The 'Stop Hs2' campaign's dirty tricks.

[gordonthemoron]

TGVs are nothing special comfort wise

 

[TGV]

TGVs are nothing special comfort wise

I guess it depends on "comfort". For me (bias aside), TGVs are as comfy as it gets with the possible exception of a BR MK3 (which to me says that loading gauge size has no influence on comfort). No underfloor traction noise, smooth and quiet ride, plenty of space. I'd rate them above Pendolinos in the UK, SNCF/NMBS loco hauled stock and DB ICE, but that's all subjective. The next man may disagree.

Sometimes I find older trains are better. A well worn Mk3 is far more "comfy" to me than the likes of a train I recently took in the UK between Bournemouth and Waterloo. Rock hard seats with hard upright backs and not much leg room. It was a multiple unit, but the traction equipment wasn't a problem for a change - you couldn't hear it over the sound of the air-con! It was like a gale blowing over your head, but without the expected blast of air. Just noise. To me, that's all part of the comfort.

I don't think that just because HS2 will be to larger loading gauge will necessarily mean "more comfort". You could still end up with rock hard seats sitting on top of a whining motor bogie and underneath an annoyingly loud air con system. My point is that it's not all about space.

 

[Snapper]

The anti Hs2 mob have now resorted to homophobia.

https://t.co/ewtCtZBu

I've been blocked from reporting this, but I'd ask any other decent people to report this to Twitter...

 

[HSTEd]

Thankyou for that analysis, HSTEd.

Obviously the trains won't be 100% full even at those prices, so if these trains are at an average of 30% capacity (as is the current situation on the WCML, I believe), then this pushes up the break-even cost of a Birmingham ticket to about £50 and a Manchester/Leeds ticket to around £60. (Calculated assuming the cost of a Birmingham train will be £21'918.38 and Manchester/Leeds train £26'237.20, worked out using your analysis).

For comparison, here are the current Anytime Returns from London: EUS-BHM £79.00, EUS-MAN £148.00 and STP-LDS £124.50.

30% is probably far too low really. I assume 70% going up above 100% (even with 5200 seats each from all three destinations per hour) in the peaks.

Birmingham International will need a tonne of parking spaces.

And remember they could dump £5 London-Birmingham and London-Manchester fares if they really wanted to absolutely crush the coach operators in the low cost market.

Indeed they could probably get together with coach operators to offer cheap connections from points north... although without regulations to force the coaches to go along I doubt that is practical.

 

[NSEFAN]

I was looking at 30% average. I find it hard to believe you'll get 70% usage on the early morning trains away from London!

 

[jones_bangor]

I don't think that just because HS2 will be to larger loading gauge will necessarily mean "more comfort". You could still end up with rock hard seats sitting on top of a whining motor bogie and underneath an annoyingly loud air con system. My point is that it's not all about space.

For continental loading gauge we should thinking Great Central...surely that line could also be rebuilt, at a fraction of the HS2 cost, for 150mph running?? The alignment is there, there may be a need to knock a few houses down, but if there's a will......

HS2 does not stack up, 90% vanity, 10% reality.

 

[andykn]

For continental loading gauge we should thinking Great Central...surely that line could also be rebuilt, at a fraction of the HS2 cost, for 150mph running?? The alignment is there, there may be a need to knock a few houses down, but if there's a will......

HS2 does not stack up, 90% vanity, 10% reality.

Doesn't the Great Central go to Leicester, not Birmingham? And I'm not sure where that much in the way of cost savings would come from, the WCML upgrade alone cost quite a lot.

 

[Snapper]

For continental loading gauge we should thinking Great Central...surely that line could also be rebuilt, at a fraction of the HS2 cost, for 150mph running?? The alignment is there, there may be a need to knock a few houses down, but if there's a will......

HS2 does not stack up, 90% vanity, 10% reality.

The idea that the GC was built to continental gauge is a myth, the London extension was more generous - but only that section. Rebuilding the GC is daft. It provides none of the solutions to the problems we need to. It's nonsense when you really think about it. Where would it run to in London? Marylebone is now very busy. How does it get freight off the WCML? It doesn't. It's an enthusiasts pipe dream that solves nothing.

 

[gordonthemoron]

plus, rebuilding the GCR would seriously annoy commuters who use Chiltern

 

[YorkshireBear]

For continental loading gauge we should thinking Great Central...surely that line could also be rebuilt, at a fraction of the HS2 cost, for 150mph running?? The alignment is there, there may be a need to knock a few houses down, but if there's a will......

HS2 does not stack up, 90% vanity, 10% reality.

You can tell the millions of people that use the chiltern main line then.
The GC never went near birmingham either so...

