[Closed] HS2... whats the point?

Was hilarious listening to some politician on the radio saying that people currently don't take the train but choose to fly to London from the north because it is quicker. No, they fly because IT IS CHEAPER. HS2 is not going to change this.

Rachel

Very simply... The west coast main line is virtually full, so they need to do something. You can do some incrental improvements (as they did on the Trent Valley stretch) and it'll cost billions whilst delivering a sticking plaster solution, or you can just start again with something that will not only be quicker, but far higher capacity, which is actually one of the biggest advantages of high speed rail.

The flight thing is a bit of a red herring IMO, there aren't that many flights with pure domestic passengers, you won't get a huge change there.

Its not about speed though is it...its about capacity, and freeing up the existing lines for freight. The name is miss-leading, should really be called EC2 (extra-capacity 2) and then maybe opinions would be a bit different. Still eye-wateringly expensive though...

They need to spend the cash on the current rail network and fix that POS first,mthen move to the road network and fix that, then and only then should anyone look at a pointless fast link for BBC execs who now need to get to London sharpish.

Roll on the next election

Be fair, it'll knock 15 mins off the journey time London -> Birmingham - that has got to be worth £80,000,000,000 of anyone's money.

It's got nothing to do with time, it's about capacity. Upgrading the existing line will cost at least as much, with massive disruption to existing users.

If it's extra capacity they need then why can't they extend the platforms, add more carriages and maybe redesign the carriage to cram more people in. Or how about more flexible working hours so everyone doesn't have to turn up at 9am and not all travelling at the same time. The government is cutting all sorts of other spending budgets, wages, pensions etc yet the overall spending hasn't decreased.

We'd be better off spending 80 bil on reducing the number of private and commercial road journeys.

I went to a talk from the then Chairman of HS2 a few years ago.

The thing that struck me (as mentioned) is that the marketing for it is all wrong! With the WCML at capacity it had always been about increasing the capacity of the train lines. I think if people realised that rather than just thinking its 15mins of the train time it would be perceived a lot better.

Extending existing platforms to allow more cars will probably require major track works, certainly signalling upgrades and probably power upgrade as well. Working on existing infrastructure keeping services running is costly and time consuming. It'll probably be cheaper and quicker to build new.

We'd be better off spending 80 bil on reducing the number of private and commercial road journeys.

[i]If it's extra capacity they need then why can't they extend the platforms, add more carriages and maybe redesign the carriage to cram more people in.[/i]

Been in a train recently? I don't think you can get many more into a train when the seats are 5 abreast (on commuter trains at least) and there are people standing on long distance routes. Platforms, again how do you extend a platform in the middle of a built up area, and you won't gain many carriages.

London to Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle are already faster than driving if you want to go city centre to city centre. Non city centre journeys are and will be slower e.g.Ealing to Knutsford.

The Manchester to London flights seem pretty full!

Freight moved off rail all through the 20th century but is now growing again. The capacity argument works but what cost is acceptable? The argument will go on and on.

The modelling data is presuming growth year on year. They do not seem to be thinking about or factoring in any reduction in the demand due to differing work practices. It is entirely possible that less people will want or need to be traveling due to home/internet based work lives. People will always need to travel, and you can't beat a face to face meeting. But it is probable that more and more people will be staying at and working from home.
Modelling of this type is always pretty flawed, and can be made to say what you want it to say.

I don't know, HS2, its going to be crazy crazy money to build, and its unlikely to be even vaguely affordable to use when it is built. Its all very political and thats never a good thing.

The problem is that doing anything to increase capacity on the railways is eye-wateringly expensive.

The bigger problem is that doing nothing is also mind-bendingly expensive but is far far easier and means that the problem just goes away for a bit and then comes back later only worse.

Oh and it's £40billion for the whole project. The group that said last week that it was £80bn had, for some reason decided to include the costs of The cross rail project in their calculations [s]in order to make them look far more appealing to headline writers[/s]

Top tip. To increase intercity rail capacity, don't make half a big train 1st class, that way normal people will be able to fit on instead of having to stand in the corridors while most of the 1st class compartments are empty.

