The 'Stop Hs2' campaign's dirty tricks.

[The Barlow Boy]

Further to the above currently lorries are limited to 56 mph. It would be a forward step if this was increased to 60. Modern articulated lorries have powerful ABS braking and - if the DFT was brave enough - could easily and relatively cheaply be fitted with anti jack-knifing equipment(some already are).

 

[Nym]

But they won't because EU law limits all heavy goods vehicles to 90km/h...

 

[jon0844]

They're already banned from lane three on a three lane motorway. It's alll very well going on an anti lorry rant but how do you think all of those things that you buy in your shops in town get there?

Virgin Trains?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Virgin Trains?

Speaking of Virgin on the ridiculous :roll:

http://stophs2.org/news/6135-virgin-ridiculous

Seems they have been reading Virgins Facebook page too much

 

[Snapper]

The anti campaign really is clueless when it comes to the railways and the way they operate. Add to that the fact they try and spin everything they really do look silly to anyone who understands the industry.

 

[Yew]

But they won't because EU law limits all heavy goods vehicles to 90km/h...

I thought British law limited them to 60?

 

[Squaddie]

The anti campaign really is clueless when it comes to the railways and the way they operate. Add to that the fact they try and spin everything they really do look silly to anyone who understands the industry.

There are many people who "understand" the rail industry who question the case for HS2. And with good reason. A high-speed line between London and Glasgow or Edinburgh might be a worthwhile investment but a short line to Birmingham that saves barely a few minutes on city-to-city travel times is a waste of public money, especially when the rest of the rail network is in such desperate need of investment.

If you were to ask people across the UK whether they would prefer a high-speed line between London and Birmingham or longer, nicer trains on their local line I'm sure the vast majority would choose the latter.

 

[NSEFAN]

There are many people who "understand" the rail industry who question the case for HS2. And with good reason. A high-speed line between London and Glasgow or Edinburgh might be a worthwhile investment but a short line to Birmingham that saves barely a few minutes on city-to-city travel times is a waste of public money, especially when the rest of the rail network is in such desperate need of investment.

If you were to ask people across the UK whether they would prefer a high-speed line between London and Birmingham or longer, nicer trains on their local line I'm sure the vast majority would choose the latter.

For the fifty billionth time, the main reason for HS2 is not speed (although it is a nice bonus). It is to relieve the southern WCML of longer distance traffic, in order to leave more room for stopping services and freight.

Of course people will want their local trains to be improved. Who wouldn't? An improvement in service is exactly what current users between Birmingham and London will see once HS2 is running. The extensions to Manchester and Leeds should do the same for these areas as well.

It's not as if HS2 will somehow starve the rest of the network. Other areas are getting investment and slowly but surely moving forward. The years of neglect and cuts under BR can't be fixed overnight. There's a lot of trains which need replacing, and this is happening (albeit slower than most of us would like!)

If there is a need for more money, then perhaps the government should look at increasing the woefully inefficient NHS or Royal Mail, or the military operations in places like Afghanistan. The economy is stagnant right now, and construction projects like HS2 are the sort of thing which can help to fix this.

 

[Snapper]

There are many people who "understand" the rail industry who question the case for HS2.

Clearly, from your comments, you're not one those who understand. You constantly misrepresent the issues and miss the point of Hs2.

 

[Geezertronic]

I thought British law limited them to 60?

90km/h equates to roughly 56mph

 

[merlodlliw]

I thought British law limited them to 60?

your are correct, MPH is still UK law, this is taken from the UK Gov website,

Speed limits
Built-up areas *
Single carriage-ways
Dual carriage-ways
Motorways
Type of vehicle
mph (km/h)
mph (km/h)
mph (km/h)
mph (km/h)
Cars & motorcycles
(including car-derived vans up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight)
30 (48)
60 (96)
70 (112)
70 (112)
Cars towing caravans or trailers
(including car-derived vans and motorcycles)
30 (48)
50 (80)
60 (96)
60 (96)
Buses, coaches and minibuses
(not exceeding 12 metres in overall length)
30 (48)
50 (80)
60 (96)
70 (112)
Goods vehicles
(not exceeding 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight)
30 (48)
50 (80)
60 (96)
70 (112) **
Goods vehicles
(exceeding 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight)
30 (48)
40 (64)
50 (80)
60 (96)
* The 30 mph limit usually applies to all traffic on all roads with street lighting unless signs show otherwise.
** 60 mph (96 km/h) if articulated or towing a trailer.

