High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

The Planner said:

Surely being bypasses of towns and cities is partly the point of them? To remove the through traffic that doesnt want or need to be there. That just smacks of all motorways are bad and should never have been built.

Click to expand...

It might so 'smack' but that is an assumption not provided by my text. All we need to think of in the context of HSR vs road, is the fact that the greater distance one is from one's destination, the more competitive HS can be, especially if smooth links to final destination are provided. As illustration, we have the consideration of Toton. Radcliffe (EMP) was thought perhaps a better choice and I must say I can see that (also for EMA), but even with a quick link to Derby and Nottingham centre from EMP, you still have to take another transport method to reach the destination. The hope is that a fast tram(-train) will whisk one from Toton. It's a poser, that one, and no mistake.

But even over the relatively short distance from London to Derby, the HS plus taxi will probably be the no-brainer choice, since one can work on the train. That's why (AIUI) the benefits for the BCR had to be reduced, since they were expressed as a choice between, in this instance, EMT and HS2. You can work on a 222 just as well as on an HS captive.

The BCR is a comparison between existing rail services and HS ones. Road competition, I assume, was not looked at???

HowardGWR said:

It might so 'smack' but that is an assumption not provided by my text. All we need to think of in the context of HSR vs road, is the fact that the greater distance one is from one's destination, the more competitive HS can be, especially if smooth links to final destination are provided. As illustration, we have the consideration of Toton. Radcliffe (EMP) was thought perhaps a better choice and I must say I can see that (also for EMA), but even with a quick link to Derby and Nottingham centre from EMP, you still have to take another transport method to reach the destination. The hope is that a fast tram(-train) will whisk one from Toton. It's a poser, that one, and no mistake.

But even over the relatively short distance from London to Derby, the HS plus taxi will probably be the no-brainer choice, since one can work on the train. That's why (AIUI) the benefits for the BCR had to be reduced, since they were expressed as a choice between, in this instance, EMT and HS2. You can work on a 222 just as well as on an HS captive.

The BCR is a comparison between existing rail services and HS ones. Road competition, I assume, was not looked at???

Click to expand...

I can't speak for this one specifically but I have had enough involvement in business cases for other rail projects to reply in general terms. There is always a "do-minimum" which consists of all the committed schemes, and there is normally also a requirement to examine alternatives.

The demand is estimated by a huge computer model which includes all existing transport links by road or public transport. When a new link such as HS2 is added, the model predicts the number of people using it, and whether they have transferred from other links or are new travellers. The parameters that determine this choice are derived from research into people's responses to factors such as journey time, fare levels, the need to change trains en route etc.

The issue with working on trains reduces the value of time saved by train travellers, which is part of the benefits in the BCR, though it would also affect the modal choice because being able to work on trains means that more business users will choose train instead of car. It may also increase the penalty for journeys requiring a change, because the change disrupts the work. So the net result ought to be some increase in modal shift from car to HS2 but a reduction in modal shift from classic rail to HS2.

Incidentally the tram from Toton is not a viable option for travellers to or from central Nottingham. There will be 16 stops between Toton and the city centre which will outweigh any time saving from using HS2. For this to be successful it really needs a fast and frequent train to both Nottingham and Derby with slick connections at Toton.

edwin_m said:

I can't speak for this one specifically but I have had enough involvement in business cases for other rail projects to reply in general terms. There is always a "do-minimum" which consists of all the committed schemes, and there is normally also a requirement to examine alternatives.

The demand is estimated by a huge computer model which includes all existing transport links by road or public transport. When a new link such as HS2 is added, the model predicts the number of people using it, and whether they have transferred from other links or are new travellers. The parameters that determine this choice are derived from research into people's responses to factors such as journey time, fare levels, the need to change trains en route etc.

The issue with working on trains reduces the value of time saved by train travellers, which is part of the benefits in the BCR, though it would also affect the modal choice because being able to work on trains means that more business users will choose train instead of car. It may also increase the penalty for journeys requiring a change, because the change disrupts the work. So the net result ought to be some increase in modal shift from car to HS2 but a reduction in modal shift from classic rail to HS2.