Was hilarious listening to some politician on the radio saying that people currently don't take the train but choose to fly to London from the north because it is quicker. No, they fly because IT IS CHEAPER. HS2 is not going to change this.

Depends: trains start from city centre stations, you don't have to head out to an airport an hour away. You also don't have to be there an hour beforehand to get through security, etc.

And given the choice (and a reserved seat), I'd much rather go by train, if the Spanish high-speed (AVE and Alvia) links are anything to go by they're a lot more comfortable, better views, etc. (Conveniently ignoring the recent crash, of course...)

Why is the Government spending public money on the railways that were "privatised" the "privatised railways" that we still subsidise and who pay their shareholders a decent return and their bosses big salaries and bonuses.

Beechings cuts coming back to bite us hard, but hey everything is easy with hindsight.

I think you kind of help make my own point, molgrim. Even with all the disadvantages you describe, lots of people still choose to fly...

How about a big loop going through all the main cities, one clockwise, one anti-clockwise, swing it out East a bit to let me get on now and again.

will it mean increased capacity for bikes on trains? maybe special discounted journey tickets for those of us who take bikes on trains would encourage people to use 2 wheels as well.

I think you kind of help make my own point, molgrim. Even with all the disadvantages you describe, lots of people still choose to fly...

Because there's no HS train available. Certainly I don't know of many people who would fly London - Brussels, not with HS+Chunnel. Likewise the people here who would get the early flight from Madrid-Barcelona all take the train these days, it's just as fast and it leaves you in the city centre.

But if you take the Leeds to London route, there IS a fairly high speed train available. The flights from LBA are full...

Total waste of money. By investment in the existing network and improving disused links to key locations they could build this extra capacity for a fraction of the cost. Reopen key stations.

I believe a 15% capacity increase can be covered by improvement in the existing network.

It benefits those in London. That is why it's happening. Pretty useless for those who require a decent provincial network. I'd quite like to have my contribution deducted from my tax as I know I will never ever use it or see its benefit.

Total waste of time ...
Government has to borrow from the usual sources - increases the debt cycle but encourages "spending"

The rich get richer ....

But if you take the Leeds to London route, there IS a fairly high speed train available. The flights from LBA are full...

The train takes over 2 hours, twice as long as the flight and just as expensive...

It's too London centric, for the business elite who don't know how to use conference calls or skype. Yeah for overpaid BBC dubious types. Double decker coaches would help sort out the overcrowding issue : but what about the bridges ? It's a complex problem, I suppose any investment in new rail schemes is a good idea as it takes the pressure of the roads. But London to Manchester, is that really what the country needs? What about those 'sub-sprinter' level trains that need gear changes on regional lines? What about he non-existent public transport in the other cities that are not London or Manchester? Maybe the Romanian influx we are expecting could be put to use building the tracks, OMG does that make me a racist or something??

What about the Hyperloop as an alternative?

With postulated costs of US$5 bn for a 400 mile much longer track, compared with £50bn + for HS2, it must be worth spending say £1bn on a proof of concept.
Hyperloop could be built above existing infrastructure to minimise disruption.

(PS, don't criticize the engineering without reading the pdf, not just other comments)

Oh and it's £40billion for the whole project.

Except they don't actually know how much it's going to cost since they pulled the £40,000,000,000 figure out of their arse in the first place. Are we working to English billions or US billions, 'cos there's a bit of a difference?

If anyone is expecting the HS2 line to be cheaper, I think you will be sadly disappointed ...

The real solution would be to move jobs away from the SE. All HS2 will do is make it quicker to get to London. Ideal for an MP, when you can travel first class.

Are we working to English billions or US billions, 'cos there's a bit of a difference?

Not anymore there isn't:

In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.

We'd be better off spending 80 bil on reducing the number of private and commercial road journeys.