 

[vtiman]

There are many people who "understand" the rail industry who question the case for HS2. And with good reason. A high-speed line between London and Glasgow or Edinburgh might be a worthwhile investment but a short line to Birmingham that saves barely a few minutes on city-to-city travel times is a waste of public money, especially when the rest of the rail network is in such desperate need of investment.

If you were to ask people across the UK whether they would prefer a high-speed line between London and Birmingham or longer, nicer trains on their local line I'm sure the vast majority would choose the latter.

I am not sure how you would build a line from london to glasgow and edinburgh without first building a line to birmingham then onwards to manchester and leeds respectively. it has to start somewhere so connecting the three largest cities in england seems like a very good start to me.

and i dont know how 35 minutes or almost 40% time savings becomes only a few minutes - hs2 critics must think that if they repeat this often enough then it will become true ! and the rest of the network is getting huge investment !
and of course we all know that hs2 is mostly about providing capacity which if first groups passenger numbers are to be believed will be needed well before 2026. all these anti arguments are complete red herrings which dont hold up under the cold light of scrutiny. hs2 is needed and needed asap !

 

[ivanhoe]

Clearly, from your comments, you're not one those who understand. You constantly misrepresent the issues and miss the point of Hs2.

Comments like this make me wonder if you really understand the issues. Squaddie was putting over his views which are not a million miles away from a large number of people. HS2 will need to convince large numbers of people who won't be served by HS2 of the economic benefits. HS2 with upgrades on other lines maybe a better campaign.

 

[tbtc]

HS2 will need to convince large numbers of people who won't be served by HS2 of the economic benefits. HS2 with upgrades on other lines maybe a better campaign.

Plenty of other lines are seeing upgrades, hence the massive CP5 investment.

The anti HS2 people went from saying "we don't want HS2, we should be upgrading other lines instead" to saying "we don't want HS2 because we are now upgrading these lines". They are too set in their ways to be able to argue...

 

[The Ham]

Plenty of other lines are seeing upgrades, hence the massive CP5 investment.

The anti HS2 people went from saying "we don't want HS2, we should be upgrading other lines instead" to saying "we don't want HS2 because we are now upgrading these lines". They are too set in their ways to be able to argue...

It will be intresting to see what the Anti's will say in a few years time when (hopefuly) a lot more investment has happened and growth (and therefore overcrowding) is out performing what was predicted for HS2.

 

[pitdiver]

For the fifty billionth time, the main reason for HS2 is not speed (although it is a nice bonus). It is to relieve the southern WCML of longer distance traffic, in order to leave more room for stopping services and freight.

Of course people will want their local trains to be improved. Who wouldn't? An improvement in service is exactly what current users between Birmingham and London will see once HS2 is running. The extensions to Manchester and Leeds should do the same for these areas as well.

It's not as if HS2 will somehow starve the rest of the network. Other areas are getting investment and slowly but surely moving forward. The years of neglect and cuts under BR can't be fixed overnight. There's a lot of trains which need replacing, and this is happening (albeit slower than most of us would like!)

If there is a need for more money, then perhaps the government should look at increasing the woefully inefficient NHS or Royal Mail, or the military operations in places like Afghanistan. The economy is stagnant right now, and construction projects like HS2 are the sort of thing which can help to fix this.

The economy is stagnant right NOW. If HS2 goes ahead when will construction begin. The same applies to extra Runway capacity in SE England.
By the time A Government decide what to do it may well be too late. I think ALL troops etc should be pulled out of Afghanistan NOW. Let them sort themselves out. How much money could we save then.