Incidentally the tram from Toton is not a viable option for travellers to or from central Nottingham. There will be 16 stops between Toton and the city centre which will outweigh any time saving from using HS2. For this to be successful it really needs a fast and frequent train to both Nottingham and Derby with slick connections at Toton.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree with all that, and it would be interesting to learn if transfer from motorway to HS was envisaged. I must say if I was an employer and my staff were driving to appointments between London and Derby (either way), I should want to know on what basis they considered I should be paying for their time so spent, in the modern era. All this consideration is of course since wifi is introduced but also fatigue is an important consideration. I've done it (in the 80s) and know that these matters are important job performance factors.

edwin_m said:

Incidentally the tram from Toton is not a viable option for travellers to or from central Nottingham. There will be 16 stops between Toton and the city centre which will outweigh any time saving from using HS2. For this to be successful it really needs a fast and frequent train to both Nottingham and Derby with slick connections at Toton.

Click to expand...

Whilst it agree that a good heavy rail link from Toton to both Derby and Nottingham is preferable, I wouldn't rip the tram out so easy - it wouldn't be that difficult to configure an express tram between Toton and Nottingham using passing places at strategically placed locations - so that the express tram can "overtake" the all stops service - there's also the tram train options (subject to the pilot being successful) running partly along the line between Long Eaton and Nottingham.

In the worst case scenario, where a dedicated non-stop link is needed from a city centre to its HS2 station, the cost of building the link will still be less than the cost of redirecting HS2 through the city centre. The EMT service to St Pancras is timed for 12 minutes between Nottingham and Parkway, which is a similar distance rail-wise as Toton. If you grade-separate the junction either end then there would almost certainly be enough capacity for a frequent EMU shuttle. Derby to Parkway/Toton is similar story at 14 minutes. The non-grade-separated infrastructure exists already and since there is going to be 20 years to prepare before it opens it's unlikely not to happen.

Haydn1971 said:

Whilst it agree that a good heavy rail link from Toton to both Derby and Nottingham is preferable, I wouldn't rip the tram out so easy - it wouldn't be that difficult to configure an express tram between Toton and Nottingham using passing places at strategically placed locations - so that the express tram can "overtake" the all stops service - there's also the tram train options (subject to the pilot being successful) running partly along the line between Long Eaton and Nottingham.

Click to expand...

That would in fact be very difficult. The tram line includes long sections of street running through the centre of Beeston and Chilwell.

HS2 London to Toton is only about 51 minutes whereas the train St Pancras to Nottingham is a shade over 90 minutes today and with electrification and other enhancements will be several minutes less by 2032.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NotATrainspott said:

In the worst case scenario, where a dedicated non-stop link is needed from a city centre to its HS2 station, the cost of building the link will still be less than the cost of redirecting HS2 through the city centre. The EMT service to St Pancras is timed for 12 minutes between Nottingham and Parkway, which is a similar distance rail-wise as Toton. If you grade-separate the junction either end then there would almost certainly be enough capacity for a frequent EMU shuttle. Derby to Parkway/Toton is similar story at 14 minutes. The non-grade-separated infrastructure exists already and since there is going to be 20 years to prepare before it opens it's unlikely not to happen.

Click to expand...

The most likely option is probably a south-to-east curve at Trowell, which would allow a Nottingham-Derby service to call at Toton. Journey times would be a bit more than to Parkway because of the low speeds on the new curve and on the existing one from Sheet Stores to Trent. Hence the need for a slick connection at Toton - based on my figures above even a 10min wait makes the centre-to-centre journey via HS2 only slightly faster than via the existing route. And in terms of working on the train the connecting train and the time spent at Toton are pretty much "dead time".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

33Hz said:

With all the "money no object" tunneling that is proposed on HS2 line, why didn't they approach Birmingham from the south, under the city, then rejoin the WCML axis on the north side?

Building a cul-de-sac for Britain's second city (and a NE facing one at that) seems to me absolutely chronic short-termism. Especially with cities elsewhere upgrading such termini to through lines.

Click to expand...

As stated by someone else, what costs the real money is underground stations not tunnels. The station would probably be in a Stratford-type box on the Curzon Street site, as there aren't any other large unused spaces anywhere near central Birmingham. However a through station would be less convenient because the platforms would be further from the city centre (to accommodate the pointwork at the north end of the box) and passengers would probably have a less convenient access to the platforms than if they could simply walk past the stops at a terminus.

