HS2 - register your support.

[yorksrob]

In the grand scheme of things, the money will probably be found from the savings in the rail industry, so the public take on transport/rail will be no more than it is now.

Thats the bit I'm worried about.

Hopefully these "savings" won't result in cuts elsewhere.

 

[Metroland]

Hmn, that's understandable. However rail spending is fairly high right now by historic standards, and I suspect quite a lot of cuts could be had just by working smarter, or savings in (for example) new methods of track and signalling installation. For example NR's plan to reduce the number of signalboxes to 14, could benefit passengers because some lines would remain open a lot longer than they are now, and an increase in capacity. Yet there are £200-£250m savings per year. There are quite a few others, cut's aren't necessarily a bad thing if done right.

A bloated rail industry doesn't attract investment, or the respect of the business community or politicians.

People often say 'spend the money on where it's really needed', but often these are pet projects to open rural branch lines where the business case is very marginal. The fact is it's really needed at the markets rail is very good at: Bulk movements of passengers and freight between major urban centres, the WCML is a classic example.

If HS2 doesn't get built, I suspect the government will have a policy, like it did in BR days, of pricing people off. I don't really see who wins in a scenario like that.

 

[exile]

Indeed - in France the LGV investment seems to have sucked money from the rest of the network.

 

[yorksrob]

Hmn, that's understandable. However rail spending is fairly high right now by historic standards, and I suspect quite a lot of cuts could be had just by working smarter, or savings in (for example) new methods of track and signalling installation. For example NR's plan to reduce the number of signalboxes to 14, could benefit passengers because some lines would remain open a lot longer than they are now, and an increase in capacity. Yet there are £200-£250m savings per year. There are quite a few others, cut's aren't necessarily a bad thing if done right.

A bloated rail industry doesn't attract investment, or the respect of the business community or politicians.

People often say 'spend the money on where it's really needed', but often these are pet projects to open rural branch lines where the business case is very marginal. The fact is it's really needed at the markets rail is very good at: Bulk movements of passengers and freight between major urban centres, the WCML is a classic example.

If HS2 doesn't get built, I suspect the government will have a policy, like it did in BR days, of pricing people off. I don't really see who wins in a scenario like that.

Well in some respects yes, reducing the number of signal boxes shouldn't affect existing services.

But as for re-opening rural branchlines, there have been precious few of these in England in the past few years, so I can't believe that the bloated costs are going on these (if only !).

I have a nasty feeling that this may result in reductions in the existing regional network, which, since I use these sorts of routes much more than the Inter-City type ones would definately be a lose situation for me.

"The fact is it's really needed at the markets rail is very good at: Bulk movements of passengers and freight between major urban centres, the WCML is a classic example" That has a ring of familiarity to it !

 

[Snapper]

I have a nasty feeling that this may result in reductions in the existing regional network, which, since I use these sorts of routes much more than the Inter-City type ones would definately be a lose situation for me.

The evidence is the opposite. The plans are that HS2 will create extra capacity on the existing lines which will allow regional services (and freight) to develop more.

The danger we have is that people will turn down the opportunities that HS2 presents because they are frightened of the future.

 

[exile]

The political reality is that upgrading existing routes inconveniences rail passengers and no-one else, new routes involve turfing people out of their homes and making others live next to a high speed line they can't use.

 

[WatcherZero]

The political reality is that upgrading existing routes inconveniences rail passengers and no-one else, new routes involve turfing people out of their homes and making others live next to a high speed line they can't use.

Not really, as communities tend to build up along existing transport corridors theres more demolition involved in expanding an existing corridor rather than building a new one from scratch.

 

[Snapper]

The political reality is that upgrading existing routes inconveniences rail passengers and no-one else, new routes involve turfing people out of their homes and making others live next to a high speed line they can't use.

And this doesn't apply to motorways and airports?

The country needs to develop its rail transport infrastructure. Simply rebuilding existing rail routes can't do what a new HSL can. Some people will have to accept a certain amount of disruption for the sake of UK PLC. We can't let the country's development be blocked because a minority of people will suffer inconvenience.

 

[yorksrob]

The evidence is the opposite. The plans are that HS2 will create extra capacity on the existing lines which will allow regional services (and freight) to develop more.

The danger we have is that people will turn down the opportunities that HS2 presents because they are frightened of the future.

I've no doubt that if done properly, HS2 could be a boost to the railway as a whole as you suggest.

The problem seems to me that Government wants to reduce the cost of the railway by billions fairly quickly. Technical efficiency improvements such as the replacement of signal boxes will take many years to come to fruition.

