[Padav]

@DynamicSpirit:"Surely the time that the money is allocated for is irrelevent."

errrrr......actually this timing is absolutely germane to the debate. Every time you see or hear any kind of discussion regarding HS2, those hostile to HS2, even if they don't live in the area, argue that one of the reasons why they are against the project is because there are other more practical uses for the funding - this implicitly suggests that the funding is available now - IT ISN'T!.

In stark contrast to this false rhetoric, records sums ARE being invested in the classic rail network, right NOW. Of course you can always point to one more project that deserves attention. This is a bit like arguing that the NHS needs more funding - you can always find what appears to be a project worthy of funding but if you adopt that logic you end up pouring taxpayers money into a bottomless pit.

@DynamicSpirit: "I very much doubt that almost any voters chose to vote for one of the main parties in 2010 did so primarily because of HS2 commitments in their manifestos."

That's not how political discourse operates in the UK. Britain is a Parliamentary Democracy - parties put forward a basket of policies (in the form of a manifesto) and ask voters to back those policies. The Green Party have displayed hostility to HS2 so if sufficient numbers of the electorate felt strongly enough about the policy, they had an opportunity to express that preference through the ballot box - they didn't. Therefore, HS2 (measured in terms of MPs elected) boasts a clear democratic mandate - end of story!

I happen to agree that the UK's arcane voting system lies at the core of many of its democratic shortcomings but that's another debate!

[HSTEd]

Originally Posted by Padav

That's not how political discourse operates in the UK. Britain is a Parliamentary Democracy - parties put forward a basket of policies (in the form of a manifesto) and ask voters to back those policies. The Green Party have displayed hostility to HS2 so if sufficient numbers of the electorate felt strongly enough about the policy, they had an opportunity to express that preference through the ballot box - they didn't. Therefore, HS2 (measured in terms of MPs elected) boasts a clear democratic mandate - end of story!

I happen to agree that the UK's arcane voting system lies at the core of many of its democratic shortcomings but that's another debate!

Actually the Green Party manifesto for 2010 stated that they would in-principle support High Speed Rail......
I know because I read pretty much every single one, even the BNP one for a laugh. (Who wants an Intercity Maglev network?)

[jonmorris0844]

Originally Posted by The Planner

You answered your own statement there, station calls don't increase headways at all, they reduce capacity.

Surely you'd build a station off of the main track anyway, allowing a train to pull off, stop and then perhaps allow a train through before going back on.

Is there no room on either side of the line anywhere along the route to make it possible in 20, 30 or 40 years to decide to build a new station - perhaps for a new town that we haven't yet thought of, or a hub to connect to other new lines we might build after HS2?

Is HS2 going to be it for the rest of humanity? I think not. We'll be dead, but I am sure rail travel will remain in some form or another, or else forums in 50 years time will be very boring!

[Zoe]

Originally Posted by HSTEd

Actually the Green Party manifesto for 2010 stated that they would in-principle support High Speed Rail......

They support the principle of High Speed Rail but not the current plans.

[DynamicSpirit]

Originally Posted by Padav

errrrr......actually this timing is absolutely germane to the debate. Every time you see or hear any kind of discussion regarding HS2, those hostile to HS2, even if they don't live in the area, argue that one of the reasons why they are against the project is because there are other more practical uses for the funding - this implicitly suggests that the funding is available now - IT ISN'T!.

Not to me it doesn't. If someone says to me 'there are other more practical uses for the funding,' that doesn't look to me like it implies anything at all about the timing. But if I had to think about it I'd presume they mean that whenever the funding becomes available there are/will be more practical uses for it.

Originally Posted by Padav

In stark contrast to this false rhetoric, records sums ARE being invested in the classic rail network, right NOW. Of course you can always point to one more project that deserves attention.

That's not really relevant. No matter what sums are being spent on the railway right now (and I don't doubt they are considerable), the question surely should be: Given that £X billion is planned to be spent in Y years' time on high speed rail, are there other rail projects that would be more worthy of having that money spent on them? (Where roughly speaking, 'more worthy' = greater benefit for the same cost) If you can show that there are no such projects, then great, spend the money on high speed rail. But if there are other more worthy rail projects that are not planned to be funded and which between them add up to roughly the same amount of money, then surely we'd be better off diverting the HSR money to spend on them instead. Whatever sums are currently being spent on the railway has no bearing on that argument.

Originally Posted by Padav

This is a bit like arguing that the NHS needs more funding - you can always find what appears to be a project worthy of funding but if you adopt that logic you end up pouring taxpayers money into a bottomless pit.

Actually, no you wouldn't. You'd keep funding the NHS until you figure that there are other things that need next bit of money more (where that point occurs is a matter of judgement and controversy, but I doubt any reasonable person would pour limitless amounts of money in).