It is also necessary to ask why this would be any benefit in service terms. The HS2 timetable assumption, which I agree is only an assumption but must reflect the expected demand, provides dedicated services from the central Birmingham station to Leeds, Manchester and Scotland so there is no need for London trains to make intermediate stops in central Birmingham (though some do at Birmingham Interchange). Similarly trains between London and both Birmignham and further north are predicted to be at the maximum 400m length so couldn't be combined even using double deck trains.

If the demand was less then perhaps an intermediate call would be worthwhile, but then the route would be a lot more expensive with a tunnel and sub-surface station, and carrying fewer people, so the BCR would be down.

It's also difficult to see how HS2 could enter Birmingham from any direction other than the M6 corridor currently proposed, except with much more tunneling. Continuing the present route towards Manchester would take it through the heavily populated Black Country instead of the present planned route through more rural areas to the north-east. The Leeds route would also have to make a long 90 degree curve through the same urban area in order to head off north-eastwards.

Firtst up, HS2 not stopping until Birmingham is not an issue. This is because the WCML already has a finite number of stops between London and Birmingham, therefore to provide a faster version (which is the point - to get IC travellers of the exisiting network, so that there is more spaces for passengers from those stations without a HS service) it would need to stop at fewer places.

In the same way Motorways (and a lot of trunk roads which do a similar job) do stop at a lot less places than most other roads. For instance I could (if I so wished) drive 1m on a lot of roads before stopping again, even on some trunk roads there can be places where there is direct access to properties which can be easily be closer than 100m. Therefore to have a motorway juntion spaced only 1 mile away from the next (which is now the current guidance - however I am aware that there are several, but in the greater scheme of things very few, which are less than this) is massive increase in the distance between access points.

Even increasing the distance from 100m to 2km (single lane trunk road to Motorway) is 20 times the distance, therefore the station distances being replaces could go from 5 miles to 100 miles to have the same ratio of increase in access points.

deltic said:

I never understand this debate about load factors - HS2 is projected to open in 2026 - given Thameslink 2000 is expected to open around 2018 and Crossrail also in 2018 (when some hoped it might open in time for the Olympics) - I would put money on it not opening till mid 2030s to Brum and mid 2040s to Manchester and Leeds. So present load factors are irrelevant its what will they be in 20-30 years time that is relevant.

Full details of WCML load factors can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/west-coast-main-line-demand-and-capacity-on-weekdays - and are a bit higher than quoted above

Click to expand...

Form the link the passenger numbers on long distance (throughout the day) in 2010 are about 27,100 each way whilst in 2012 they are about 31,000 each way. Over two years that is an increase (using the arrivals as the difference is slightly lower) of 12.58%, which is a little more than 6% growth per year (which would be 12.36%).

If we see growth continue at 6% then it would only need to last until 2017 and 2020 before the predictied passenger numbers would hit the 2026 and 2033 HS2 opening years passenger numbers assumed in the model. Therefore there is a risk that with just 5 more years of growth (beyond the data that this report provides) we could see the WCML coping with more long distance passengers than there should have been when phase 1 of HS2 opens.

This could mean that rather than about 27,100 passengers (2010) it could be 40,650 passengers (2017) and 48,509 passengers (2020). Given that the capacity of all the services is about 62,000, we could see passenger loading over the whole day reaching 65% and 78% well before HS2 is due to open. What needs to be remembered is that not all seats on all trains are equial. In that having a seat on a train going to Liverpool is no good if you want to go to Manchester, likewise an empty seat at 21:00 is no good if you want to go at 12:00.

If you do the same for the 3 hour peak you end up with passenger numbers potentiall rising from about 8,000 to 12,000 (2017) and 14,000 (2020) each way, given that there is up to 14,000 seats (each way) in that period (FYI the arrivals into Euston in 2012 is only 12,225, but we'll leave that aside, however that may not be such an issue as the morning 3 hour peak groth rate is less between 2010 and 2012) that is a peak hour loading for ALL peak hour trains in 2020 of 100% (again that is assuming all seats on all trains are equial, which they are not). It is therefore likely that if growth does not fall away quite dramiticly over the next few years that the WCML will need other measures to cope with demand until HS2 is built.

