[Closed] HS2

vanity project for a few industry and govt bighitters

and for that reason, I'm out

Had a talk about it from Sir Brian Briscoe (HS2 CHairman) about it a few months ago. Obviously he told me all the positives about it and very few of the negatives as expected but I felt he made a good case.

One point he made that I never really realised is that the point of it is to provide additional capacity rather than just a faster train. All the news articles on it focus on the time reduction from a journey to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds, whereas the real benefit will be the increased capacity it will open up on these busy lines.

On the other hand it is a lot to stump up (especially in these austere times) for just one project.

There's so much persuasive lobbying both for and against, that I can't form an opinion.

Maybe it should be a monorail..........

says someone who "works" in the rail industry.

for:

trains are full and getting fuller - and consequently expensive. (the operators can charge what they like, people have to travel)

we need more trains/lines - they may as well be high speed jobbies.

my sister lives right next to (and i do mean RIGHT next to) a train line. The occasional swoosh of a train quickly becomes non-bothersome, much less so than the continual drone of a road.

do it now while contracts will be cheap - the civil engineering companies are desperate for work.
.
.
against:

it'll ruin some lovely countryside.

we don't know if the benefits will materialise.
.
.
i'm in the 'for' camp right now. any other position would make me a hypocrite - because i use trains and would quite like them to go a bit quicker.

(fwiw - HS1 goes through the space where my Gran's house used to stand)

Yep it is all about capacity, those who suggest upgrading the west coast main line might like to remember the last time this was done at the cost of £8bn with very little to see for it.

The capacity will only come from a new line.

What would be good is a fully integrated continental railway. Imagine getting on at Manchester and getting off in Madrid! Thats the way to get people off planes!

I'm for it, but I can't see a case in the medium term to go beyond the Northwest/Manchester.

The current services running between Birmingham and London are very heavily loaded. The only way of managing that loading is 'revenue management' - i.e. charging more to travel. This is not only restricted by DfT governance, but it's not helpful in terms of economic growth etc.

The existing operators are stuck - some trains are going to be lengthened to provide more capacity, but without a huge amount of investment in the infrastructure to provide more capacity on existing lines then the number of trains that can run is pretty much maxed out.

The West Coast route modernisation cost nigh on £9 billion, mainly because it was done whilst trying to keep the line open. It was costly and ensured the infrastructure was operating well below the failure rates required. Lesson learnt there is that it is much easier to build a new line than try and improve an open one to that extent.

The West Coast was built in the Victorian era and then expanded by adding further lines later. Compare the geometry of the West Coast with the Great Western main lines and you can see the restrictions in place with the West Coast (it makes maintaining the West Coast much harder than, say, the Great Western). The route weaves around so that the only way to achieve anything greater than 125mph requires a tilting train (the current Pendolino trains were originally bought to do 140mph.)

The only way forward is to provide an alternative european-style high-speed route certainly between London and Birmingham.

The problem the rail industry faces is how to cope with demand between now and completion of the new line.

unlikely to happen as it will have to go through a load of tories' back gardens in the chilterns.

and everyone knows that train lines ruin landscapes 😉
[img] [/img]

for the record, I'm in favour of rail expansion, but long distance routes aren't the only thing that need improving - we need to be able to get people to the stations in the first place. Bloody Dr Beeching closed all the branch lines that we could really do with now.

Dave

I love a good train thread. Interesting thing on Radio 4 the other day about SNCF (still fully nationalised of course) putting in tenders to run UK train lines 😆

The Tories in Bucks/chilterns are also annoyed because despite the line going right through their back gardens, they will still have to take the x5 all the way to London or Brimingham to actually get on or off it. I don't know whether they have considered that the existing trains will be less crowded. Mind you, if they get too empty i suppose they will run them less frequently. Hmmmmmm....

In this age of electronic communication why not 'predict and restrict' by leaving things as they are, not bulding HS2, and allowing the market to decide who really [i]needs[/i] to travel rather than doing their business online. It would be so much cheaper as well as stopping the midlands from becoming Londonised as the south has.

There are a lot of nimbys here in Bucks that are against it; I keep telling people that it's a capacity issue and the journey saving times are irrelevant but their views are entrenched and I have to admit that if I lived somewhere like Wendover I'd be pretty annoyed by the proposed route. The "anti" organisations are IMHO taking completely the wrong tack, pushing the lack of business case. Railways haven't had tangible business cases since the middle of the last century - they're something you build for the general strategic good of the country, a bit like motorways. They'd be better off attacking the route; something parallel with the WCML would have seemed a lot more sensible to me.