It's equally true that no political party has any intention of making anything other than purely cosmetic changes to the way in which the railway is organised.

I just don't see where the money for these improved regional services will come from. I can see it being a fight to retain the ones we have.

 

[exile]

And this doesn't apply to motorways and airports?

It does - and opposition to these can be extremely effective too. There is a difference - "everyone" drives or flies whilst we train users are something of a minority - this aspect is being emphasised by such as the RAC. ie - 90% of travel is by road so it should get 90% of any investment.

The country needs to develop its rail transport infrastructure. Simply rebuilding existing rail routes can't do what a new HSL can. Some people will have to accept a certain amount of disruption for the sake of UK PLC. We can't let the country's development be blocked because a minority of people will suffer inconvenience.

It's all very well to state that here on a rail forum. Politicians have the job of pushing the scheme through and if opposition is robust enough there will come a point where it's not worth doing, and HS2 will be pulled ostensibly on cost grounds as was Maplin and the original Channel Tunnel in the 70s, various motorway, tram, rail and airport expansion schemes since then.

 

[Greenback]

The benefts of HS2 in terms of additional capacity for regionals ervices sounds great, but I look at the reality of HS1 and am scared that the same thing will happen again.

Many service son the classic Kent lines appear to be slower and less frequent than before HS1 - how can we guarantee that will not occur? How can we ensure that the new line will be properly integrated into the network, in terms of realistic and affordable fares?

 

[WatcherZero]

I may be mistaken but isnt the issue there that as the two rail services share certain parts of the lines they had to reduce the service to maintain speed?

 

[Barrett M95]

It does - and opposition to these can be extremely effective too. There is a difference - "everyone" drives or flies whilst we train users are something of a minority

Wrong. Airlines are by far the minority for UK journeys which is what we are talking about here.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airpor...e_10_2_Domestic_Terminal_Pax_Traffic_2010.pdf

Last year the total number of passenger journey flights within the UK was just over 38 million. Down 3.7 million on 2009. That's less than half of the number of rail journeys that start or end at Waterloo station alone, never mind the rest of the network.

 

[Squaddie]

The danger we have is that people will turn down the opportunities that HS2 presents because they are frightened of the future.

To claim that opponents of HS2 are "frightened of the future" is trivialising their opinions. Many people have quite valid reasons for opposing this project.

I use high-speed rail a great deal, between London and Switzerland, and it's amazing - central London to central Zurich or Geneva in about 7 hours, and in comfort. But I think the UK's plan is poorly thought-out, and the decision not to go via Heathrow airport utterly incomprehensible. We're only going to have one opportunity to develop a high-speed rail network and we should be making every attempt to get it right - and that is what the rail enthusiasts miss in their blind eagerness for a new line.

 

[Metroland]

Wrong. Airlines are by far the minority for UK journeys which is what we are talking about here.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airpor...e_10_2_Domestic_Terminal_Pax_Traffic_2010.pdf

Last year the total number of passenger journey flights within the UK was just over 38 million. Down 3.7 million on 2009. That's less than half of the number of rail journeys that start or end at Waterloo station alone, never mind the rest of the network.

Not only that if you look at the modal shares of London to principal city traffic rail is extremely high, indeed the majority in some cases.

The wcml is critical to the success and the midlands and north west cities, and a crowded wcml is holding this back. These nimbys really do start to do a serious peice of research and start looking at the big picture.

 

[exile]

Wrong. Airlines are by far the minority for UK journeys which is what we are talking about here.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airpor...e_10_2_Domestic_Terminal_Pax_Traffic_2010.pdf

Last year the total number of passenger journey flights within the UK was just over 38 million. Down 3.7 million on 2009. That's less than half of the number of rail journeys that start or end at Waterloo station alone, never mind the rest of the network.

I wasn't talking about domestic flights - that's certainly a minority market and dominated by business journeys. I'm talking about holiday flights to Europe, the US, Australia and so on. That's a lot of people making one return flight a year - whilst figures I've seen suggest that 50% of people NEVER travel by train in any given year. There are over 1 billion national rail journeys a year - but most of those are accounted for by regular commuters making 400-500 journeys each p.a.

 

[Greenback]

I wonder what percentage never fly in any given year?

My parents haven't flown for eighteen years, my aunt and uncle have not flown since 1997, and my brother's family have not flown for eight years to my knowledge.

 

[Metroland]

Over 50% never fly per year, the total traffic amounts to some 240 million flights. National Rail carry 1.4 billion passengers and LUL over 1 billion, and light rail millions more. In fact the total passenger journeys by rail in the UK, exceeds the total civil aviation passengers worldwide.