Good idea. Maybe we could increase rail capacity

😀

i live in sheffield, maybe we need fast trains to london, but we already have them, and they're not full all the time.

but we definitely need quick trains to Manchester, Leeds and Beyond.

want to go to london? - 170 miles in 2 hours, this is fine.

want to go Manchester? - you may as well walk the 30 miles, you'll get there faster than the train...

want to go to Edinburgh? - first you'll need to drive to Gatwick, for a flight to Frankfurt, for another flight to Edinburgh.

The big advantages are likley to come when people start to realise that shifting freight by road is going to get a lot more expensive soon and the 90% decrease in rail freight over the past few decades will have to be reversed. That way you'll all get clearer motorways and goods will still be quick and easy to shift by rail. It's a win-win...

...except for the capital investment in the infrastructure, oh and Eddie Stobart will have to sell a few lorries and buy a few trains. Still it's got to be better than spaffing it on new roads. That was a spectacular failure.

Just to put HS2 into perspective, the West Coast main line upgrade cost £9bn and seems to have achieved very little so £40-£50bn for a complete new line seems like a bargain to me. Rather than questioning the need for HS2 perhaps it would be more sensible to question why it costs so much to build anything in this country?

those [s]little[/s] large brown envelopes are surprisingly expensive...

mogrim - Member

The train takes over 2 hours, twice as long as the flight and just as expensive...

Not when you include check in and check out, and transit times to the airports!

I love to fly, but, even if the total moving time is identical your time when flying is far more disrupted- queue here to queue here to queue here. If you want to actually do something with your travel time- whether it's working or just reading a book or having a snooze- then short-haul planes kind of suck.

(I spend the whole time looking out the window, but then I am a child)

mogrim - Member

But if you take the Leeds to London route, there IS a fairly high speed train available. The flights from LBA are full...

The train takes over 2 hours, twice as long as the flight and just as expensive...

Having been a regular commuter to London in the past I thought I'd check

Flying depart home 7:00 arrive central London 11:30, depart central London 17:30 arrive home 21:15.
14 hours and 6 hours in London

Drive to airport and park 40 minutes Parking £ 26.00
Cheapest flight return 1 hour £156.00
Arrive and check in 1.5 hours
Travel to London 30 minutes £ 30.00
Total 3:40 £212.00

Train Leave home 6:40 Arrive central London 10:00, depart central London 18:00 arrive home 21:20.
14.5 hours, 8 hours in London

Drive to station and park 10 Minutes Free
Fare 3 hours £186.00
Arrive and jump on train 5 minutes
Total 3:15 £186

I think some one needs to add up cost in time and all the other bits, I havent allowed for fuel which would only add more money to the Air Flight

make it happen

[img] [/img]

I love to fly, but, even if the total moving time is identical your time when flying is far more disrupted- queue here to queue here to queue here. If you want to actually do something with your travel time- whether it's working or just reading a book or having a snooze- then short-haul planes kind of suck.

Fully agree, and looking at Dales_rider's post I'm at a loss as to why people would take the plane. allthegear would seem to be right. I can only think there are a lot of people out there who haven't bothered to do the sums... Unless there's some other factor? Disruption, strikes, ???

Still think HS rail travel is a good idea, linking the UKs major cities (ideally with easy connection to the Chunnel line) - and not just London.

look at HS1 for example that did wonders, they reduced the number of normal trains on the shared line sections and also made the remaining trains shorter. But now with lots of fast trains. result is the normal trains are now twice as over crowded as before and the fast trains are less then 1/2 full even during commuter rush hour because the fares are just to expensive.

sheffield, maybe we need fast trains to london, but we already have them, and they're not full all the time.

but we definitely need quick trains to Manchester, Leeds and Beyond.
...
want to go to Edinburgh? - first you'll need to drive to Gatwick, for a flight to Frankfurt, for another flight to Edinburgh.

Want to go to Edinburgh from Sheffield, it's 3 hours 30 minutes on the train, which doesn't seem that bad for 250 miles? It'd be nice if it was faster, but it isn't the end of the world is it?