Even if growth continues at the same rate of 6% until 2015 and then rises at 1% less per year until it reaches 1% growth (i.e. 6%, 5%, 4%, etc), then the passenger numbers in 2033 will still hit the HS2 target (the 1% growth rate is becuase that is comparable to the population growth rate of the UK). You get a similar result if the growth rate fell be 0.5% per year from 2012 till the growth rate hit 1% (i.e. 6%, 5.5%, 5%, 4.5%, etc), however it would reach the 2033 figure at in 2031 and you reach the 2026 figure in 2018.

Although that assumes that the growth rate still stays at 1% once HS2 Phase 1 is open (i.e. no new passengers use it beyond what would have done so anyway).

There is however a big risk (proberbly at least bigger than those listed above where the growth rate falls to 1%) that the passenger growth rate stays up above the 2.5% figure used in the model. No one has come up with what would need to be built (assuming HS2 is not built) to cope with the demand if passenger numbers hit more than 80% more than in 2009. That is the problem with the options put forward by the antis, there is no spare capacity if rail growth stays high.

It also doesn't need to stay high for long before it has a big impact on long term passenger numbers. As if you increase passenger number from 100 by 2% per year for 5 years you end up with 110 passengers (110.41 if you count part people), however if the growth rate is 4% you end up with 122 passengers (121.67 if you count part people), up it further to 6% and you end up with 134 passengers (133.82 if you count part people). Even if the growth rate then falls back to 2%, then after another 5 years the number of passengers is 122 (2% all the time), 134 (4% then 2%) or 148 (6% then 2%). That means that for just 5 years of double the growth rate you end up with about 10% more passengers overall than with flat growth, tripple growth (i.e. 6%) for the first 5 years and it is over 20% more passengers overall. Yes overtime the overall growth rate will start to flatten out, but you will still be left with about the same percentage of more passengers overall, although even that will start to increase slowly.

Given the coalition isn't going to canel it this side of the election, by which point we'll have the passenger numbers for at least up to 2014, if the passenger growth rate hasn't dropped off by very much (i.e. still more than 5%) then it is almost certain that HS2 will continue (almost regardles of who is in power) and possibly even accelerated. It is also possible that some more of the measures put forward by the anties as their way of meeting demand for 2033 will also be part of works for CP6 (i.e. for implimentation by 2025).

I think load factors are very important.
Do we want to spend all that money for it to run 30% loaded?
How did the predictions go so wrong for HS1?
It wasn't that long ago and very clever people were predicting loading's that have no where near been achieved.
I would spend the money on quadrupling the line between Coventry to Wolverhampton(for example).
That would really benefit long and short distance commuters.

keithboddey said:

I think load factors are very important.
Do we want to spend all that money for it to run 30% loaded?

Click to expand...

Not average load factors though. Even with HS2, there are going to be contra-peak services, and less popular travel times.

keithboddey said:

I think load factors are very important.
Do we want to spend all that money for it to run 30% loaded?
How did the predictions go so wrong for HS1?
It wasn't that long ago and very clever people were predicting loading's that have no where near been achieved.
I would spend the money on quadrupling the line between Coventry to Wolverhampton(for example).
That would really benefit long and short distance commuters.

Click to expand...

Even with the best of HSR infrastructure the journey between London and Paris is still going to be difficult for a lot of people. There's a change of time zone, currency, language and a need for passports and security, all of which serve to discourage people from travelling. The only way HS1 could meet the very high predicted passenger numbers would be for the market for journeys between the two cities to expand dramatically - the line has 80% of the market now so there's not much more they can do.

HS2 is there to serve traffic flows which exist today and will continue to grow as more people chose to travel by rail versus plane, coach or car. If people are given the choice then they will almost always choose high-speed rail due to its inherent safety, speed, comfort and reliability. There are enough people travelling on the WCML now to justify a line and as passenger numbers will increase even more, the line is more than justified looking at the future. It will be a long time until the phases open and when they do, the existing lines will be full. That's why the scheme is going ahead now, and why it is supported by all three political parties and a majority in Parliament.

Quadrupling the line through Coventry would do a little amount of good for the people who live along that corridor and are travelling from London to Birmingham. It won't do much, if anything, for anyone else; all it does it moves the bottleneck somewhere else along the WCML as all the low hanging fruit have already been picked. We can pump as much money into the existing line as we like but we're going to get less and less for our money each time. The WCML won't be paved over when HS2 opens so if in the post-HS2 timetable there would be massive benefits to quadrupling the track, or indeed doing most of the interventions proposed by the opponents of HS2, these can still be done. These interventions will also likely cost much less once there is no need to worry about LDHS services as there will be less disruption caused across the network.