As for the roads, there are 24 times more of them, so there is always going to be more traffic. Most journeys are less than 5 miles to the shops or work.

However, if you look at competing modal shares on certain corridors rail exceeds road. 80% of people arrive in central London by rail, and the city-city flows exceed road on virtually all the NW/NE flows and are Midlands city flows are very substantial.

Rail is actually growing faster than road, as there is a lot less of it. As neatly helps with congestion, climate change and energy, that's why it should get the investment now.

 

[WatcherZero]

To claim that opponents of HS2 are "frightened of the future" is trivialising their opinions. Many people have quite valid reasons for opposing this project.

I use high-speed rail a great deal, between London and Switzerland, and it's amazing - central London to central Zurich or Geneva in about 7 hours, and in comfort. But I think the UK's plan is poorly thought-out, and the decision not to go via Heathrow airport utterly incomprehensible. We're only going to have one opportunity to develop a high-speed rail network and we should be making every attempt to get it right - and that is what the rail enthusiasts miss in their blind eagerness for a new line.

Because those of us who have our own airports dont want to lose 5-10 minutes from every journey being diverted there. The passenger predictions show only 5% of users would use a Heathrow station and it would struggle to break even.

 

[Metroland]

I wonder what percentage never fly in any given year?

My parents haven't flown for eighteen years, my aunt and uncle have not flown since 1997, and my brother's family have not flown for eight years to my knowledge.

I've never flown as have 3 other people in our shared house, the other person has only flown 3 times in 25 years.

 

[exile]

I think I see anecdotes being offered in place of statistics. I know several people who literally have never been on a train, and have not been on a public service bus or coach since they were at school, if then (mummy probably drove them to school).
And the sad fact is - those who don't drive and don't fly don't have the wealth and influence of those who won't lower themselves to use trains and buses.
(I'm not anti-rail - but I recognise political reality)

 

[Metroland]

You're wrong again, you need to do more research. Trains have actually been criticised for being too middle class because they tend to be used by ABC1s. This is because they very large majority modal shares into city centres where the good jobs are. The intercity rail network is critical to the business community, and they are actually one of the biggest supporters of HS2.

 

[Barrett M95]

I wasn't talking about domestic flights - that's certainly a minority market and dominated by business journeys. I'm talking about holiday flights to Europe, the US, Australia and so on..

OK, I didn't realise, but I don't follow the logic of comparing those flights with HS2 - a domestic service, or car journeys.

In fact Heathrow's annual passenger numbers (including all international flights) is still less than Waterloo's annual gate entry/exits. I still maintain that more people in the UK use trains than planes - by a long way.

 

[exile]

OK, I didn't realise, but I don't follow the logic of comparing those flights with HS2 - a domestic service, or car journeys.

It's not logic - it's politics. Your average middle class car-owning family, the heart of New Labour/Coalition middle England, that goes to Spain every year will not see any benefit from HS2 whereas they might from an enlarged airport or an 8-lane M1.

In fact Heathrow's annual passenger numbers (including all international flights) is still less than Waterloo's annual gate entry/exits. I still maintain that more people in the UK use trains than planes - by a long way.

I think you're missing my point - Waterloo is mainly used by regulars making hundreds of journeys a year - try comparing the number of different individuals who use each of them. Unfortunately that figure isn't available but I suspect that the numbers flying at least once a year and going by train at least once a year aren't very different. Outside London and the South East - I suspect flying wins.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're wrong again, you need to do more research. Trains have actually been criticised for being too middle class because they tend to be used by ABC1s. This is because they very large majority modal shares into city centres where the good jobs are.

That really only applies to London. Rail share of commuter traffic in other conurbations is around the 3% level


The intercity rail network is critical to the business community, and they are actually one of the biggest supporters of HS2.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. However the opposition consists of right wingers opposing any public spending, the car lobby (tendence Clarkson) and residents along the proposed route. And some pro-rail people who might prefer the money spent elsewhere.

 

[Greenback]

Politically, even heavy car users like Clarkson are beginning to see the benefits of rail, even if it's only to get others off the roads so they are less congested!

 

[jon0844]

Politically, even heavy car users like Clarkson are beginning to see the benefits of rail, even if it's only to get others off the roads so they are less congested!

Yes, even the biggest petrolhead must see benefits in encouraging as many people as possible off the roads, and not simply by making it too expensive to drive.

Rail (and public transport like buses and coaches) can play a big part, and HS2 would probably help reduce some road traffic too. Maybe the road lobby should be made to contribute as they'd benefit indirectly. Not a chance, I know!