1 change, and you're knackered if train1 is running even a tiny bit late.

the train get from Edinburgh, to doncaster in less than 3 hours, which is great, But DONCASTER!?!?

and that's my point, 'high speed' trains, with expensive, super-straight tracks, and expensive, frequent maintenance, going where we wanted would be great, but we'd be happy with normal trains that went to usefull places.

I've suggested this on other related threads, but we really need to look at reducing the demand for travel, rather than trying to increase it.

Nobody seems to complain abnout the amount wasted on the mototrways, eg lane widening extra lanes , new lights and signs and junctions .

Then about a mile from me 87 million was spent on strengthening one motorway junction and bridge,Bidston Moss m53, junction 1,while the trains running under it where built in 1979, and the national cycle network track also running below it has had no money spent on it since it was built.

A cheaper idea would be to convert the motorways one side to railways m1 and m25 being classic examples, turn uop at a park and ride and get on a train, get off at the other end and then hire bike or coach/bus.

except for the capital investment in the infrastructure, oh and Eddie Stobart will have to sell a few lorries and buy a few trains

Like they've been doing for a number of years now:
[img] [/img]

The trouble with flight comparisons is that a lot of people are using domestic flights and connecting to longer ones. A decent proportion of people flying Manchester-Heathrow for example (you can't fly to City, and BA withdrew the Gatwick route due to lack of demand in April, make of that what you will) many of those people will be changing to trans-Atlantic flights. They won't get the train, whatever you do.

I forget the figures, but my dissertation at Uni was on the WCML upgrade and the 'need' for HS2.

Surely most of these 'full' planes from Leeds and Manchester must be connecting flights where the destination isn't London but the airport, which of course is far less risky from a delay perspective (airline's problem). I'd expect businesses in Slough and Chiswick to benefit from proximity to the airport but not those outside of that radius.

Totally agree on the disruption you get from a short-haul flight where there's an intense amount of unproductive faffing.

Rail travel's where it's at from a productivity perspective but even then it can be challenging in a busy standard class. I use ECML from Wakefield to City occasionally out to Reading and if I work with the meeting planners there's plenty of opportunity to get discounted travel (not necessarily advanced purchase).

Unfortunately the British rail network has been wrecked over the past few decades (or going back even further), while our main European competitors have kept on investing in theirs. To put that right will take investment.

The UK has pandered to road for far too long and needs to invest far more into transport diversity, as well as planning "link up" between different modes.

IMO the UK should be planning multiple high speed links, north to south and east to west. Otherwise the UK will increasingly become a less desirable place to invest for manufacturing compared to mainland Europe.

Maybe they could reduce costs by bringing it under a Government infrastructure works department instead of just spunking billions in profit to private companies.

How much of this £40bn is spent within the UK? I assume rolling stock would be built by European companies, but what about the rest?

A little known fact
Ilkley London fare = £257
Ilkley Doncaster = £17.70
Doncaster Newark = £34.60
Newark London = £135

Thats a fair saving, even cheaper if you split the ticket Retford Newark Peterborough

I don't get why the country needs a very expensive slightly faster rail link?

It's got pointless, over-budget waste of cash written all over it.

So why are the government so eager to push this through?

i live in sheffield,...//
want to go Manchester?

I think we need the capacity but because it will be built by the private sector you can be sure the final bill will be way over the estimate as it always is with these projects. Watch out for former ministers poping up 'working' for the companies involved.

Flight from Manchester to Heathrow - ~£90 (train normally ~£180 odd if booked at short notice)
Taxi to airport - £15
Taxi/Train the other end depending on how many of us are travelling/meeting there

It's really really simple to fly, I'm absolutely gutted that BA have stopped the Manchester to Gatwick flight, my OH used to fly down there all the time and hire a car from the airport for all her business down in Dover/Deal/Hastings then just drop the car off at the airport in the evening.