Originally Posted by Padav

That's not how political discourse operates in the UK. Britain is a Parliamentary Democracy - parties put forward a basket of policies (in the form of a manifesto) and ask voters to back those policies.

The Green Party have displayed hostility to HS2 so if sufficient numbers of the electorate felt strongly enough about the policy, they had an opportunity to express that preference through the ballot box - they didn't. Therefore, HS2 (measured in terms of MPs elected) boasts a clear democratic mandate - end of story!

Oh I agree that is how the parliamentary system works - but an obvious conclusion is that you can't be sure that just because a majority of MPs notionally support something, a majority of the population do. (I suspect that in this case, most people with an opinion would support HS2, but I certainly don't think that should mean the debate is closed).

Originally Posted by Padav

I happen to agree that the UK's arcane voting system lies at the core of many of its democratic shortcomings but that's another debate!

Yes, and one where I suspect I would agree with you. Our voting system is somewhat ridiculous.

[Chris125]

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

Surely you'd build a station off of the main track anyway, allowing a train to pull off, stop and then perhaps allow a train through before going back on.

The issue is track capacity - even if you discount the affect on following services of 220mph trains slowing/accelerating from a station stop, the looped train needs a gap between later trains to slot back in.

It would be interesting to know how many non-stop paths a stopping service would take up, presumably at least 2 depending on the length of loop and the speed of the turnouts?

Chris

[DynamicSpirit]

Originally Posted by Chris125

The issue is track capacity - even if you discount the affect on following services of 220mph trains slowing/accelerating from a station stop, the looped train needs a gap between later trains to slot back in.

It would be interesting to know how many non-stop paths a stopping service would take up, presumably at least 2 depending on the length of loop and the speed of the turnouts?

Chris

Presumably though, with careful planning, you could time the service that's accelerating away from the station to fit into the same slot that's just been vacated by another slow service that's about to slow down to stop at the station. (Though the other side to that is such a scheme might be quite fragile in the event of disruption)

[jonmorris0844]

I am talking about a major station or connections to other new lines, not loads of stations that turns HS2 into a line for local users travelling short distances.

[Philip Elliott]

Presumably though, with careful planning, you could time the service that's accelerating away from the station to fit into the same slot that's just been vacated by another slow service that's about to slow down to stop at the station. (Though the other side to that is such a scheme might be quite fragile in the event of disruption)

That is how it would work but you would also be very constrained about which services you could and couldn't stop. Dependent on the circumstances you might not be able to have an hourly pattern as the skip pathing may not fit nicely into a 60 minute window. As you say it would not be robust and a recipe for an unreliable railway. The French said "learn from our mistakes, make it 4 track and allow for freight" so what do we do?

[WatcherZero]

Word is the Chiltern groups have recognised their going to lose the battle and are preparing to switch to a strategy of demanding the whole route through the area is in a tunnel.

[LE Greys]

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

I am talking about a major station or connections to other new lines, not loads of stations that turns HS2 into a line for local users travelling short distances.

So am I. The intention is not even a loop, since the junction would be south of Brackley somewhere around the point where HS2 crosses the Varsity Line. It would be laid out for 140mph joining and diverging speeds. North of there, there is an option for a second junction to allow XC services to join at 125, but that's not likely (assuming the line runs to Birmingham rather than cutting through Rugby). In an ideal world, the line would be four-track southwards from there, with passive provision for four tracks northwards as well. Beyond Brackley, trains would fan out and join the conventional network at Banbury (where there is a possibility of a link like) to serve Oxford, Stratford-Upon-Avon and Birmingham Moor Street, running to the same stopping patterns as now, but twice as frequently. The entire area would be electrified, as would the rest of the Chiltern network.

The implication of this is giving up any idea of reaching Leeds via the Birmingham route. There is no real need for this, partly because it's too ambitious and partly because it bypasses everywhere south of Leeds along the ECML corridor, just as it bypasses everywhere south of Nottingham on the MML corridor. However, that gives scope for a potential HS4 to serve one or the other (ideally both if possible), assuming that HS3 heads for Bristol. Why is that important? Firstly, having two lines promotes a robust network. Secondly, sending the line via Birmingham excludes much of eastern England from the benefits of HS2. Sure, we might ram a couple more trains through Welwyn, but will it make it any easier to travel north? Of course not! It will make it harder, since it will effectively cut the ECML in two.

OK, what if we just let the current plan happen? Well, excluding the problems of the ECML, what goes wrong for the WCML and Chiltern? Well, the expresses go on Chiltern, replaced by DMUs that stop more often. Electrification never happens, because after HS2, the line begins to atrophy. Why would there be any point investing in Chiltern? Surely the people who use Chiltern today can transfer to HS2. Well, can they? How do they access it? Moving north, think of Leicester when the Sheffield trains are slowed down, when their HSTs are replaced by yet more DMUs and when they have no access north of Nottingham or Derby. Think of Coventry, now on a suburban line to Euston. Think of Wolverhampton, now marooned from London when their trains are terminated at Rugby to avoid clogging up the WCML and everyone has to change at a congested New Street to access Curzon Street. Think of Warwick and Leamington Spa, now returned to the Chiltern route of the 1980s. Think of High Wycombe and Aylesbury, stuck in the 2010s because they are a 'low-priority route' and don't get upgrades.

