Please could you answer a question

[davesharp]

hi,

i am doing an extended project for college, which i have chosen to research the construction of a new high speed railway.

i am doing primary research, so please could you answer the following question

Do you support the construction of a high speed railway and why?

please don't reply with anything that isn't answering that question, and can you please not debate people's responses.

your time and help is much aprreciated

David

 

[will1337]

I support the construction of a high speed railway and believe that the West Coast Main Line Upgrade should have resulted in one. I believe it should go to Scotland and not the West Midlands as HS1 are proposing. London - Scotland with a few stops in between is the most logical route and will tackle unnecessary domestic flights and bring enormous economic benefits with near halved journey times. If a high speed network were built then the classic lines will be able to offer new journey opportunities and faster times between towns and smaller cities.

The biggest objections to High Speed Rail seem to come from those who believe it to be a bigger priority to upgrade current routes in terms of speed and capacity. This could offer greater benefits to people across the country and not just in the catchment areas of the high speed line. I agree that if a high speed line is built that it should not be to the detriment of the rest of the network.

 

[MCR247]

hi,

i am doing an extended project for college, which i have chosen to research the construction of a new high speed railway.

i am doing primary research, so please could you answer the following question

Do you support the construction of a high speed railway and why?

please don't reply with anything that isn't answering that question, and can you please not debate people's responses.

your time and help is much aprreciated

David

I dont think a HS line should be built. I think the WCML & ECML should be upgraded to 300km/h or around that. But apart from that, money should be used to improve what we already have eg removing pacers, sorting The Cross Country route

 

[Drsatan]

I believe that high speed lines should be constructed.

The first line should be built from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, with an extension to Preston and Glasgow. Trains on the high speed line would run at speeds up to 225 mph, which would result in London-Birmingham journey times cut to 45 minutes and London-Glasgow to two hours. Building a high speed line would free up capacity on the WCML for more freight trains if conventional express services were withdrawn. The construction and operation of a high speed railway would produce considerably less CO2 over the long run than using short-haul flights. Finally, a high speed line would be beneficial to passengers' welfare given that when taking a short-haul flight, one has to travel to the nearest airport (which might be Stansted or Gatwick), go through check in, clear security, get on the plane, endure what can be very uncomfortable conditions on the plane, and then travel from the airport where the plane lands (for instance, Prestwick airport, which is some distance from Glasgow) and then travel to your destination. Far easier to take the train.

However, construction of a high speed line would only be worthwhile if fares were low enough to allow those on low-incomes to use it. A Paris-Marseille return is £75 for a four-hour journey, whereas an adult off-peak return from Euston to Glasgow is £108 for a journey of comparable length, not distance. If HS2 was built then fares would be priced commercially without any government subsidy, so fares would be comparatively expensive compared to similar journeys on the continent.

 

[Dai.]

I think a high speed line should be built because the current lines would slow down the high speed trains with commuter services, which isn't what is wanted in a high speed line and the upgrades to the current main lines would cause too many delays.

 

[thefab444]

From a purely selfish point of view, I don't believe a HS line should be constructed as it wouldn't benefit me, and would probably run majorly over budget anyway. I would rather see improvements in the existing network, replacement stock AND additional orders for growth, lines being re-opened where feasible, more electrification and longer, larger franchises (or preferably nationalisation of the passenger network - keep freight as private).

 

[Ivo]

There is no doubting that, given the current track record of optimistic projects in the UK (and not just the rail industry) that there would inevitably be some problems with issues such as budget and environmentalists. However, I do support an HS2-style proposal.

I would suggest a route that broadly compliments the WCML from London, possibly with an underground terminal somewhere in the vicinity of Euston, St Pancras and King's Cross, with a special "LUL" [not really] express link to Paddington for an improved Heathrow Express (by which I mean 10-cars every 10 minutes). It would then run right through to Birmingham without stopping, except possibly for a station in the vicinity of Bicester for the proposed East-West link. It would then go on to Manchester, with a station somewhere around the former Central station (the Central arena thing). Here there could be a similar link to that in London to Piccadilly and Victoria (along the lines of the Picc-Vic Tunnel), or alternatively a "High-Speed" route from Leeds to Liverpool calling at Bradford - (Huddersfield?) - "Manchester" - Warrington - Liverpool, possibly with a spur to Manchester Airport (bit optimistic...)