Getting a train to anywhere the other side of London from the north is a massive pain in the arse.

One of the train's advantages over flying is the being able to arrive in a city centre location. HS2, however, isn't going to city centre locations outside of London.

i live in sheffield, maybe we need fast trains to london, but we already have them, and they're not full all the time.

but we definitely need quick trains to Manchester, Leeds and Beyond.

want to go to london? - 170 miles in 2 hours, this is fine.

want to go Manchester? - you may as well walk the 30 miles, you'll get there faster than the train...

want to go to Edinburgh? - first you'll need to drive to Gatwick, for a flight to Frankfurt, for another flight to Edinburgh.

You can fly from Manchester, http://www.edinburghairport.com/flight-information/route-map

And East Midlands, non stop

A little known fact

Same line, same trains, same ticket office, different prices, stupid.

The UK has pandered to road for far too long and needs to invest far more into transport diversity, as well as planning "link up" between different modes.

IMO the UK should be planning multiple high speed links, north to south and east to west. Otherwise the UK will increasingly become a less desirable place to invest for manufacturing compared to mainland Europe.

Part of the problem is that the UK's geography just doesn't really lend itself to high speed rail in the same way as France/Germany/Spain. We don't have big cities with nothing in between, we have lots of intermediate towns folk will want to stop at.

Our rail network is one of the busiest in the world, and it needs sorting, but look at France beyond the TGV and surburban routes, it's crap! Switzerland is among the best, and no HSR in sight.

HS2, however, isn't going to city centre locations outside of London.

except Leeds, and Manchester...

Part of the problem is that the UK's geography just doesn't really lend itself to high speed rail in the same way as France/Germany/Spain. We don't have big cities with nothing in between, we have lots of intermediate towns folk will want to stop at

Yeah France\Germany and Spain have no small towns 🙄

Switzerland is among the best, and no HSR in sight.

The population of Switzerland is about 8 million, and is about 1/6th the size of the UK, not even close to being comparable.

njee20 - Member

Switzerland is among the best, and no HSR in sight.

One of the oft quoted myths

[url= http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/Gotthard_base_tunnel/Rail_network/Swiss_Railways_heads_towards_its_limit.html?cid=4364 ]Dont kid yourself[/url]

It will serve very little purpose
I think a decent link between Liverpool and Hull would serve the North better

Its London centric nonsense to think the solution to all ills is better links to London

Better things could be done with the money to improve the train journey

scaled - Member

Getting a train [s]to anywhere the other side of London from[/s] in the north is a massive pain in the arse.

fify.

[s]Getting a train to anywhere the other side of London from in [/s]the north is a massive pain in the arse.

FTFTFY 😉

Liverpool and Hull

really? is there much traffic between the two?

I'm all for HS2, reduce short hall flights, freeup frieght capacity, and also, have a big fast awesome train. In actually fact there is a huge investment in the railways coming, the transpennine route is scheduled for electrification, as are some of the smaller lines. This isn't just a line to get people to Lun-Dun, but to get people out of london, on weekend breaks, you name it. We don't, in fact can't know just what the effects of it will be. But its a fraction of what we're spending on arms and other stuff, and its a massive super fast train. We need a bit of national pride back.

I do think it should start at edinburgh and work its way down, that's the London centric bit.

Everyone's getting all outraged at the cost, but I've heard very little explanation and discussion of WHY it has to cost so much, or indeed, take so damn long.

Liverpool to york is being electrified,

Sadly the tunnels trought he penines linking manchester to sheffield where closed a while ago, and filled wih cables pipes etc to stop them being reused as a high speed link, the edinburgh waverley route was also closed, now being partially reopened in scotland, and lots more routes have been lost forever by poor or non existent planning

Liverpool and hull are both major ports, with both Birkenhead and the inland trafford park freight terminal/manchester ship cannal being huge sourses of freight traffic.

unklehomered - Member

except Leeds, and Manchester...