My biggest issue with HS2 is that a bunch of my council tax has been given by the council to the anti-HS2 group without my say; as one who's in favour of HS2 I want my money back!

something parallel with the WCML would have seemed a lot more sensible to me

Too many curves - wouldn't be able to do the speed.

there may well be a capcity issue but when do we say "enough is enough!" and draw the line against an ever-increasing everything? Remember that wartime poster, "IS YOUR JOURNEY REALLY NECESSARY?"

I live a mile or so from where HS2 will emerge from the sub Chiltern tunnel. I have no string view either way about HS2 but just want a quick, clear decision. My folks come from Kent and have friends who's houses were blighted for 20+ years due to indecision.

Let's hope we get a final decision!

One point he made that I never really realised is that the point of it is to provide additional capacity rather than just a faster train.

This.

The WCML is full, you have to do something, and as observed up there the WCML Upgrade was a cock-up that came in vastly overbudget and delivered chuff all of what was promised!

You've got to do something, and HS2 is the obvious solution. No real reason for it to go all the way to Scotland in the first instance IMO, perhaps Manchester.

I love a good train thread. Interesting thing on Radio 4 the other day about SNCF (still fully nationalised of course) putting in tenders to run UK train lines

Why not, ze Germans run our biggest freight operator and a couple of our passenger franchises too (Arriva are actually owned by Deutsche Bahn) and we've got the Dutch here too. The Frecnh have a significant stake in several TOCs already anyway.

One point he made that I never really realised is that the point of it is to provide additional capacity rather than just a faster train.

something parallel with the WCML would have seemed a lot more sensible to me
Too many curves - wouldn't be able to do the speed.

scaredypants - Member
vanity project for a few industry and govt bighitters

and for that reason, I'm out

Posted 3 hours ago # Report-Post

Just like the giant waste of cash thats going to be the olympics then,

Here's my painstakingly researched, carefully considered and highly nuanced opinion:

Trains are ace. MOAR TRAINS. 😀

Just like the giant waste of cash thats going to be the olympics then,

Can we link north, mid and south Wales together without having to go through England first please?

Can we link north, mid and south Wales together without having to go through England first please?

No, because that benefits about 6 people a year, of which 4 are sheep 🙂

Can we link north, mid and south Wales together without having to go through England first please?

Hmm toll the welsh that use our roads and then use the money to fund HS2?

After many complaints they've moved the line away from the 'historic' Hartwell House, and 80m nearer Aylesbury - so reduce the impact on one business, impact the best part of a 1000 houses..., including mine.

But for me, put the tender out at 50% current quotes - pay on completion.

Also fix the route, buy any property within 100 yds who want out, rent out these properties until the line is either built or they need demolition. Then sell those remaining. Should solve any complaints.

My parents are somewhat concerned that their idyllic country cottage will be ruined by the Birmingham to Leeds route, although at 91 and 87 years of age, it may not actually be built in their lifetimes. May mess up my inheritance though 🙁
There seems to be very little info about this section of the proposed route - I can't find any maps.

BlobOnAStick - Member
I'm for it, but I can't see a case in the medium term to go beyond the Northwest/Manchester.

as a resident of Newcastle, i can.

We need this - WCML too full to allow much expansion of freight, which means no alternative to lorries on the M6.

Also, HS2 will be build to a European loading gauge (GB2+?) which will allow, among other things, double-deck trains (and therefore a big increase in capacity) - current lines cannot be up-gauged as there are too many bridges etc.

Andy

Here you are Lady Gresley, any relaion to Sir Nigel Gresley, designer of dsome fine trains.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110130205316/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/mitigatednorthernroutesection/

Thanks Project (knew you'd pop up soon!) but that doesn't show the proposed "y" routes north of Brum where the west goes to Mancland and the east line goes to Leeds - it's the east one that may affect them.

For: The potential to cut carbon emissions.

Against: If the continued escalation of fares is anything to go by it'll be only for the rich.
Funds will be diverted from essential mainline upgrades.
Commuters don't need it.
It'll ruin some countryside.
Business folk will still rather fly.
The whole deal stinks.

This map any use .Lady G

http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/in-your-area

The unspoilt countryside that HS2 will ruin, yesterday:

[img] [/img]

The current plan for HS2 really just seems to lack any real thought about future need. Rather than the simpsons monorail analogy - although it is a good one and should be required viewing for all comissioning new works - I think the better one is from Black Adder IV were they discuss the latest battle in terms of the human cost to move the generals drinks cabinet a couple of inches.

I think the current route and plan to go west is flawed. Personally I'd rather see a combination of high speed and high gauge routes.