The only alternative to current HS2 i have seen worth any real consideration is following M40 corridor.

 

[Snapper]

Well that's another anti Twitter account which has been suspended for violations. First posting personal date, now homophobia. Nice people some of these antis.

 

[Toots]

The idea that the GC was built to continental gauge is a myth, the London extension was more generous - but only that section. Rebuilding the GC is daft. It provides none of the solutions to the problems we need to. It's nonsense when you really think about it. Where would it run to in London? Marylebone is now very busy. How does it get freight off the WCML? It doesn't. It's an enthusiasts pipe dream that solves nothing.

As I remember it,the Central Railway proposal was a fully costed sensible project which would have indeed taken all the freight off the WCML.The government admitted as much,but they were frightened that if anything went wrong they would be left to pay the balance of the funding and therefore wouldn't pass the bill through parliament.
I am ambivalent as to whether HS2 goes ahead or not,but given that successive governments seem to be leaning toward a railway with little or no subsidy, and this of course is crucial,can a railway which only stops in major cities and an absence of freight compete in an arena with cut price air travel and aggressive road marketing and lobbying?.. I doubt it...

 

[jon91]

That Anna Rack sounds like a broken tape player - yes love, we get that HS2 is built on lies and deception, now why don't you get some decent material to prove your points instead of quite franky crap insults and retweets.

You'd think that HS2 was a nuclear bomb just glancing at her twitter feed.

 

[charlie139]

One thing I can't understand about HS2 is the fact that 8ft either side of the WCML and ECML are owned by NR already, anybody thought about placing 2 more lines on said land??

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Am I the only person who has no time for either side of the campaign? I have yet to be convinced on HS2 by the way, and no, I don't live anywhere remotely near the Chilterns!

 

[swt_passenger]

One thing I can't understand about HS2 is the fact that 8ft either side of the WCML and ECML are owned by NR already, anybody thought about placing 2 more lines on said land??

Of course they thought about it. Then of course they'd then have ignored the ECML, because that doesn't go to Birmingham and the NW.

They'd have quickly realised they couldn't easily get two extra lines through the Coventry to Birmingham corridor.

Back when the original HS2 reports were published by DfT, in early 2010, all the reasons why they'd decided various alternative routes were not suitable were quite easy to find in various reports available on their website, it's a pity they aren't so easy to find now.

 

[table38]

One thing I can't understand about HS2 is the fact that 8ft either side of the WCML and ECML are owned by NR already, anybody thought about placing 2 more lines on said land??

You could always build upwards instead of sideways

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r069.html

 

[jones_bangor]

You could always build upwards instead of sideways

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r069.html

Double deck railway....probably cost less than HS2!!!

 

[HSTEd]

As I remember it,the Central Railway proposal was a fully costed sensible project which would have indeed taken all the freight off the WCML.The government admitted as much,but they were frightened that if anything went wrong they would be left to pay the balance of the funding and therefore wouldn't pass the bill through parliament.

Indeed, but I don't see any particular reason we can't do both.

We need a heavy freight railway just as much as we need a high speed passenger railway.

It's not as if it would be difficult to cobble together a 75mph alignment that isn't in any way obstructed by HS2 through to the Midlands that avoids London. Then electrify and clear for 20'3" (that is the tallest practical standard gauge loading gauge, and since we only get to build it once......)

 

[Snapper]

We need a heavy freight railway just as much as we need a high speed passenger railway.

No. We don't. The FOCs simply couldn't afford to pay the costs of a railway only they use and have to cover all the costs. They'd go bust overnight. It's why the idea has always been a non-starter. No-one bothered to ask the FOCs what they thought of the idea. Their answer? - it's a bad one!

 

[HSTEd]

No. We don't. The FOCs simply couldn't afford to pay the costs of a railway only they use and have to cover all the costs. They'd go bust overnight. It's why the idea has always been a non-starter. No-one bothered to ask the FOCs what they thought of the idea. Their answer? - it's a bad one!

The Central Railway proposal has nothing to do with the current FOCs simply because Freight Operators can't possibly run significant TOFC services now because the loading gauge anywhere but the Eurotunnel Shuttle loop is massively inadequate.

The market is that a large fraction of the lorries that currently board ferries or the Eurotunnel Lorry shuttles are headed to locations at-least north of the southernmost point on the M25.
Since these lorries have to be trans-loaded anyway it seems reasonable that the hauliers would want them transported as close as possible to the destination on the low cost form of transport available, in this case a railway.

All taking vast numbers of lorries off the road, lorries which do not pay significant amounts towards road maintenance as they all fill up on fuel in Calais and are registered in poland or wherever.