I travel by train, but won't ever give up my car, and I'll choose the best method of travel for the time. Rail has many benefits, and it isn't just speed. I quite like being able to relax, put my feet up (not literally!) and maybe have some food/drink, use my laptop, watch a movie on my phone and things I can't do while driving.

Other times, a car is a must - for carrying or moving large loads or going on holiday where we'll use the car daily (like our recent holiday to the lake district). We could have gone by train and hired a car, but we already have the car and have paid the fixed costs so it seems silly in that case to hire another car.

 

[Metroland]

It's not logic - it's politics. Your average middle class car-owning family, the heart of New Labour/Coalition middle England, that goes to Spain every year will not see any benefit from HS2 whereas they might from an enlarged airport or an 8-lane M1.


I think you're missing my point - Waterloo is mainly used by regulars making hundreds of journeys a year - try comparing the number of different individuals who use each of them. Unfortunately that figure isn't available but I suspect that the numbers flying at least once a year and going by train at least once a year aren't very different. Outside London and the South East - I suspect flying wins.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That really only applies to London. Rail share of commuter traffic in other conurbations is around the 3% level


The intercity rail network is critical to the business community, and they are actually one of the biggest supporters of HS2.

Actually I wasn't talking about the rail commuter share into central conurbations, but the big ones (Leeds, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham), to the central areas it's a lot higher than 3%. I'm talking about inter-urban journeys, the sort HS2 would serve. The figures were in the original DfT command document.

The car lobby unfortunately shoot themselves in the foot at times, and if they woke up and smelt the coffee, giving people more options to travel about the country is a good thing. Even car drivers don't want to drive all the time, and many people do not have access to cars, even if they live in a household with one. Moving people off the road that don't need to be there, especially into cities where most the congestion occurs, is also a good thing for motorists that have to drive.

It shouldn't be about one thing versus another, it's about what is best for the job within a framework.

A new HSR network serving the majority of the large urban centres, where most people live, would benefit a lot of people. It's not going to benefit everyone, but then that's what public spending is like. The vast majority of it doesn't directly benefit any one individual, it's about society as a whole. Objecting to something on basis that you as an individual will not directly benefit (although we could argue that improving the fortune of commerce is good for us all, by virtue of improving productivity, investment and tax take) seems, with the greatest of respect a little bit unsophisticated. Only the hardcore people are like that, the vast majority are far more agnostic.

Rail is growing fast, if we don't expand it, it will mean more people will clog up the already congested road network, or will simply be priced out of travel.

Passenger numbers on the railways rose sharply during the first half of the year as high petrol prices encouraged more people to travel by train than at any time since the 1920s.

Figures published by the Association of Train Operating Companies showed passenger numbers grew by 5.4 per cent in the first six months of 2011 after falling during the recession.

Petrol prices are at record highs of around 140p a litre and nearly 15 per cent higher than in June 2010. Atoc suggested this compared favourably with the 6.2 per cent increase in rail fares in January and that high fuel prices were encouraging a shift from cars to trains.

Research by Ipsos MORI showed one in six rail passengers had switched from the car for at least one journey during February and March this year – with around half of these attributing this to the price of petrol.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/821a0dbc-b5d9-11e0-8bed-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1T3ugSAfa

 

[Zoe]

How many people are going to change from road to HS2 though? The type of journeys where people would use HS2 for are the type of journeys that would often be by rail or air now. Rail has a clear speed advantage over road for intercity journeys but one reason cars are used is that walk-up travel is so expensive. If walk-up travel was cheaper then people that wanted flexibility wouldn't be restricted to car.

 

[Metroland]

Well a lot are moving from air and road to rail now (see above). Not every journey is suitable by rail, and I have never seen anyone try to argue this, but rail is probably best at modal shift. This should be something people welcome with the problems of climate change, fuel prices, social inclusion, congestion and so on. It's bizarre why some people are so frightened, and one can only assume they either have an idealogical bent against rail travel or have vested interests.

I actually really sympathise with people who live along the proposed route, and I'm still of the opinion that we should be using established transport corridors, even if we have to slow HS2 down a bit, thus in order to push it through rather than face the project being scrapped in the face of wealthy, influential NIMBYs.

 

[Zoe]

You are correct in that people are moving from road and air to rail but I'm not sure HS2 is going to encourage more people to use rail as I said above the type of journeys that HS2 will be for are the journeys that people would likely use rail for even without HS2. Any modal shift from HS2 will likely be rail to rail.