For HS2 would it not be better to link London, East Midlands, Sheffield then via Woodhead into Manchester and on to Liverpool. You then get a route linking several major cities and areas which would really benifit for ecomonic regeneration. Between Liverpool / Manchester / Sheffield you could then run a shuttle train system to take wagons off the road. Taking that idea further - re-gauge the line out to Holyhead and exetend a high gauge line east to Hull. Doing the later then opens up the option for double deck commuter trains. For the section between London and Sheffield area build it as four track - two highspeed and two commuter / freight. Since this is turning into fantacy train tracks I'd also go for a high gauge freight link into Harwich - isnt this the biggest contain port in the UK.

HS3 - built at same time as two. Continue the four track high speed / high gauge route North to Newcastle. Build a link line to give the option of Manchester / Newcastle trains. Continue N to Edinburgh / Glasgow.

HS4 - Manchester / Liverpool south via Stoke to Birmingham and onto Bristol / S Wales. If you took the link round the E of Birmingham and also build a link into HS2 that would give the London to Birmingham route.

HS5 - would you really need London / Bristol and S Wales? London via Birmingham times could be quick enough to remove the need?

Linking into Scotland would probably be best done via the East Coast. Taking the current proposed west coast route doesnt really deliver that much at all. North of Preston its not going to be a true highspeed line and there's a hundred and something miles with relatively little in terms of large towns or cities. True the East coast is sparcely populated between S. Nortumberland and Edinburgh. Surely highspeed rail links would also make the NE of England more attractive to businesses and increase private sector employment.

Ultimately it needs to be planned as a network to move people and freight round the country in the 21st and 22nd centuries. In its current form HS2 seems more about turning Birmingham into another London airport and getting people out to Heathrow.

There you go, you did ask!

Business folk will still rather fly.

This is not the experience on the continent, as there comes a point where the extra journey time on the train is still less than the faff time with aircraft. Would you rather go city centre to city centre, or would you rather have to travel to an out-of-town airport, get there early to check in, then have to get back into town at the other end?

Also, trains generally have more space for working than aircraft.

Andy

oldagedpredator - So you propose building the most heavily congested sections last when the governments probably run out of money anyway?

Nah, I think that's the worst thought out plan I've seen on here!

oldagedpredator - Member
True the East coast is sparcely populated between S. Nortumberland and Edinburgh. Surely highspeed rail links would also make the NE of England more attractive to businesses and increase private sector employment.

At the evidence given to the Transport Select COmmittee, John Tomaney argued against HS2 going to Newcastle. Not because of the cost of damage to the countryside, but because it would make it too easy to get to London from the NE:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14113764

An expensive white elephant to me. The wrong answer to the wrong question

Not sure I fully agree with Frodo way ^^ there. West Coast upgrade took out a lot of level crossings (which allowed line speed increases) and re-doubled the track in the Trent Valley which had been taken out by Beeching(?). Capacity increased quite a bit - as did the price of tickets! Railtrack looked at a fancy signalling system to allow 140 mph linespeed that eventually got scrapped to bring the costs down to £9b from an original estimate of £2.2b iirc. (Estimate went £12b or more at one stage).

I did hear Iain Coucher when head of Network Rail say that he did not believe there was a business case for HST2 to go to Leeds via Birmingham, not sure if this was a personal or NR view though. Things change and politicians do not always make the best decisions when votes are to be had. Or lost.

As also said up there it is a lot easier and therefore cheaper to build a line fresh than to upgrade a current line.

[i]Business folk will still rather fly.[/i]

Nope, we want the easiest/quickest way from where-we-start to where-we-need to go.

For example; when I lived in Leeds I used the train regularly into London, as it was quicker and easier - plus this was before 9/11, now it would be a no-brainer even for the most train-hater. The fact I got breakfast, and time to read the paper and work was just a plus.

The problem (for those who want to reduce congestion) with where I live now is that my car is usually the easiest/quickest (and mostly cheapest) option for UK travel.

And as someone directly impacted by HS2, but who'll never really be able to use it, my message is - just get it done.

EDIT - [i]that he did not believe there was a business case for HST2 to go to Leeds via Birmingham, not sure if this was a personal [/i]

Its infrastructure and usually almost impossible to 'justify', a bit like a companies' new finance system - you know its needed but any business case could easily be destroyed.

it will be another Concorde, something paid for by the majority for the use of a privileged minority.

Just a thought, but why are we even considering running a HS link to Scotland?

As Scotland is likely to become an independent foreign state before this comes to fruition why bother?

