Never forget what we have...

[Chris125]

Whilst i like the idea of HS2, no one has been able to convince me that it should be a priority over our existing network, especially when the country is in such a financial mess. Neither has anyone been able to convince me that there are not feasible alternatives that are more cost effective and more beneficial to all.

Who has said HS2 should be a priority over the existing network? What's being argued is that we need to take long-term capacity issues just as seriously as those which we're currently suffering from.

As our most important routes get ever busier, and the relatively cheap and simple capacity enhacements have been carried out, so catering for more trains and more people gets a lot more expensive and disruptive very quickly - the WCML is getting to that point, and other lines will as well in the coming decade or two.

So why is HS2 needed?

It serves our most important economic centres, so ignoring it is out if the question. The only way to cater for any sizeable increase in capacity that wont make the WCRM seem like a walk in the park are another, seperate, pair of tracks. Not Cheap.

-How do you make this massive investment viable? Increased revenue, so that means new passengers too. Speed, whilst not needed for capacity reasons is needed to generate the extra passengers (revenue) needed - the higher speed also makes extending the line to Leeds etc viable.

-How does this benefit more people than smaller, piecemeal upgrades? By moving trains from existing lines onto HS2, new (perhaps direct) services can run on existing lines like the ECML and MML while the WCML can concentrate on better serving intermediate stations - directly and indirectly benefitting people across much of central and NE and NW England when the line is finished to Manchester and York.

I hope you can see why i think HS2 is just as important as upgrading existing lines, and will also complement them.

Chris

 

[Kneedown]

i never did that i simply removed one express from timetable and replaced it with a service to east anglia...... the other would still remain a competeitve express train.....

If i may quote you.....

MML could have something very similar done with it... from sheffield to well i cant think right now but im sure somethin similar could be done....

WCML some places services will be enhanced beyond recognition without so many fast services some stations will see services improved vastly...

This, in it's entirety, reads to me like the express service will be run down and replaced with more stopping services. In effect, glorified FCC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I asked earlier in this thread what the "£30bn" could buy - and nobody answered.

The WCML upgrade cost around £10bn (depending on sources), and added some capacity to a line which was already fast and already "four tracked" on long sections. You're talking around £2,500,000 for each new coach (based on Pendolino prices)

Building another two tracks over Welwyn would be a significant cost. Replacing flat crossings/ adding loops etc would all add up.

So, if HS2 only benefits a minority of the UK, what would the "anti HS2" brigade rather it was spent on instead? I'm serious - give some examples.

As i stated earlier in this thread, and in the other HS2 thread, i believe the money should spent on rolling electrification and line upgrades, by which i mean speed enhancements, signalling upgrades, re-doubling and some platform extension.
You could achieve a heckuva lot of that with £30bil, even £20bil!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who has said HS2 should be a priority over the existing network? What's being argued is that we need to take long-term capacity issues just as seriously as those which we're currently suffering from.

But HS2 is being seen as a priority. I don't see £30bil being committed to a rolling programme of electrification, infrastructure enhancements and much needed modernisation across the rest of the network.
As regards long term capacity issues, then yes, bear them in mind, but address the immediate concerns first.

As our most important routes get ever busier, and the relatively cheap and simple capacity enhacements have been carried out, so catering for more trains and more people gets a lot more expensive and disruptive very quickly - the WCML is getting to that point, and other lines will as well in the coming decade or two.

By the most important routes do you mean the "more equal than other ones?"
Lets face it, for better or worse, the WCML has already had pots of money thrown at it. It may be far from perfect but it's an improvement on what it was. Hopefully they'll also get the extra Pendo's which will alleviate things further. High time to spend a bit a bit of money on the rest of the network, that is already suffering huge reliability and capacity problems.

It serves our most important economic centres, so ignoring it is out if the question. The only way to cater for any sizeable increase in capacity that wont make the WCRM seem like a walk in the park are another, seperate, pair of tracks. Not Cheap.

People keep going on about the, so called, "most important economic centres". Do people really think that if everywhere except London and Manchester were to fall into the sea then things would still be just fine?
It's the country as a whole that creates the prosperity, not just a few fashionable cities, and the whole country needs to get to work on time.

-How do you make this massive investment viable? Increased revenue, so that means new passengers too. Speed, whilst not needed for capacity reasons is needed to generate the extra passengers (revenue) needed - the higher speed also makes extending the line to Leeds etc viable.

And will travel on HS2 be priced as on the existing lines? or will passengers pay a premium for the new "highspeed" service? Would someone choose to go to the Capital from Leeds by paying extra to go by HS2, or by saving £'s going via existing lines which still have an acceptable journey time?