 

[NSEFAN]

The economy is stagnant right NOW. If HS2 goes ahead when will construction begin. The same applies to extra Runway capacity in SE England.
By the time A Government decide what to do it may well be too late. I think ALL troops etc should be pulled out of Afghanistan NOW. Let them sort themselves out. How much money could we save then.

HS2 is projected to begin construction in 2017, so it's not THAT far off, especially given how it looks like this recession won't be moving for some time. There are things the government can do in the meantime, such as lower taxes like VAT to encourage public spending and get money flowing again (what to do about the economy is a wider problem and probably warrants a thread in its own right!)

Either way, the economy is much like the railways in that it needs to be looked after and maintained for the future, otherwise it breaks down and falls apart. Both entities also tend to suffer from short-termism and half-hearted government policy, which is why it's a breath of fresh air for me to see the government actually looking ahead well beyond the end of its term and starting up such a project as HS2!

 

[ainsworth74]

There are things the government can do in the meantime, such as lower taxes like VAT to encourage public spending and get money flowing again

Did that actually help when we tried that?

 

[Squaddie]

Did that actually help when we tried that?

No, it didn't. With a small number of notable exceptions - John Lewis and Marks & Spencer, for example - retailers maintained their retail prices and pocketed the additional profit themselves.

I believe we need a massive programme of investment in infrastructure in order to get the economy moving again. But I also happen to believe that building a 200km high speed line is not the best use of £30bn of public funds (how can it possibly cost so much? The Swiss are building a 60km double-track high-speed tunnel beneath the Alps for £7bn!) nor is it the best way to increase the capacity and quality of the UK's rail network.

 

[HSTEd]

I believe we need a massive programme of investment in infrastructure in order to get the economy moving again. But I also happen to believe that building a 200km high speed line is not the best use of £30bn of public funds (how can it possibly cost so much? The Swiss are building a 60km double-track high-speed tunnel beneath the Alps for £7bn!) nor is it the best way to increase the capacity and quality of the UK's rail network.

It almost certainly won't cost £30bn
It will cost probably around £10bn for the first phase and about the same for the second phase, the budget is just hugely inflated for a huge contingency fund.

£30bn would get you the entire 'Y' entirely in tunnels apart from stations... which might not be a bad thing if you think about it.

 

[Squaddie]

It will cost probably around £10bn for the first phase and about the same for the second phase, the budget is just hugely inflated for a huge contingency fund.

Those figures are roughly correct of only the initial construction costs are taken into account, but when longer-term operational costs are also taken into account it is estimated that the total cost of the entire Y-network will be around £62bn (at 2011 prices, so considerably more than that in actual prices). That would electrify a lot of the UK's rail network and buy lovely new trains to run beneath the new wires.

I'm not against high-speed rail - far from it in fact - but I just happen to think that HS2 is the wrong scheme at the wrong time.

 

[andykn]

Those figures are roughly correct of only the initial construction costs are taken into account, but when longer-term operational costs are also taken into account it is estimated that the total cost of the entire Y-network will be around £62bn (at 2011 prices, so considerably more than that in actual prices). That would electrify a lot of the UK's rail network and buy lovely new trains to run beneath the new wires.

I'm not against high-speed rail - far from it in fact - but I just happen to think that HS2 is the wrong scheme at the wrong time.

But you can't use putative operational costs to fund capital projects.

 

[HSTEd]

Those figures are roughly correct of only the initial construction costs are taken into account, but when longer-term operational costs are also taken into account it is estimated that the total cost of the entire Y-network will be around £62bn (at 2011 prices, so considerably more than that in actual prices). That would electrify a lot of the UK's rail network and buy lovely new trains to run beneath the new wires.

I'm not against high-speed rail - far from it in fact - but I just happen to think that HS2 is the wrong scheme at the wrong time.

So you assign zero cost to running trains on the classic network that will be required because no HS2 is built?

Manchester, Birmingham and probably Leeds can go clockface hourly once HS2 is built.

Operating costs per passenger for the HS line to these places will in fact be lower than for conventional trains since the line will be built with cab signalling systems and a single train and crew can run twice as many journeys as before.

