HS2 - register your support.

[yorksrob]

Yes, perhaps a slightly mischievous post on my part

On the few occasions I've used HS1 during the off-peak it's been far from busy though. Maybe there is more scope for getting bums on seats.

 

[jon0844]

HS1 is like an all-first class service, and I've made my opinion about the surcharge known many times. However, HS1 isn't really the same as HS2. In fact, it's more like a TOC simply getting to use a line that was primarily designed to take trains through to mainland Europe.

I wonder if there are enough paths for an open access operator to ever get to use the line, or if they'll all be taken up as and when other operators begin to use the tunnel?

 

[yorksrob]

I doubt there'd be enough destinations in East Kent !

 

[Techniquest]

Where did you read about the fares? I've seen nothing about it. :-?

To answer both everyone else and yourself who asked, the £300 fare I quoted was extracted from the July 2011 issue of The Railway Magazine. For those who have it, it should be found in the readers' letters section, the reader in question having some rather good points regarding the anti-HS2 stance.

My copy's upstairs at the moment, but if necessary I'll dig it out and quote the part relevant to this discussion.

 

[jon0844]

I am sure there will be a £300 fare somewhere, given how much you can pay on VT or EC. But, I certainly don't think it will be fares STARTING at £300, or a flat-rate fare of £300.

To be honest, even talking about what fares might be seems a bit premature. And, what if the £300 fare was an estimate of what it will cost in 2020 money?

 

[LE Greys]

I am sure there will be a £300 fare somewhere, given how much you can pay on VT or EC. But, I certainly don't think it will be fares STARTING at £300, or a flat-rate fare of £300.

To be honest, even talking about what fares might be seems a bit premature. And, what if the £300 fare was an estimate of what it will cost in 2020 money?

Well, allowing for inflation, that's not too much difference. The £300 may be a first class return, or a second class open return, to Glasgow. Not too bad, considering I spent £140 on an SPR to Stonehaven recently. I suspect Birmingham will be more in the £100 bracket.

 

[VideozVideoz]

Sorry if this has been said somewhere but I wanted to make the following point... HS2 will run at 225mph (or similar). By the time HS2 is built and running to Birmingham in 10 years (or Manchester in 20 years) won't 225mph be out of date? In 20 years time, China or Japan will have trains that run at 500mph so isn't this a waste of money? If we're always playing catch-up shouldn't we be designing something that reflects the advances in technology by 2020/2030?

 

[Techniquest]

I am sure there will be a £300 fare somewhere, given how much you can pay on VT or EC. But, I certainly don't think it will be fares STARTING at £300, or a flat-rate fare of £300.

To be honest, even talking about what fares might be seems a bit premature. And, what if the £300 fare was an estimate of what it will cost in 2020 money?

Fair points. I need to re-visit the text I referred to in order to ensure I've not read it wrongly, however I don't see HS2 as the be-all-and-end-all solution to current problems as seems to be suggested. I'd rather see that £34 billion spent doing more useful projects. By which I mean things like:

Finish Thameslink 2000 already. For crying out, it's obvious it's needed, how much longer do we need to wait (hopefully it's actually getting there now, but waiting 11 years for it already is quite frankly ridiculous)?

Electrify the MML, ensuring the wires also reach to Wakefield and Doncaster.

Electrify (at least) some of the XC lines. A handy one would be to get Peterborough to Ely sorted, although quite frankly there's so much that could be done it's unreal.

Sort out the massively huge problem of overcrowding, the most obvious solution being to sort out the epic DMU shortage so that trains can run at the lengths they need to for tomorrow's capacity, not the needs of 1839!

Oh, and CrossRail. How long do we have to wait for something as incredibly useful as this? Having looked at the proposed route through London in my Baker, this line would make an incredible difference to cross-London travel. The amount of times it's been approved then declined, only to be approved and declined again is just beyond belief. Get it sorted I say!

Then, and only then, once the current problems are dealt with should we look at spending zillions on a line that most of the country will probably never use. Don't forget, 2025 is when it opens to Birmingham (or at least so I recall). Manchester/Leeds won't get it for some time after that, and the time it's taken to make this amount of progress will probably be towards the end of my lifetime, so I doubt I'll ever see HS2 reach Scotland!

 

[Boppawombat]

An expensive folly. The government are only doing this to be seen to be competing with other countries who already have in place a comprehensive HST line network. It just goes to show how retarded they have been all these years of withholding valuable funding to improving / expanding / electrifying our rail infrastructure and forgetting to realise that a lot of rail lines exist outside London.