-How does this benefit more people than smaller, piecemeal upgrades? By moving trains from existing lines onto HS2, new (perhaps direct) services can run on existing lines like the ECML and MML while the WCML can concentrate on better serving intermediate stations - directly and indirectly benefitting people across much of central and NE and NW England when the line is finished to Manchester and York.

As i've said earlier, so many times i'm getting a little tired of saying it, diverting "express services" away from the existing lines, and replacing them with slower "stopping services", effectively downgrades a mainline and can hardly be called progress.

I hope you can see why i think HS2 is just as important as upgrading existing lines, and will also complement them.

Chris

Sorry mate, but i'm still not convinced it's justified at this time when the existing network has immediate problems and not just future potential ones.

 

[The Planner]

As i've said earlier, so many times i'm getting a little tired of saying it, diverting "express services" away from the existing lines, and replacing them with slower "stopping services", effectively downgrades a mainline and can hardly be called progress.

Maybe I am incredibly naive here. Surely if you have a high speed line that gets someone long distances quickly and opening up existing lines to more stopping services it then gives the travelling public more options and choice ?? Why isnt that progress ??. Yes, some punters wont be able to use HS2 as it isnt close enough to be viable for them, but you wont ever get around that.

Everyone had a right old moan that the Dec 08 WCML timetable destroyed journey opportunites from Nuneaton, Tamworth etc... so surely with some clever timetabling these locations re-gain direct services to London and the North. I dont see why it means every train would be an all station stopper, adding one or two extra stops to varying services wont slow them down hideously to be unpopular.

 

[Zoe]

Everyone had a right old moan that the Dec 08 WCML timetable destroyed journey opportunites from Nuneaton, Tamworth etc... so surely with some clever timetabling these locations re-gain direct services to London and the North. I dont see why it means every train would be an all station stopper, adding one or two extra stops to varying services wont slow them down hideously to be unpopular.

Nuneaton and Tamworth still have direct services to London and they London Midland only tickets are cheaper than the previous Any Permitted tickets. Adding more stops would unfortunately extend the journey times that Virgin like to have as low as possible. I believe Nuneaton was dropped from the Liverpool service so a faster journey time to Liverpool could be claimed.

 

[The Planner]

Im not on about current though, I mean post HS2 if it happens. The incumbent WCML franchisee isnt going to have the same journey time requirements as it does now.

 

[Hydro]

I think there may be a worry that the WCML will endure the same fate as the South East domestic services did when HS1 domestic came out. There was a marked decrease in fast classic line services, perceived as a bid to force people onto the HS services. On the other side of the coin, it can perceived as using the relief in classic services to improve the train service of more stations.

 

[Zoe]

I think there may be a worry that the WCML will endure the same fate as the South East domestic services did when HS1 domestic came out. There was a marked decrease in fast classic line services, perceived as a bid to force people onto the HS services. On the other side of the coin, it can perceived as using the relief in classic services to improve the train service of more stations.

A good example of this is the services from Victoria to Ramsgate. On one side extra journey opportunities have breen provided by stopping them and Meopham and Longfield but this has also slowed down the journey time.

 

[tbtc]

As i stated earlier in this thread, and in the other HS2 thread, i believe the money should spent on rolling electrification and line upgrades, by which i mean speed enhancements, signalling upgrades, re-doubling and some platform extension.
You could achieve a heckuva lot of that with £30bil, even £20bil!

This is the trouble I have. The "anti HS2" camp argue about what HS2 would be spent on, but don't suggest anything concrete that can be argued with.

The WCML upgrade supposedly cost £10bn (delayed millions of journeys, turned lots of people away from the railway at weekends). I'm not sure £2bn or £30bn is going to solve all the bottlenecks like Welwyn, electrify Transpennine, improve speed on the MML, introduce Grade Separated junctions everywhere etc.

Plus, if you do tackle some of these problems, you have to do so by withdrawing services/ putting people onto buses for months on end/ divert routes. Look at how Nottingham had its London service halved so Manchester could retain a direct London service during the WCML blockades. Building HS2 means the new line can be built without disrupting existing routes - a significant difference.

Lets face it, for better or worse, the WCML has already had pots of money thrown at it

...of course HS2 wouldn't be just about the WCML - it'd be a faster route from Sheffield/ Leeds/ Newcastle to London (as well as an improved service from these cities to Birmingham) - and diverting these services this way would free up paths on the ECML/ MML for new routes (e.g. from Yorkshire to Cambridge/ Stansted, from London to Lincolnshire), as well as taking pressure of places like Welwyn

 

[GNER 91128]

Hi been reading this forum for a couple of months now and just thought I'd join.