Also a double deck 400m unit could have 1300 seats with only one train crew. (Calced using a V150 type set with 18 intermediate vehicles instead of 3)

 

[NSEFAN]

No, it didn't. With a small number of notable exceptions - John Lewis and Marks & Spencer, for example - retailers maintained their retail prices and pocketed the additional profit themselves.

I believe we need a massive programme of investment in infrastructure in order to get the economy moving again. But I also happen to believe that building a 200km high speed line is not the best use of £30bn of public funds (how can it possibly cost so much? The Swiss are building a 60km double-track high-speed tunnel beneath the Alps for £7bn!) nor is it the best way to increase the capacity and quality of the UK's rail network.

I was just trying to give an example of something the government might do in the short term. I'm not surprised that most companies just pocketed the moneys. It was the first thing I could think of at the time!

As other posters have mentioned, the £30 billion is for both phases of the project, which is closer to 400km of double track. To compare with the Swiss example, which would cost about £117 million per km, HS2 would cost around £75 million per km (granted these are quick calculations!)

I feel the long term capacity increase from HS2 is the biggest argument for the project. The rest of the network is also getting investment, such as the GWML and MML electrification projects and the Northern Hub, so provided annual spending doesn't spiral out of control, I don't see the harm in making short-term AND long-term improvements to the system. If we ignore the long term scenario, we risk wasting more money in the long-run patching up a system which can't physically take more trains.

 

[JohnB57]

I am not sure how you would build a line from london to glasgow and edinburgh without first building a line to birmingham then onwards to manchester and leeds respectively. it has to start somewhere so connecting the three largest cities in england seems like a very good start to me.

Errm... You could start building north from London, south from Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh and north/south from Birmingham and intermediate locations all at the same time. It's a railway, not a rash... Of course, the costs would be incurred over a shorter timescale but as a project, the line could be open throughout at pretty much the same time.

 

[The Ham]

Errm... You could start building north from London, south from Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh and north/south from Birmingham and intermediate locations all at the same time. It's a railway, not a rash... Of course, the costs would be incurred over a shorter timescale but as a project, the line could be open throughout at pretty much the same time.

No where does it say that the construction will start at London and build north, rather the southern section will be built first.

By building it in Phases it reduces construction costs, enable the first phase to be opened first as well as requiring less skilled staff and/or training (as they are used on both parts).

 

[OuterDistant]

Why didn't they just call it "Extra Capacity 1"? It would have saved a lot of squabbling.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Manchester, Birmingham and probably Leeds can go clockface hourly once HS2 is built

Only if Coventry, Wakefield & Stoke have their services decimated:roll:

We keep being told that HS2 will allow the intermediate stations to be better served yet the suggestions are always for less services. For the stations to receive a service that is no worse for frequency (ie not any better either) then 8 out of the 9 current off peak EPS125 trains need to run. Only the Liverpool can transfer (the Glasgow is needed as the HS trains won't stop in the lake district and post phase 2 at Warrington/Wigan) and you would still lose the handful or direct trains from stations further south to/from Liverpool.

By the way, TRUST has the times for the improved LM Trent Valley services

 

[tbtc]

Why didn't they just call it "Extra Capacity 1"? It would have saved a lot of squabbling.

It would. Or something vague like Northern Main Line. Too many people are too fixated with the "spend £30bn to save two minutes between London and Birmingham" argument now, sadly (there's a lot more to HS2 than this, of course).

 

[JohnB57]

No where does it say that the construction will start at London and build north, rather the southern section will be built first.

By building it in Phases it reduces construction costs, enable the first phase to be opened first as well as requiring less skilled staff and/or training (as they are used on both parts).

Nope, that's an argument I just don't buy - I think there are plenty of general construction skills available. You don't need to be a railway specialist to drive an excavator. Tunneling is clearly a specific skill but even then, how many specially trained people do you need? It's an issue of cashflow and politics, pure and simple. And it wasn't me that said it was being constructed from London up, it was the post I quoted.

The advantage of a fully functioning long distance railway on day one is surely an earlier revenue stream?