Alternative routes and slower speeds were investigated before HS2 was approved - https://assets.publishing.service.g...0/hs2-review-of-route-selection-and-speed.doc
... and more on-board staff for the same capacity.
Although for less time, and less variation in speed up and down gradients owing to higher momentum.
HS2 has always been found to be the best value for money option over upgrading the current network.
Because route upgrades to the current network have never had cost overruns.....
Maybe an irony emoticon would help here. WCML upgrade costs went from 2.5bn to over 14bn before the project was finished. The benefits were swallowed up by increased traffic within 5 years of completion. Then there's the GWML, NW electrification and TP upgrade to show how large improvements to existing infrastructure overrun their programmes and budgets. HS2 is comparatively compliant with its programme and budget, and it will take decades before the additional capacity brings to be consumed.
Precisely, expecting major infrastructure to pay back in a few years is naive. The main lines from London took from their inception before the middle of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century to reach their full potential, an much of that was attributable to their alignments being beyond the capabilities of early rolling stock. Those routes now support (in most cases) continuous 100+ mph services weighing several hundred tons, - capabilities that the Victorian operating companies could only dream of,
If HS2 was built in full you'd likely use it on a journey from somewhere like York to London.
But going by HS2's journey times published at the time, time saving would have been less than 30min time compared with the current route.
People would be moaning about the low speed as well, they'd be saying s'o much money for the same speed, Europe can do it so why can't we, it's a waste of money' and so on
HS2 is about the capacity, not just the speed.
Almost nothing, given it would have dissappeared into the standard rail industry black hole.
Shareholder capitalism cares about making money and nothing else, that's the whole point of it.
Welcome to the forum.
Yes, but that's easier to do if passengers see some benefit in taking a different route from a different station, which they would with HS2 services being significantly faster.
From what others in the know have said here, dropping the maximum speed by 50mph may even increase the cost of ownership for no gain in amenity.
Maybe best value for money if it had been built, but a faster train service between London and Birmingham can't constitute good value for money for people living in Manchester, Leeds or further North.
Oh yes it will, a reduction in the travel time to Handsacre will reduce the time to Manchester and Scotland by a similar amount. Much more worthwhile will be the removal of traffic from the most congested part of the WCML south of the West Midlands will allow more trains to be scheduled both on the quieter WCML and for direct journeys, using HS2.
Actually that`s not true as trains to Brum will travel on high speed lines throughout. Trains beyond Handsacre will not tilt so will be restricted to 110 mph therefore actually travel SLOWER than now so time saved will not be the same as for Brum trains. The further travelled at 110 mph means progressively less time will be saved when compared to brum. Scottish trains could even be slower than now , the government (i don`t think) have actually given time savings for Glasgow which makes me suspicious that there aren`t any.
Given the miniscule savings of 125mph vs 110mph, which is about 4 seconds per mile, I doubt that the half hour or so that is gained by the rapid trip to Handsacre would be entirely lost by the time it reaches Glasgow.