British road hauliers can't compete if they have to carry the load all the way from europe, or can only do so using foreign bought fuel which still provides little income to the exchequer.
But if the trailer only could be inexpensively shipped from Calais to Leicester or Sheffield, it is more likely that they would pick a local haulier for the last few miles rather than paying for a driver and tractor unit to sit around on the train for hours.

The calculations showed the proposal doubling the modal share of rail and I believe the market is there.
Just look at all those lorries crossing the channel every day.

 

[Snapper]

The point you've ignored still stands. A purely freight railway will never cover its costs and none of the FOCs can afford (or want) one. That's the reality.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Actually, what proportion of freight comes via ferry/chunnel and what comes from container ships?

 

[The Planner]

Surely the vast majority is from Southampton and Felixstowe, which the Grand Central would be of no use to. How do you then get the boxes to the vast majority of terminals such as Lawley St, Hams Hall, Birch Coppice, Trafford Park etc etc...

 

[Snapper]

Quite. ThePlanner has hit the nail on the head. Few people have bothered to examine where the intermodal freight flows come from/go to. Add in the new Super port being built at Thameshaven and huge expansion at Liverpool and it becomes obvious that the WCML is the natural strategic route. The GC would be useless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually, what proportion of freight comes via ferry/chunnel and what comes from container ships?

Very little by Chunnel, it's a red herring. It comes in via container ships.

 

[tbtc]

We need a heavy freight railway just as much as we need a high speed passenger railway.

It's not as if it would be difficult to cobble together a 75mph alignment that isn't in any way obstructed by HS2 through to the Midlands that avoids London. Then electrify and clear for 20'3" (that is the tallest practical standard gauge loading gauge, and since we only get to build it once......)

Building a new passenger line to target high capacity looks pretty simple on paper. If you link central London and central Birmingham to central Manchester and Central Leeds (with spurs or parkway stations for places like Heathrow and Sheffield) then you can eliminate thousands of car/ train/ plane journeys.

The simple answer is that no freight line could have that much of an impact because there's not enough freight and the freight that there is takes too many different routes. You'd need to link all the ports with all the distribution sites with all the power stations etc - there's no simple route that would link all of that up. But there is a fairly simple route from London/ Birmingham to Manchester/Leeds that tackles a significant number of cars/ trains.

The one thing to be said for a dedicated freight line is that the best way to get more capacity out of the existing lines is either to take away the fastest (i.e. Intercity services move to HS2) or to take away the slowest (freight), as that would leave a more even distribution of paths. But there's no practical route that would take sufficient lorries off the road/ divert enough trains to justify a dedicated freight line.

 

[Toots]

The point you've ignored still stands. A purely freight railway will never cover its costs and none of the FOCs can afford (or want) one. That's the reality.

He hasn't ignored the point Paul,the fact is the Central Railway project was scrutinized and indeed it was found a viable proposition,indeed with the increase in freight,it's arguable that it would be a more attractive proposal.As I understand it,it was a trunk route that would be accessed from NWR lines but exclusive to freight on it's own lines,which would have course freed up the congested Manchester/Liverpool to London WCML.The proposal went as far as Liverpool if I remember correctly via the Woodhead line.
To say the FOC's don't want one,I also do not agree with ,as similar a proposal is being attempted with the S&C and it's branch to remove freight from the northern reaches of the WCML and as you know it is the southern end that is far more congested,so it's fair to say seperating the two types of traffic would be attractive to both groups...

 

[MattRobinson]

If you were to build a freight line, you need to build a spine and then spurs off to some of the bigger places? At the intersections, you have to build marshalling yards to send the goods either up or down the spine or along the spur. Somewhat like previous wagon-load freight, but it would have to be more efficient and automated.

 

[radamfi]

They built a dedicated freight railway from Rotterdam docks direct into Germany - is that a white elephant?

 

[Snapper]

He hasn't ignored the point Paul,the fact is the Central Railway project was scrutinized and indeed it was found a viable proposition

So 'viable' no-one funded it and it was never built.

To say the FOC's don't want one,I also do not agree with ,as similar a proposal is being attempted with the S&C and it's branch to remove freight from the northern reaches of the WCML and as you know it is the southern end that is far more congested,so it's fair to say seperating the two types of traffic would be attractive to both groups...

You still don't get it, do you? It's the FOCs that don't want it and they're on record as saying so - as is Tony (Lord) Berkeley of the Railfreight Group. You keep ignoring the finances - which don't stack up. As for the S&C exactly who is attempting what you claim?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They built a dedicated freight railway from Rotterdam docks direct into Germany - is that a white elephant?

An international railway funded in a completely different manner with cross subsidy and money from several countries. A UK freight route it ain't