40 miles apart, an hour on the train.

this is crap, HS2 won't help for at least 25 years.

this is crap.

as he said. FWIW it was a point made on Radio 4 that the train journey between these two ports and across the northern heartland / M62 cannot be made without changes and takes as long as Liverpool to London

As I said it is London centric solution to a problem I am not sure exists

leeds manchester is currently being electrified , and geting faster trains and a higher frequency.

40 miles apart, an hour on the train.

this is crap, HS2 won't help for at least 25 years.

this is crap.

But that's not the point. It isn't for connecting Leeds and Manchester, they're alreaqdy connected, the HS trains will go right into the heart of both those cities, and in both cases slap bang next to the major train station connecting to the surrounding network, the Dales, the Lake District, The Moors, North Wales. It will make a massive difference to travel in the UK. Both for us, but also for visiting tourists, who will be able to get to the north quickly, and easily. Rather than it taking the best part of a day.

Connect the HS2 directly to Liverpool using the correct European wide gauge tracks so linking the port with the Channel tunnel.
That would make Liverpool the biggest & most important port in Europe. Ships could dock, unload and haul the goods by train directly to wherever they need to be in Europe before the ship could have gone round Britain. Saves time, energy and creates loads of jobs for the North West and helps with the balance of payments. Make a wide gauge 'Branch' line to Sunderland for Nissan & get shifting some more manufacturing.

Rather than it taking the best part of a day.

London to York currently takes less than 2 hours.

It worth noting that whilst flying is currently affordable, i suspect that in 20 years, with fuel costs having rocketed, it will get a lot lot more expensive!

I think it's about time we spent some new money on the railways, and used brand new tech, new lines, routes and rolling stock etc. We've been "mend and make do" for so long now, the legacy of the existing infrastructure is just too large, and creates a massive burden on any new project.

The potential issue, once again surrounds the future of energy costs. As it gets more and more expensive to travel, and yet more and more internet connection bandwidth becomes availible, less and less people will ultimately travel for work reasons. Afterall, of all the people who work in london, what proportion go there to simple sit at a desk infront of a computer??

London to York currently takes less than 2 hours.

Yes but then you've got connecting trains both to Kings X and from York. HS2 goes right by Heathrow. And Leeds the better connecting hub and it takes 2.5 hours, despite it being further south. Cut that leg down to 1hr 20, you could do London to Skipton, Hebden Bridge, Harrogate (don't laugh, some people really like it, its like the south, but in the north), York, Otley, Settle in 3 to 4 hours from your door.

Thing about a connection with London is that London is also connected to Paris and Brussels by train, which means a French tourist could also potentially be in York in 4-5 hours.

Building a decent high speed backbone running down the country also simplifies connections to the rest of the cities not currently included, as you can link into it from the rest of the towns.

yes 4-5 hours or 4 hr 40-5hr 40

Ignoring the cross over of times that is no real saving or benefit for all that cost

Its marginally faster for shits loads of money - basically its the 650 b 😉

I don't have a problem with the large capital cost, as construction is highly labour dependent, most of the money get's circulated back into UK construction companies, which boosts the economy and all their wages get taxed, so a fair chunk (roughly 30%) just comes back as tax revenue.

It worth noting that whilst flying is currently affordable, i suspect that in 20 years, with fuel costs having rocketed, it will get a lot lot more expensive!

True, it's only a matter of time before aviation fuel is taxed properly (like petrol and diesel). It's also only a matter of time before HGVs and LGVs are taxed properly because car traffic is reducing = less tax revenues. So the cost of goods will go up, unless a cheaper way to shift them can be found... ...trains!

Afterall, of all the people who work in london, what proportion go there to simple sit at a desk infront of a computer??

A lot, a stupid amount in fact. Got to be one of the most inefficient way of doing things yet we've all bought in to it!

unklehomered - Member

It will make a massive difference to travel in the UK.

no it won't, HS2 won't create a fast link between any towns/cities that aren't already linked by fast trains.

(i din't know that leeds/manchester was getting electrified, that's good news!)