NotATrainspott said:

Even with the best of HSR infrastructure the journey between London and Paris is still going to be difficult for a lot of people. There's a change of time zone, currency, language and a need for passports and security, all of which serve to discourage people from travelling.

Click to expand...

All of those conditions applied when passenger numbers for HS1 were originally predicted. The question asked was "why were the predictions so wrong?"

NotATrainspott said:

If people are given the choice then they will almost always choose high-speed rail due to its inherent safety, speed, comfort and reliability.

Click to expand...

That's a massive statement and doesn't chime at all with my own fairly extensive traveling experience. Can you back it up by citing reliable public opinion relevant to this country?

JohnB57 said:

All of those conditions applied when passenger numbers for HS1 were originally predicted. The question asked was "why were the predictions so wrong?"

Click to expand...

Something happened that was rather hard to predict.

That thing was Easyjet, without it there would still be a market for destinations beyond the Eurostar Triangle and seasonal trips to the Alps.

HSTEd said:

Something happened that was rather hard to predict.

That thing was Easyjet, without it there would still be a market for destinations beyond the Eurostar Triangle and seasonal trips to the Alps.

Click to expand...

So it proves that we can't rely on predictions. I think that just about sums up the doubts a lot of people have about HS2.

JohnB57 said:

So it proves that we can't rely on predictions. I think that just about sums up the doubts a lot of people have about HS2.

Click to expand...

If we can't rely on predictions lets never upgrade anything or build anything ever. Since it might be made obsolete tommorow.

As you can see this is a ridiculous assumption to make.

JohnB57 said:

So it proves that we can't rely on predictions. I think that just about sums up the doubts a lot of people have about HS2.

Click to expand...

Actually not only that you can rely on predictions but the whole pattern searching and prediction mechanism has been embedded in many animals (humans included) for many millions of years. Predictions are at the core of science (and we are getting better and better) and railways are no exception. The whole "we can't rely on predictions " argument against HS2 is by far one of the most asinine things out there. You could question the methodology of making the prediction but not the idea of making one.

HSTEd said:

If we can't rely on predictions lets never upgrade anything or build anything ever. Since it might be made obsolete tommorow.

As you can see this is a ridiculous assumption to make.

Click to expand...

I don't actually see that at all, although I do agree that we should take risks where massive projects are involved otherwise we get nowhere. But I certainly I don't believe that using your example, the seasonal Alpine market for HS1 was a real one, let alone as significant as you suggest and I therefore believe that any such assumptions were just plain wrong.

The fact is, there was a will to build HS1 and a business case was designed around that, much the same as the situation now with HS2.

I'm not anti-HS2 - on the contrary, I'm very pro-rail and I believe that the investment is essential. I just think that through the use of custom manufactured metrics to arrive at spurious values in order to give the desired result, we have arrived at a flawed design.

We couldn't safely predict we would be able to make huts so why did we leave the caves.

YorkshireBear said:

We couldn't safely predict we would be able to make huts so why did we leave the caves.

Click to expand...

Not a great analogy, if I may say say so.

But I imagine we were sold the concept of the hut from within the safety of our caves, as something to aspire to, with their panoramic views, open-air conditioning and easy access to the hunting grounds. A "50% reduction in commuting time to the workplace with more than double the spear capacity."

Having taken the risk, made the massive investment and permanently stopped the opening of all new caves, we soon discovered the new fangled huts were cold and draughty, caught fire quite easily, didn't cope well with strong winds and that maybe we shouldn't have believed all that Ugg the property developer had told us. Too late, but at least we'd discovered scepticism...

JohnB57 said:

I don't actually see that at all, although I do agree that we should take risks where massive projects are But I certainly I don't believe that using your example, the seasonal Alpine market for HS1 was a real one, let alone as significant as you suggest and I therefore believe that any such assumptions were just plain wrong.

Click to expand...