They always had difficulty putting aside enough funding for a lot of other essential improvement projects over the years, so quite how they can now justify spending several billions on this scheme baffles me.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Then, and only then, once the current problems are dealt with should we look at spending zillions on a line that most of the country will probably never use. Don't forget, 2025 is when it opens to Birmingham (or at least so I recall). Manchester/Leeds won't get it for some time after that, and the time it's taken to make this amount of progress will probably be towards the end of my lifetime, so I doubt I'll ever see HS2 reach Scotland!

I read your posting and you seem to see that all the London projects have a matter of priority. What made me somewhat downhearted was the date completion position of Manchester and Leeds (heads of the Y-axis) in your timescale projections, which does tend to reinforce the view that anything north of Birmingham is not important enough when large capital project works have to receive budgetry finance.

 

[Dreadnought]

Fair points. I need to re-visit the text I referred to in order to ensure I've not read it wrongly, however I don't see HS2 as the be-all-and-end-all solution to current problems as seems to be suggested. I'd rather see that £34 billion spent doing more useful projects. By which I mean things like:

Finish Thameslink 2000 already. For crying out, it's obvious it's needed, how much longer do we need to wait (hopefully it's actually getting there now, but waiting 11 years for it already is quite frankly ridiculous)?

Electrify the MML, ensuring the wires also reach to Wakefield and Doncaster.

Electrify (at least) some of the XC lines. A handy one would be to get Peterborough to Ely sorted, although quite frankly there's so much that could be done it's unreal.

Sort out the massively huge problem of overcrowding, the most obvious solution being to sort out the epic DMU shortage so that trains can run at the lengths they need to for tomorrow's capacity, not the needs of 1839!

Oh, and CrossRail. How long do we have to wait for something as incredibly useful as this? Having looked at the proposed route through London in my Baker, this line would make an incredible difference to cross-London travel. The amount of times it's been approved then declined, only to be approved and declined again is just beyond belief. Get it sorted I say!

Then, and only then, once the current problems are dealt with should we look at spending zillions on a line that most of the country will probably never use. Don't forget, 2025 is when it opens to Birmingham (or at least so I recall). Manchester/Leeds won't get it for some time after that, and the time it's taken to make this amount of progress will probably be towards the end of my lifetime, so I doubt I'll ever see HS2 reach Scotland!

Problem is that the £34 billion, as has been pointed out either here or on other discussions about this, is allocated to HS2 or nothing, there is not an option of spending it elsewhere on the railways if HS2 does not go ahead.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2 we should look at the fact that the government wants to actually invest a alrge chunk of money into the railways rather than roads for the first time in many, many years!

 

[Boppawombat]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2 we should look at the fact that the government wants to actually invest a alrge chunk of money into the railways rather than roads for the first time in many, many years!

BUT - and it is a BIG but - they are now doing the same old trick of putting all their eggs into one basket.

Why not share out the money to improving the regional conurbations that are all bursting at the seams with inadequate infrastructure left right and centre and are crying out desperately for improvements ?

Consider Birmingham New Street - Network Rail are spending £650m+ just to put a new cosmetic lid on to the station without even bothering to enlarge the actual track/platform area that is the most pressing need.....and now of course it ain't possible because of so many other extenuating factors.

 

[yorksrob]

Problem is that the £34 billion, as has been pointed out either here or on other discussions about this, is allocated to HS2 or nothing, there is not an option of spending it elsewhere on the railways if HS2 does not go ahead.

Which is precisely why the powers that be need to be continually reminded until they get it into their thick skulls that any economic benefit from a high speed line will be massively cancelled out if they allow the existing rail network, which vast swathes of the country rely on, to deteriorate, as the McNulty report seems to suggest.

 

[Oswyntail]

Sorry if this has been said somewhere but I wanted to make the following point... HS2 will run at 225mph (or similar). By the time HS2 is built and running to Birmingham in 10 years (or Manchester in 20 years) won't 225mph be out of date? In 20 years time, China or Japan will have trains that run at 500mph so isn't this a waste of money? If we're always playing catch-up shouldn't we be designing something that reflects the advances in technology by 2020/2030?