I live on the ECML and I think there's alot that could be done to it that would improve capacity, journey times, paths. Welwyn Viaduct and tunnel, Hitchin Flyover, quad tracking to PBO, (I don't believe that keeping the existing double track beyond Corby Glen would create a bottle-neck as a don't think you would have the same amount of traffic you have South of PBO) A new station at Peterborough, Signaling upgrades to allow the 140mph running in areas that were originally planned.
A flyover at Newark, Electrification to Lincoln and there's probably alot more that could be done further north.

Obviously our other existing lines have alot of work that could be done to improve them, but I don't have too much knowledge of where the problems are as I only really use the ECML.

I'm not anti, HS2 I'm all for a High Speed network to rival Europe that we can be proud of, but I fear that everything else will be left as it is and forgotten about.

 

[tbtc]

I think there may be a worry that the WCML will endure the same fate as the South East domestic services did when HS1 domestic came out. There was a marked decrease in fast classic line services, perceived as a bid to force people onto the HS services. On the other side of the coin, it can perceived as using the relief in classic services to improve the train service of more stations.

What gets me is that you get the same people criticising VHF for cutting direct links like Tamworth - Manchester or Nuneaton - Liverpool...

...but also criticise HS2 for slowing down the existing Euston - Manchester/ Liverpool services by stopping them at smaller places like Tamworth or Nuneaton...

 

[Zoe]

...but also criticise HS2 for slowing down the existing Euston - Manchester/ Liverpool services by stopping them at smaller places like Tamworth or Nuneaton...

I think the concern is not on extra stop or two but that a Manchester service could end up for example stopping at Watford Junction, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Manchester.

 

[tbtc]

I think the concern is not on extra stop or two but that a Manchester service could end up for example stopping at Watford Junction, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Manchester.

I don't think that's going to happen - there'd still be 350s for "middle distance" journeys. But some of those links may be useful (not all would be necessary though)

 

[Geezertronic]

What gets me is that you get the same people criticising VHF for cutting direct links like Tamworth - Manchester or Nuneaton - Liverpool...

...but also criticise HS2 for slowing down the existing Euston - Manchester/ Liverpool services by stopping them at smaller places like Tamworth or Nuneaton...

I agree there. HS2 would mean that VT (or the next incumbant) can provide a more regular service to Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby and other destinations along the Trent Valley without affecting timings (the expected quicker timings would transfer to HS2)

 

[notadriver]

A good example of this is the services from Victoria to Ramsgate. On one side extra journey opportunities have breen provided by stopping them and Meopham and Longfield but this has also slowed down the journey time.

Except for people from Longfield and Meopham who benefit both from faster journeys to London and a direct faster service to the Medway Towns and beyond without changing trains.

 

[Chris125]

But HS2 is being seen as a priority. I don't see £30bil being committed to a rolling programme of electrification, infrastructure enhancements and much needed modernisation across the rest of the network.

As regards long term capacity issues, then yes, bear them in mind, but address the immediate concerns first.

I'll ask again, whose saying its a bigger priority? I think most people would agree that our current problems are just as, if not more, important.
...that said, because of the need for entirely new lines like HS2 to go through 7+ years of planning and parliamentary process, and over a decade of construction, they have to be set in motion now.

There havent been any decisions on electrification, rolling stock etc for the next 15 or 20 years, so comparing the amount planned for HS2 over that period is impossible. In fact, based on the investment we're seeing atm i see no reason to think that with a healthier ecomony the railways wont see even greater funding in the years to come - the next HLOS will likely see MML electrification for example.

People keep going on about the, so called, "most important economic centres". Do people really think that if everywhere except London and Manchester were to fall into the sea then things would still be just fine?
It's the country as a whole that creates the prosperity, not just a few fashionable cities, and the whole country needs to get to work on time.

London and Manchester are more important than a small town in the West Country. The WCML is more important than the branchline that serves it. Why? Because they house and move vastly more people and freight, and thats what powers our economy.
Does that mean they shouldnt see any investment? No, but its only you whose suggested that. In the real world the merits of the biggest project down to the smallest are largely based on a cost:benefit ratio and thats precisely how it should be - not 'you've had your turn, now its ours'.

As i've said earlier, so many times i'm getting a little tired of saying it, diverting "express services" away from the existing lines, and replacing them with slower "stopping services", effectively downgrades a mainline and can hardly be called progress.

It IS progress if the fast lines are so congested that people are standing south of Crewe and the Pendolino's need to run closer together with standardized stopping patters - either increasing stops and journey times, or cutting out stops and hurting those areas. Either way, HS2 will come as a major relief and with the line extended to Leeds could have a similar effect on the ECML and MML in due course too.

Sorry mate, but i'm still not convinced it's justified at this time when the existing network has immediate problems and not just future potential ones.

Until the growth in demand ceases that will always be the case - the key is planning ahead, so that those big, expensive problems in the future dont get left so late that there's no time to address them in a sensible, cost effective manner.

Chris