The Alpine market was not the one important to the business case, it s merely the only one of the original markets outside the triple City (Brussels, Paris, London) to survive the low cost airlines.
The important 'one' was the plurality of envisaged markets, for instance the trains to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Cologne, Frankfurt, Dortmund and a variety of French destinations - including summer trains to the Riviera in one study.
Then there were the projected Regional Eurostar and Nightstar services and traffic on HS1 could easily have been two or three times what it actually is.

HSTEd said:

The Alpine market was not the one important to the business case, it s merely the only one of the original markets outside the triple City (Brussels, Paris, London) to survive the low cost airlines.
The important 'one' was the plurality of envisaged markets, for instance the trains to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Cologne, Frankfurt, Dortmund and a variety of French destinations - including summer trains to the Riviera in one study.
Then there were the projected Regional Eurostar and Nightstar services and traffic on HS1 could easily have been two or three times what it actually is.

Click to expand...

Why did you mention the Alpine market then?

Look. For the majority of those of us who live more than a few miles from London, Eurostar was never going to be the main deal for travel to the continent. I've done it all ways, including road, sea, air, rail, in every combination possible and the timescales for Eurostar don't stack up unless you're within an hour or so of London.

So, accept that rail, however great it is, will never be the main choice because it's too slow and too expensive for the majority. If you accept that, we may be able to start talking about smooth multi-mode integration, which is exactly where the future of long distance travel lies.

HSTEd said:

The Alpine market was not the one important to the business case, it s merely the only one of the original markets outside the triple City (Brussels, Paris, London) to survive the low cost airlines.
The important 'one' was the plurality of envisaged markets, for instance the trains to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Cologne, Frankfurt, Dortmund and a variety of French destinations - including summer trains to the Riviera in one study.
Then there were the projected Regional Eurostar and Nightstar services and traffic on HS1 could easily have been two or three times what it actually is.

Click to expand...

Of course once the DB services start and the extra Eurostar services start in the next few years we could see passenger numbers getting much closer to where they should have been for HS1 in the next 5 years or so.

However one thing that is running which was never included in the models is the freight trains, which now use HS1. It could therefore be argueed that in terms of freight (and therefore a reduction in lorries on the UK roads) that HS rail in the UK massively outperformed the predictions and therefore HS2 could provide as similar unexpected impact on the way frieght is carried.

There is a lot of talk of HS2 linking Europe with places north of London for passengers (with all the problems that causes with passports and the like), however there could be a good case for a new rail frieght hub just off HS2 which uses the spare overnight paths of HS1 and HS2 to connect directly with Europe. With trains running in and out during the quiter 23:00-04:00 time period and being unloaded and reloaded during the day. If there were then direct links onto the existing rail network then the goods could be forwared on to other locations during the day.

Such a freight service would be able to take hundreds of lorries per train off the roads whilst still allowing the same number of passenger services (although depending on timings there could be some late night passenger servces which may need to run a little slower to avoid the freight services). Of course it may not be only container freight which could benefit, postal/parcel trains may see ways of running city to city services using the HS2 infrestructure during quiter times of the night (even if a service stops at each station for 20 minutes other passenger services could carry on past using the other line, although more slowly becuase of the change of line, but that wouldn't make much difference if the service was stopping at the station anyway).

Sometimes becuase something doesn't happen now doesn't mean it will not happen, as the reason it may not happen at the moment as there isn't something in place which there will be in the future. The early railways were built for freight as there was a clear market, however once people saw that they could get around more easily then passengers started to use the railways in ever increasing numbers, even though they were never thought of in the design process. In the same way, there maybe ways in which HS2 is used after it is open which hasn't been planned for at this stage.

JohnB57 said:

Why did you mention the Alpine market then?

Click to expand...

Because it has an existance beyond the pre-privatisation projections of British Rail.

Look. For the majority of those of us who live more than a few miles from London, Eurostar was never going to be the main deal for travel to the continent. I've done it all ways, including road, sea, air, rail, in every combination possible and the timescales for Eurostar don't stack up unless you're within an hour or so of London.

Click to expand...

You do realise what a large fraction of the British population lives within an hour or so of London? Especially once HS2 and the Great Western Reconstruction is complete?
It comes out at something like 30 million people or more.

Further future upgrade projects will put the majority of the British population 'within an hour of london'.
Britain is surprisingly small.