The unspoilt countryside that HS2 will ruin, yesterday

The M40 Chiltern cutting at Stokenchurch was equally controversial when it was built. If they'd decided to take HS2 down the same route then there would probably be less opposition; they have decided instead to take it out of the Chilterns down a relatively unspoilt valley, damaging one of the few remaining bits of countryside in one of the most populated areas of the country. Still, at least they didn't take it down the next valley which is even more unspoilt. Obviously that's because they chose the optimum route and wasn't influenced by Chequers being in that valley...

thing is its already quicker to train Edinburgh London city centre to city by the time you count check in time and getting to and from airports

[i]they have decided instead to take it out of the Chilterns down a relatively unspoilt valley, [/i]

True, but it is one of the main Chiltern thorough-routes with both the busy A413 and Aylesbury-Marylebone main-line. It would be either that a push up on the A41/Euston/Grand Union valley(s).

And once in the Vale you are pretty much to Brum with nothing in their way.

Aylesbury-Marylebone main-line

Calling that bit a main-line is stretching things a bit! Chiltern Railways now refer to the Princes Risborough route as the main-line, the Aylesbury route is considered more of a branch line. Main existing Chiltern through-routes are the A41, M1 or A40/M40 corridors, the one they've chosen has always been more of a local route with a road and railway that meander along the contours rather than blasting through like HS2 will. If they can't squeeze into one of the existing corridors then given that its mainly chalk I would have thought that a bit more tunneling would have removed most of the objections. On the other hand maybe the politicians don't feel they need to as the local MP is not likely to lose his seat over this or raise many objections given his wet approach to constituency issues.

If ordinary people can get from London to Birmingham for small change then I'm all for it.

However, they won't. It's going to cost billions, which will need to be recouped somehow and you can bet that some politician is devising a way of getting it built that returns a healthy profit for all concerned at the expense of the passengers - who will by and large be business people priced off the airlines by hikes in aviation taxes.

Two years ago, Southeastern introduced their high speed service to London St Pancras, priced at a 30% premium over the already ridiculously expensive main line services. Yes, they get you to London in 35 minutes from Ashford (and coincidentally will run Olympic VIPs to Stratford), but the majority of people in Kent who commute work in east London and rely on the old Cannon Street service. Taking public transport into account, there's naff all in it door to door. Last year, Southeastern had to reduce the length of their high speed trains from 12 carriages to 6, because of flat demand.

HS2 will be a similar white elephant but on a much more massive scale unless the lessons are learned. As a commuter, I'd rather see the billions put into the existing network for cheaper trains that don't smell of piss.

pjm1974's post above is apparently a live broadcast from a Saloon Bar. Needs moar cliches!

Clue: what happens to prices and volume when you add supply to a market? What happened to the price and volume of cross-channel ferry trips after the Chunnel was completed? Would you have built the Chunnel or criticised it using the same arguments?

Konab - Good point!

Even if the HS2 service only proves to be a service for business and the wealthy it still relieves congestion on the existing lines.

I'd take having a seat from Manchester to London as being a plus even if I couldn't afford to use the HS2 service.

The most economical solution is a line running to Manchester that interfaces with the existing network. That way the line provides the capacity where it is needed and as its a new route lets make it high speed.

The only vague issue with integrating it with the current network further north is that you're then restricted to smaller loading gauges, can't build trains to European spec, or go double-deck or anything.

So you have standard gauge trains only going further north.

Can you get double deck trains through the tunnel ....suppose you could the car decks are double story.

I get the capacity argument, but it's hard to swallow when in my experience getting the train often means walking past loads of empty 1st class carriages to be squeezed into a rammed standard carriage. I don't often travel at peak though.

oldagedpredator - So you propose building the most heavily congested sections last when the governments probably run out of money anyway?

Not exactly a build sequence more routes to look at.

Even the names of the Y-route should give some clues the current plan isnt a go-er. Its essentially a fast airport link and nothing else.

The main thing would be coming further east with first highspeed line north. It surely would have more benefit if the first line linked more town and cities together. A line conecting the East Midlands throught to S. Yorkshire and then into Manchester and Liverpool would, I think, bring more benefit to more people. Doesn't mean a Birmingham Spur couldnt be added to this at the time its built. You then get the potential for fast travel between northern cities and the midlands. It also means eventually you get fast travel between NE and NW. The Y-route is still to SE focused. Not all of us want to go quickly down to London.

From the development of the TGV network one of the key things they found was not building enough track capacity at the time. Doing it again they would apparently go for more quad track with highspeed and commuter or freight lines seperated. Build something that can also deliver high volume commuter travel between Birmingham and the East Midlands or S.Yorkshire and the NW as well as the high speed lines and you might be on to something.

I dont enough to have all the answers to this but I do know enough to see we're being sold a pup. Its a 1990's solution to a 21st century issue.