It is quite arguable that, in 10 years time, the concept of business travel itself will be out of date, driven out by a combination of high costs (whatever the fuel) and improved telecomms. I agree that large capital projects should be future-proofed, but that must also include the possibility they may not be required.

 

[jon0844]

We already have improved telecoms that would allow people to work from home for loads of scenarios, as well as answering phones, writing letters or other administrative work.

The problem is, and always will be, the lack of trust from most employers and the honest truth that people often do abuse the freedom they're given. And if you're trying to sell something, or brainstorm, it's always better to be face to face with others - as humans are social creatures.

Video calling just isn't the same, whether it's HD or 3D. People will always want to travel, and if you were one of the lucky ones that could work from home, you'd want to travel for leisure.

Personally, I can't see us ever not wanting to travel. What might happen is the times we do so may change, such that we don't have the same peak periods. This could totally alter timetabling for the future.

 

[Barrett M95]

High speed rail has an incredible effect on long distance travel. If you never or rarely travel more than 30 miles, of course you will not see the benefit of such an investment and will likely have the opinion of "waste of money, spend it elsewhere". I can understand your position if this is the case.

Then there are others who are of the opinion that the best solution is to continue to develop what we have - i.e. a classic network. The trouble with that, if I may use a crude analogy, it is like polishing a turd. The UK can pump billions into the classic long distance network and perhaps increase capacity by a small margin, perhaps reduce journey times, again by a small margin and meet internationally agreed environmental commitments by electrification. Of course, investment will always be needed on classic lines for regional use as they will always be just as important as any high speed long distance network, but relieving pressure is also important.

However, a high speed line between the largest population zones will increase capacity by a large amount (both on it and by releasing capacity on other lines), it will reduce journey times by more than upgrading classic lines, and will likely do more to meet these environmental targets (even ofsetting the construction emissions) because you will not only take cars off the road, but have a greater influence on getting passengers off short haul flights.

Yes, of course this will cost more (but perhaps not as much more as you think), especially in the short term, but it will have a longer legacy. It is not a matter of governments wanting to keep up with the neighbours.

Speaking of neighbours though, we can learn from them. Paris to Lyon is a very good example to use. This is very typical of UK long distance travel. London to Manchester is approx 185 miles, London to Glasgow, around 400 miles. So Paris to Lyon is right in that zone at 244 miles from Gare de Lyon to Lyon Part-Dieu. The populations are also similar. This line which is 30 years old now is very very heavily used. I use the line and if you have seen twin TGV duplex sets full to the brim carting over 1,000 passengers and luggage 240 miles in 2 hours you very quickly realise that the capacity capability is astonishing.

The UK can throw as much money as it likes at upgrading classic lines but it will NEVER give the kind of return on investment and benefit as the example just given. High speed is not the answer to everything, but it has an important role to play in it's own right.

 

[PinzaC55]

If it had been under British Rail there might have been some merit in it- it would have still been owned by "the country" and the fares would have been less extortionate.
But the figure is £34 BILLION and that's just the initial estimate! Remember how the cost of the Olympics went up from £2.4 billion to £9 billion in just a few years?
The lines "on the ground" are PROVEN and capable of being improved. This is a staggering gamble with taxpayer's money.

 

[yorksrob]

Then there are others who are of the opinion that the best solution is to continue to develop what we have - i.e. a classic network. The trouble with that, if I may use a crude analogy, it is like polishing a turd. The UK can pump billions into the classic long distance network and perhaps increase capacity by a small margin, perhaps reduce journey times, again by a small margin and meet internationally agreed environmental commitments by electrification. Of course, investment will always be needed on classic lines for regional use as they will always be just as important as any high speed long distance network, but relieving pressure is also important.

Crude analogies are always welcome

And I would largely agree with most of what you say. What I would point out is that although it seems to us common sense that investment will always be needed on classic lines for regional use, It has been an unfortunate feature of railway history in this country that the regional network has never been recognised as important by our political leaders. McNulty only adds to this.

I believe a high speed network could be a great benefit to the UK (although nowhere near as important as the wider network as a whole) but it needs to be clear that this will not be at the expense of the rest (which is something the governing class needs to confirm).

 

[Snapper]

If it had been under British Rail there might have been some merit in it- it would have still been owned by "the country" and the fares would have been less extortionate.
But the figure is £34 BILLION and that's just the initial estimate! Remember how the cost of the Olympics went up from £2.4 billion to £9 billion in just a few years?
The lines "on the ground" are PROVEN and capable of being improved. This is a staggering gamble with taxpayer's money.