So, accept that rail, however great it is, will never be the main choice because it's too slow and too expensive for the majority. If you accept that, we may be able to start talking about smooth multi-mode integration, which is exactly where the future of long distance travel lies.

Click to expand...

MOst studies show that Rail is competitive to roughly a four hour journey time.
If in the future a national spine to Edinburgh is constructed that would be roughly the Edinburgh/Paris journey time.
Further south, the further south you get in Europe.

If the border control issues can be taken care of you can get major modal shift, especially considering trains won't consume huge quantities of liquid fuels that must be impoirted on volatile world markets.

We're now 20 years from the start of Eurostar services and it's only now that we are looking at a significant expansion beyond the 3 core cities. The fact that they have now broken through the 10m pax in one year barrier shows a high level of demand. Once Amsterdam, Cologne and perhaps eventually Birmingham, Bordeaux and Geneva come into the network, I can well see levels reaching the original predictions for HS1.

Apart from the fact we should join Schengen, it would be probably worth it to take the border staff back and forward on the trains.

I don't see what all this border nonsense is all about. It hasn't prevented anyone we don't like from getting here in the past, has it?

Not to mention that Schengen also obliges operators to prevent undesirables getting in - so it works both ways.

HowardGWR said:

Apart from the fact we should join Schengen, it would be probably worth it to take the border staff back and forward on the trains.

I don't see what all this border nonsense is all about. It hasn't prevented anyone we don't like from getting here in the past, has it?

Click to expand...

We are not in Schengen because of nimbys and nothing else. There is not a single benefit in not being in Schengen area because we are an island and the only land connection we have (Chunnel) is with a developed country that is already in the same trade marked we are in. Air and sea are already controlled and Schengen would not change that.

Strikes me that the political debate centres over all the more potent, technical, esoteric right-wing concerns re Europe (that we've already signed up to), rather than the most glaringly obvious benefit of Schengen - untempered free movement within the zone, whilst strengthening the zone's borders itself.

Scenes of UK Border Agency boarding trains and inspecting documentation must look farcical to our European friends.

alwaystouchout said:

Strikes me that the political debate centres over all the more potent, technical, esoteric right-wing concerns re Europe (that we've already signed up to), rather than the most glaringly obvious benefit of Schengen - untempered free movement within the zone, whilst strengthening the zone's borders itself.

Scenes of UK Border Agency boarding trains and inspecting documentation must look farcical to our European friends.

Click to expand...

Being a signatory to Schengen would be purely symbolic for the UK. It would do nothing at all to reduce or eliminate security checks, as anyone who has traveled between Schengen countries, or indeed flown to a destination within the British Isles, will confirm. Passport checks rarely take more than a few minutes or even seconds. Security often takes in excess of thirty minutes, especially at major airports.

alwaystouchout said:

Strikes me that the political debate centres over all the more potent, technical, esoteric right-wing concerns re Europe (that we've already signed up to), rather than the most glaringly obvious benefit of Schengen - untempered free movement within the zone, whilst strengthening the zone's borders itself.

Scenes of UK Border Agency boarding trains and inspecting documentation must look farcical to our European friends.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, however farcical, the situation has led to the HS2 to HS1 discussions here and elsewhere being conducted chiefly around this issue. Imagine zooming through between Manchester, Birmingham and Paris in a few hours and with no more fuss than travelling between any place in Britain. The market, also at the expense of unsustainable air travel, would grow exponentially.

I wrote 'chiefly', but the other nonsense is the Tunnel 'security' point. This reason is even more fatuous than not being in Schengen.

I believe that within a decade or so of HS2 being completed, there will be demand for a swifter and less congested HS2 - HS1 connection. Perhaps by then we will be tearing up lanes of the M25 so can use that.

HowardGWR said:

Imagine zooming through between Manchester, Birmingham and Paris in a few hours and with no more fuss than travelling between any place in Britain. The market, also at the expense of unsustainable air travel, would grow exponentially.

Click to expand...

There will always be a perceived need for security checks for tunnel transit - can you imagine any government taking the risk of abandoning them? The market for regional services to the continent will never justify expensive security facilities outside London and trains (with segregated London/Paris sections) would still take at least four hours from Manchester to Paris. And the cost would be four or five times the equivalent cost of flights, which will still be widely available.

Exponential growth? Niche market I think.