractive, but the first rule of mass transit is it has to be decent (usually quicker, more convenient, more comfortable) else people don't use it - especially when up against cars and airlines. And therefore it's simply not worth doing.

Where the rail share of the London to Manchester market it now 80% (compared to air) and 100% on the Liverpool route, and there is considerable success from the upgrade, it's hard to see after adding more coaches just where you get your extra capacity from - especially as more intercity trains squeeze out freight and commuters and there are also demands in these areas.

A much more efficient use of capacity is to keep types of trains segregated, this is why a new line is attractive.

 

[A60K]

BTW, the latest rumour for a central London Station is the King's cross/Euston area. I had a quick look at Google earth, the only place I can see possible n the lands north of St Pancras. Unless they slice off part of Regents park, double deck Euston, or build underground.

Double-decking/underground was the solution adopted by SNCF in Paris for their first two LGVs - at Gare de Lyon new underground platforms for the outer suburban services, and at Montparnasse rebuilding the station on two levels. At Gare de l'Est many of the suburban services were diverted onto new RER Line E in advance of reconstruction of the main station.

Euston's quite tricky because of the road bridge at the throat and Camden Bank, but I think something can be done to get an extra 8-10 platforms in the existing station footprint.

 

[LWB]

I'm sorry but I just don't see the Scotland connection in all this. Surely that is a historical political thing just as the 'Irish Mail' to Holyhead was. Scotland will have assumed full independence long before this project is finished (or even started I suspect) so who pays for the very long and environmetally damaging Manchester to English Border stretch? As the Scots direct their focus more towards Europe than London surely air travel will be more relevant to them than a high speed connection to London. Westminster politicians are locked into a UK view of things instead of an English-centric one.

Or am I missing something?

 

[johnb]

1) Scotland's unlikely to get full independence in the next 50 years, so you'd have to have a very pessimistic view on construction timescales to support your first conclusion.

2) the Preston-Glasgow section of HS2 has the advantage of going through unpopulated land. HS trains are very good at gradients, so these don't matter - overall, it'll be a lot cheaper than most of the English section

3) "environmentally damaging"? Clown.

 

[LWB]

I'm not a clown, I simply live in the unpopulated area that you so eagerly dismiss. I will not benefit from the huge expenditure on this project but am happy to contribute to the English part of it as I in turn benefit from, say London's contribution to the Country's wealth. I think many Scots, especially Mr Alex Salmond, would disagree with your timescale for Scottish independence.

As I see it you have not offered a reasoned response to my seriously posted question yet.