It's not a gamble at all.

HS1 was built on time and within budget. Many major projects are. There's no reason why HS2 can't be either.

And HS2 will still be owned by 'the country' - just as HS1 is.

 

[Barrett M95]

Crude analogies are always welcome

I believe a high speed network could be a great benefit to the UK (although nowhere near as important as the wider network as a whole) but it needs to be clear that this will not be at the expense of the rest (which is something the governing class needs to confirm).

I have many more such analogies...

Yes I think we are in agreement that while high speed rail has an important role to play, it is still only part of the wider network which includes rural lines and short distance commuter lines in densely populated areas.

 

[yorksrob]

I have many more such analogies...

Yes I think we are in agreement that while high speed rail has an important role to play, it is still only part of the wider network which includes rural lines and short distance commuter lines in densely populated areas.

Indeed. I'd like to think we can have both. I just don't trust them. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong though.

 

[Techniquest]

I read your posting and you seem to see that all the London projects have a matter of priority. What made me somewhat downhearted was the date completion position of Manchester and Leeds (heads of the Y-axis) in your timescale projections, which does tend to reinforce the view that anything north of Birmingham is not important enough when large capital project works have to receive budgetry finance.

I disagree with your analysis of my post. The DMU shortage crisis alone does not tend to affect the South East greatly, it may have the odd exception but with their electrified railway DMUs don't really bother the South East it would seem. Then the electrification of at least some of the XC empire, and my example of Peterborough to Ely. Certainly not in the South East when I last checked, indeed the closest XC get to the South East now is Guildford, and that's once a day. Electrification of the MML, whilst it runs into London, is not a project centralised around London and would improve things for many people well outside of the South East.

I don't think I've suggested whatsoever that any major project north of Birmingham is not important enough. I support the motion of electrification in the North West, as it would be a tremendously useful project. Todmorden Curve and Ordsall Curve are two projects in the North West I also support quite happily, as they will prove to be incredibly useful. If that link at Burscough (apologies if I've mis-spelt it, I've not got my Baker to hand) ever gets laid, that'll also be an excellent achievement for long-term usefulness. Alas, I can't think of any major projects in the North East at this time that are going ahead/hopefully going ahead. There's no doubt plenty more going on/hopefully happening soon that I'm well in favour of north of Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Problem is that the £34 billion, as has been pointed out either here or on other discussions about this, is allocated to HS2 or nothing, there is not an option of spending it elsewhere on the railways if HS2 does not go ahead.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2 we should look at the fact that the government wants to actually invest a alrge chunk of money into the railways rather than roads for the first time in many, many years!

You raise a mighty fine point, the fact that the Government want to do this is worth celebrating. We might not all agree with HS2, indeed I think my feelings on it are clear by previous posts on this thread, but I do think it odd that £34 billion can be found for this, but mysteriously not exist if HS2 doesn't happen. Very strange that appears to me, but I suppose if it does happen then in the very long term, hopefully HS2 will make a huge difference. So long as it doesn't stay as just a fancy and expensive way to go from London to Birmingham...

 

[Snapper]

There are now only 18 days left for people to register your support for the HS2 project. To do so, go here:

http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In the meantime, here's more information that shows up the anti's allegations that HS2 trains won't be energy efficient:

http://yestohs2.blogspot.com/2011/07/sustainable-future-requires-faster.html

 

[trainofhope]

thanks snapper

 

[notoemt]

High speed rail has an incredible effect on long distance travel. If you never or rarely travel more than 30 miles, of course you will not see the benefit of such an investment and will likely have the opinion of "waste of money, spend it elsewhere". I can understand your position if this is the case.

I travel on trains 3 hours a day, 5 days a week. I don't see the benefit of this investment. All it is doing is creating a 3 or 4 tier rail network. While they are wasting money on this vanity project what are they doing about the lines that are not electrified? Nothing. They are allowing them to rot while whacking up season ticket prices.

 

[Nonsense]

I travel on trains 3 hours a day, 5 days a week. I don't see the benefit of this investment. All it is doing is creating a 3 or 4 tier rail network. While they are wasting money on this vanity project what are they doing about the lines that are not electrified? Nothing. They are allowing them to rot while whacking up season ticket prices.

It was my understanding that the benefit to cost ratio was 2:1, but I suppose if you won't personally see any benefit then they'd better call it off.