I'm not saying that a connecting line will solve all of this, it's also important to have better access to Curzon Street from west and north of Birmingham, but it will go some way towards not having an HS2 in splendid isolation.

[Chris125]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

Well, the expresses go on Chiltern, replaced by DMUs that stop more often. Electrification never happens, because after HS2, the line begins to atrophy. Why would there be any point investing in Chiltern?

I dont understand why you keep repeating this - unlike all the proposals for intermediate stops and chords, the only Chiltern service affected by HS2 trains running non-stop between London and Birmingham will be the half-hourly fast services, which are slower than the WCML alternative anyway.

Its growth from intermediate journeys that will drive the need for further capacity upgrades and electrification, which HS2 will leave unnaffected.

Chris

[LE Greys]

Originally Posted by Chris125

I dont understand why you keep repeating this - unlike all the proposals for intermediate stops and chords, the only Chiltern service affected by HS2 trains running non-stop between London and Birmingham will be the half-hourly fast services, which are slower than the WCML alternative anyway.

Its growth from intermediate journeys that will drive the need for further capacity upgrades and electrification, which HS2 will leave unnaffected.

Chris

Because I haven't had an answer that convinces me it's not going to happen. I'm concerned that a combination of perception (that area has HS2 so it must be OK) and financial constraints caused by the fact that the lucrative Birmingham traffic is being taken away. And because it's happened before, when the WCML was electrified and invesment dried up because traffic atrophied. I'm not saying that it will be cut immediately, I'm saying that investment will dry up after HS2 opens.

[Waverley125]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

Because I haven't had an answer that convinces me it's not going to happen. I'm concerned that a combination of perception (that area has HS2 so it must be OK) and financial constraints caused by the fact that the lucrative Birmingham traffic is being taken away. And because it's happened before, when the WCML was electrified and invesment dried up because traffic atrophied. I'm not saying that it will be cut immediately, I'm saying that investment will dry up after HS2 opens.

I gave you an answer. You've either not read it, or are trolling on some insane, hysterical rant that you're sure is right even though no plan, thats ever been written, except by HS2 opponents, says it is.

Here's the highlights of what I'm going to call 'the real world'

1. No loss of service along the Chiltern Main Line. Because the Chiltern main line is already slower than the fast services on the WCML. The CML is also not at capacity, and is not kept afloat by London-Birmingham travellers, which is why Chiltern offers cut-price through fares to compete with Virgin. The effects of HS2 will be felt on the WCML, not the CML.

2. No ceasing to invest in the CML. Because NR will still use things like cost-benefit analysis, and you know proper, real, investigations to decide which projects it funds. The Business case for investing in the CML in terms of speed upgrades & electrification will be based on better serving the towns on the route. This has worked very well for it in the past, and will continue to do so.

3. Ending of 'express' services on the WCML, i.e. no more New Street, International, Coventry, Euston services. HS2 will be a lot faster than the best time that the WCML can achieve. So services from Birmingham will be slowed down to compensate. I.e. most WCML Bham services running Watford Junc, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, International, New St. Potentially more 'fast' services via Northampton. Similar situation for Manchester on the WCML & Leeds on the ECML.

4. No loss of connections for indirectly served towns. The idea that 'London-Leeds services will be moved onto HS2' is misleading. The classic lines will still have services to their end destinations, precisely because being able to get from Leicester-Sheffield direct is a good thing. But these services will be run to maximise connections rather than minimise journey times. So more places will get more services, not fewer. Leicester may lose a 'Derby only' service to Sheffield, but it's in that position now as every train that passes through calls there. That is not the case for most stations. So yes, some very well served stations will lose some express services, but a lot of less well served stations (here's looking at you Nuneaton, Market Harborough, Retford) will get better services than today.

Basically, the fast services on HS2 are As well as NOT instead of end-to-end services on the classic lines.

[Chris125]

Because I haven't had an answer that convinces me it's not going to happen. I'm concerned that a combination of perception (that area has HS2 so it must be OK) and financial constraints caused by the fact that the lucrative Birmingham traffic is being taken away. And because it's happened before, when the WCML was electrified and invesment dried up because traffic atrophied. I'm not saying that it will be cut immediately, I'm saying that investment will dry up after HS2 opens.

If the vast majority of passenger traffic on Chiltern being completely unnaffected by HS2 isnt a persuasive argument, i dont know what is.

Chris