Me imagining again

 

[Drsatan]

Current proposals for HS2 envisage a spur line to Heathrow, and another spur to HS1 presumably via the North London Line. HS2 trains to Heathrow would terminate at a new station there: the GWML could be diverted to serve Heathrow thus providing the West Country and South Wales with a link to Heathrow. Currently the only (and cheapest) feasible way from Bristol or Plymouth to Heathrow is to drive there, unless you're willing to fork out extra for the Heathrow Express.

However, this proposal envisages that Heathrow will be retained for the time being. If Boris Johnson's proposal to build a new airport for London on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary gets the go-ahead, then the link to Heathrow would be redundant. However, no-one knows what's going to be built first: HS2 or Boris Island!

 

[Ivo]

If Boris Johnson's proposal to build a new airport for London on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary gets the go-ahead, then the link to Heathrow would be redundant. However, no-one knows what's going to be built first: HS2 or Boris Island!

If "Boris Island" (as you so amusingly call it) was built, he would become Public Enemy Number 1 back home... There must be an alternative to the third runway and "Boris Island". Also, do remember that part of the "Boris Island" plan is a High-Speed Rail Link of its own. In which case Southend might finally get such a link... :roll:

 

[Broken Viking]

Do you support the construction of a high speed railway and why?

Hi David!

Personally, I support the construction of new high-speed lines...Mainly because our system has become extremely slow due to poor management and chronic under investment ever since the dawn of privatisation. In my personal (Albeit blinkered) view, any line that allows trains to exceed the 125mph mark can only be a good thing...

...Though that said, I have to admit that I have a very twisted view on what constitutes "high speed". If it had been up to me, trains on the new HS1 line between London and Folkstone would be clocking up at least 350mph in normal operation! hock:

Farewell...And hope this helps thy project! 8)
>> Death <<

 

[Ivo]

I have to admit that I have a very twisted view on what constitutes "high speed". If it had been up to me, trains on the new HS1 line between London and Folkstone would be clocking up at least 350mph in normal operation! hock:

And let me guess - you'd fit some Pacers with a turbo-charger to manage this?

Also, note the post immediately below this one. Seen as I seem to have missed one key point, I apologise. But please do give me a chance - I am autistic, you know.

 

[90019]

If "Boris Island" (as you so amusingly call it) was built, he would become Public Enemy Number 1 back home... There must be an alternative to the third runway and "Boris Island". Also, do remember that part of the "Boris Island" plan is a High-Speed Rail Link of its own. In which case Southend might finally get such a link... :roll:

And let me guess - you'd fit some Pacers with a turbo-charger to manage this?

please don't reply with anything that isn't answering that question, and can you please not debate people's responses.

_______

I don't have much opinion on HS2. There are valid arguments for both sides.

However, I think that currently the best bet is to upgrade our current infrastructure.
I'm not sure that there's really much call for a new high speed line in the UK; I'm not sure the country's really big enough and with enough distnace between most major cities for there to really be much need, especially with the cost of a whole new line, including the inevitable huge amounts of red tape involved.

 

[317666]

I think that a Cross-Country high speed line should be built, because it means people can get to where they want to go quickly, cheaply and easily.

 

[LMS6202]

Definitely build new lines on the model of SNCF TGV. Look how TGV has improved ridership and given airlines a run for their money in regard to speed. Not a cost effective thing to upgrade old routes. The money spent that way would be far better sunk into a vastly improved high speed rail network. with 4 major routes South East [already built] Great West. East coast to Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen. West Coast avoiding WM but on to Manchester to Glasgow. If the Japanese and French can have the foresight to build better rail links why can't we?

 

[davesharp]

thank you very much for replying to my post, this information has been a great help to my project.

regards
david

 

[poshbakerloo]

Do you support the construction of a high speed railway and why?

No, because I think it is a waste of time and money. I think the main lines should be upgraded to 140Mph, maybe 160mph on the straightest parts...

 

[Geezertronic]

People go on about upgrading lines to a faster speed but on a lot of sections of the WCML (especially southern sections), I understand that would not be possible.

And why would you want to increase the speed of existing lines to 160mph only? That's hardly high speed and would be another waste of money just like the WCML upgrade was in parts

 

[Mojo]

Besides, aren't most of the problems on the WCML down to the huge number of services running on it, meaning the need for slower paths and extra padding?

In the early 1990s, BR boasted that Britain had more trains over 160km/h than any other country in Europe. Whether this is still true I don't know, but certaintly gave a scale for the kind of operation BR ran. Rather like Network Rail now saying they Kent is busier than Switzerland or something.