Perhaps, if only the Government would demonstrate a commitment to the existing network with a rolling programme of electrification, beginning with the GWML and North West England. Maybe that would convince a few naysayers that the classic network isn't being left to rot.

 

[LouJ]

two points that I would like to add.

Firstly as ever we are thinking UK rather than European. As far as I can see there is no mention of through travel to Europe and the use of a separate station to St Pancras in London defeats some of the time gain for travellers using HS2 as part of a growing Europe-wide network of high speed rail.

Secondly the method used on Continental Europe where high speed sections are intgerated with the present network seems to make sense. This way there is easy interchage between high speed and normal trains. Take Belgium where high speed line is used by conventional Inter-city services and helps reduce journey times for a wide range of trains. Also high speed trains use nromal tracks for the Brussels area and Liege. The same might be said in France where TGVs use high sped sections for parts of their journey and then continue on conventaional tracks to their evnetual destination. Apply this to the Uk and a high speed section alongside the WCML would mean trains drop into Birmingham New Street and then go highspeed to Crewe wher conventional tracks are joined to Manchester Liverpool and Scotland. High speed would then benefit a range of destinations rather than a cherry picked few.

 

[YorkshireBear]

two points that I would like to add.

Firstly as ever we are thinking UK rather than European. As far as I can see there is no mention of through travel to Europe and the use of a separate station to St Pancras in London defeats some of the time gain for travellers using HS2 as part of a growing Europe-wide network of high speed rail.

Secondly the method used on Continental Europe where high speed sections are intgerated with the present network seems to make sense. This way there is easy interchage between high speed and normal trains. Take Belgium where high speed line is used by conventional Inter-city services and helps reduce journey times for a wide range of trains. Also high speed trains use nromal tracks for the Brussels area and Liege. The same might be said in France where TGVs use high sped sections for parts of their journey and then continue on conventaional tracks to their evnetual destination. Apply this to the Uk and a high speed section alongside the WCML would mean trains drop into Birmingham New Street and then go highspeed to Crewe wher conventional tracks are joined to Manchester Liverpool and Scotland. High speed would then benefit a range of destinations rather than a cherry picked few.

First point, so are they building a connection between HS1 and HS2 just for fun then? This has been mentioned several times an an aspiration.

Secondly, high speed trains will continue past manchester and leeds to reduce journey times further north, Birmingham NS does not have capcity to take the HS2 trains without reducing number of pendilino services, which removes the point of the line as stations between london and birmingham will struggle to get a better service then. This is why a new station in birmingham is being used. As far as i am aware other stations will be parkway type stations with good interchange to various parts of towns and cities surrounding.

 

[Boppawombat]

Vanity project is exactly what HS2 is.

Also an extortionately expensive one.

Governments never learn from past oversights and mistakes.

They just want HS2 so that they can be seen to be keeping up with the best of what the continent has got to offer. But there is one fundamental difference - some of our European neighbours have always treated their railways like something to invest in and address as a matter of priority - having had the good sense to develop and improve them over time. Unlike this country, where successive governments have had no coherent [master]plan whatsoever and spend much of the past three decades procrastinating and dithering, alternately promising much needed funding, then backing down again and again - finding something else to allocate the funding on (such as London's Olympic bid - no scrub that - everything London-centric is a priority of course)......it's excuses excuses excuses..... and in the meantime our railway infrastructure has become an international laughing stock. So they pour all their efforts into one last desperate throw of the dice which is HS2...... and once again they get it wrong! Great progress eh?


To cite you one example of how NOT to go about things, just four words:

Birmingham New Street Gateway.




Other than offering greater concourse capacity, what else does this scheme achieve?

Exactly.

 

[Barrett M95]

I travel on trains 3 hours a day, 5 days a week. I don't see the benefit of this investment. All it is doing is creating a 3 or 4 tier rail network. While they are wasting money on this vanity project what are they doing about the lines that are not electrified? Nothing. They are allowing them to rot while whacking up season ticket prices.

And if high speed rail was on your route, you would only spend 1 hour a day travelling and would see the benefit I'm sure.

You seem to think that non electrified lines will have "nothing" done with them and be "left to rot"? I doubt this and have seen no evidence to support the theory.

Additionally, having been involved in European high speed rail projects for many years, I can tell you that calling them vanity projects shows a massive lack of understanding and respect for what has been achieved in more forward thinking nations.